All Practice Exams
100+ Free ENAM Practice Questions
Prepare for the ENAM — Exame Nacional da Magistratura exam with instant access — no signup required.
✓ No registration✓ No credit card✓ No hidden fees✓ Start practicing immediately
100+ Questions
100% Free
Loading practice questions...
Same family resources
Explore More Brazilian Judiciary Examinations (Magistratura do Brasil)
Continue into nearby exams from the same family. Each card keeps practice questions, study guides, flashcards, videos, and articles in one place.
Sample ENAM Practice Questions
Try these sample questions to test your ENAM exam readiness. Each question includes a detailed explanation. Start the interactive quiz above for the full 100+ question experience with AI tutoring.
1A Brazilian State Court of Justice (Tribunal de Justiça), while hearing an ordinary appeal (apelação cível), declared the unconstitutionality of a municipal statute through a unanimous decision rendered exclusively by its 3rd Civil Chamber (Câmara Cível), without submitting the constitutional issue to the Full Court (Tribunal Pleno) or the Special Body (Órgão Especial). Under Brazilian Constitutional Law and the binding jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), this judicial decision:
A.Is constitutionally valid because the Full Bench Rule applies exclusively to federal legislation challenged in federal courts.
B.Violates the Full Bench Rule (Cláusula de Reserva de Plenário) under Article 97 of the Federal Constitution and Súmula Vinculante 10 of the STF.
C.Is valid provided that the Chamber's decision was unanimous and based on established general principles of law.
D.Violates the Constitution only if the municipal statute in question regulated municipal tax collection or budget execution.
Explanation: Under Article 97 of the Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988 and Súmula Vinculante 10 of the STF, a fractional organ of a court (such as a chamber, panel, or turma) violates the Full Bench Rule (Cláusula de Reserva de Plenário) when it declares the unconstitutionality of a statute or normative act of the Public Authority, or even when it simply refuses application to a law based on constitutional incompatibility, without referring the issue to the Full Bench (Tribunal Pleno) or the Special Body (Órgão Especial). The only exceptions are where the STF Plenary or the court's own Pleno/Órgão Especial has already declared the norm unconstitutional.
2The Governor of a Brazilian State filed a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade — ADI) before the Federal Supreme Court (STF) challenging a Federal Law that regulates environmental licensing for offshore oil exploration across the Brazilian continental shelf. In accordance with the 1988 Federal Constitution (Art. 103) and settled STF jurisprudence on active standing (legitimidade ativa), the STF will:
A.Hear the ADI on the merits because State Governors are universal standing parties (legitimados universais) exempt from demonstrating thematic pertinence.
B.Reject the petition at the threshold (não conhecimento) for lack of standing because State Governors are qualified standing parties (legitimados especiais) who must demonstrate thematic pertinence (pertinência temática).
C.Direct the proceedings to the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) because disputes between the Federal Union and States over natural resources are within the STJ's original jurisdiction.
D.Dismiss the action because State Governors may only challenge State laws and municipal norms before the STF.
Explanation: Under Article 103 of the Brazilian Federal Constitution and longstanding STF jurisprudence, the legitimados to initiate concentrated constitutional review are divided into universal standing parties (such as the President of the Republic, Mesa do Senado, Mesa da Câmara, PGR, and the Federal CFOAB) and qualified standing parties (State Governors, Mesas das Assembleias Legislativas, and national confederations of labor/class entities). State Governors are 'legitimados especiais' and must demonstrate 'pertinência temática'—a direct and specific legal interest or impact of the federal enactment upon the powers, economy, or administrative sphere of their respective State.
3A collective protest organized by a civil society group is planned to take place on a public avenue in a capital city on a Sunday morning. The local police authority prohibited the event on the sole ground that the organizers failed to apply for and obtain an official administrative license/permit 15 days in advance. According to Article 5, XVI, of the Brazilian Federal Constitution and STF jurisprudence (Tema 855 da Repercussão Geral), this administrative prohibition is:
A.Unconstitutional, because the right to peaceful assembly without weapons in public places does not require prior administrative authorization, and prior notification may be satisfied by any prior public manifestation without demanding formal registration.
