Dataset: Aplicação de Medidas Coercitivas Atípicas na Execução Trabalhista (Art. 139, IV, CPC) – Fichamento Analítico de 120 Acórdãos dos Tribunais Regionais do Trabalho (2025–2026)

Abstract This dataset contains the complete analytical review of 120 appellate decisions (Agravos de Petição) concerning the application of atypical enforcement measures under Article 139(IV) of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure in labor enforcement proceedings. The decisions were selected through the Unified Labor Case Law Search System (Sistema Falcão), the official nationwide jurisprudence repository of the Brazilian Labor Judiciary, using a standardized Boolean search strategy. The dataset covers all 24 Brazilian Regional Labor Courts (TRTs), with five of the most recent eligible decisions selected from each court according to predefined methodological criteria. For Regional Labor Courts with insufficient jurisprudence during the primary collection period, the temporal scope was exceptionally extended to preserve the uniformity of the sample. Each record includes standardized information regarding the court, case number, judgment date, reporting judge, atypical enforcement measure discussed, outcome of the appeal, reference to the exhaustion of ordinary enforcement measures, citation of binding precedents (Brazilian Superior Court of Justice Theme No. 1,137 and Federal Supreme Court ADI No. 5,941), distinction between willful debtors and insolvent debtors, and other analytical variables adopted in the research. The dataset was developed as the empirical basis for the undergraduate thesis "Medidas Coercitivas Atípicas na Execução Trabalhista", conducted at Faculdade Prime (FAPRIME), Brazil. It is made publicly available to promote transparency, reproducibility, verification of the research findings, and the advancement of empirical legal research in Brazilian Labor Procedural Law. Artificial Intelligence (Google Gemini) was used exclusively as an auxiliary tool for organizing, cataloguing and structuring the analytical records. All methodological decisions, legal analysis, interpretation of the case law and scientific conclusions were developed exclusively by the authors.