B.Constitutional, because public avenues are state assets subject to police power, which authorizes municipal authorities to require prior licensing.
C.Constitutional, provided the municipal authority offers an alternative enclosed public sports arena for the demonstration.
D.Unconstitutional only if the assembly is organized exclusively by a registered political party with parliamentary representation.
Explanation: Article 5, XVI, of the CF/88 enshrines the fundamental right of peaceful assembly in public spaces without weapons, expressly establishing that no authorization is required ('independentemente de autorização'), requiring only prior notice ('prévio aviso') to prevent disruption of previously scheduled gatherings. In Tema 855 (RE 806.339), the STF ruled that prior notice does not demand formal written bureaucratic protocol; notice is satisfied whenever the Public Power has sufficient prior information about the event through public communication channels.
4Police officers, without a judicial search warrant, forced entry into a private residence at 11:30 PM based solely on the fact that an individual standing outside on the sidewalk fled into the house upon noticing the patrol car. Inside, officers discovered 30 grams of cocaine. Under Article 5, XI, of the Federal Constitution and STF binding precedent (Tema 280 da Repercussão Geral, RE 603.616), the search and the obtained evidence are:
A.Valid, because drug trafficking is a permanent crime (crime permanente), which creates an automatic and absolute exception to home inviolability at any hour.
B.Illicit, because warrantless entry into a domicile requires prior, justifiable, and verifiable grounded reasons (fundadas razões) based on concrete preliminary elements, which cannot be established post factum by the mere finding of illicit drugs.
C.Valid, provided the police officers formalize an internal incident report (auto de apreensão) within 24 hours of the raid.
D.Illicit solely because warrantless entries into a residence can never be executed during nighttime hours, even in cases of flagrante delicto.
Explanation: Under Article 5, XI, CF/88 and STF Tema 280 (RE 603.616), warrantless forced entry into a domicile is legitimate—even in permanent crimes—only when supported by 'fundadas razões' (probable cause) based on prior, concrete, and justifiable circumstances indicating that a flagrant crime is occurring inside. Flight into a house upon sighting police does not alone constitute sufficient probable cause. The discovery of drugs ex post facto cannot retroactively validate an unconstitutional search, rendering the evidence illicit under Article 5, LVI, CF/88.
5Under the constitutional classification of the applicability of constitutional norms developed by José Afonso da Silva and adopted widely by Brazilian courts, a constitutional provision that creates an individual entitlement but explicitly leaves the scope, conditions, and potential restrictions of that right to be defined by subsequent ordinary infra-constitutional legislation is classified as a:
A.Norm of direct and automatic applicability with absolute non-derogability (norma de eficácia plena).
B.Norm of restrainable/containable efficacy (norma de eficácia contida or redutível).
C.Norm of limited efficacy requiring supplemental legislation (norma de eficácia limitada).
D.Norm of deferred or programmatic ex post effectiveness (norma programática pura).
Explanation: According to José Afonso da Silva's classic doctrine, 'normas de eficácia contida' (containable/restrainable efficacy) produce full, immediate, and direct legal effects upon promulgation, but contain an express constitutional authorization for ordinary infra-constitutional legislation to restrict, regulate, or limit their scope (e.g., Article 5, XIII, CF/88 on the freedom to exercise any profession, 'observadas as qualificações profissionais que a lei estabelecer'). Until restricting legislation is enacted, the right remains unrestricted.
6A Brazilian State enacted a State Law requiring all telecommunications and cellular phone operators within its territory to install signal blockers in state penitentiaries at their own expense, under penalty of administrative fines. Under the 1988 Federal Constitution, this State Law is:
A.Unconstitutional, because legislating on telecommunications is within the exclusive legislative competence of the Federal Union (competência privativa da União — Art. 22, IV, CF/88).
B.Constitutional, because public safety and penitentiary matters fall under the concurrent legislative competence of States (Art. 24, I, CF/88).
C.Constitutional, because States possess residual police power to impose operational obligations on public utilities operating within their territory.
D.Unconstitutional only if the Federal Union has enacted a federal decree specifically exempting telecom operators from local infrastructure obligations.
Explanation: According to settled STF jurisprudence (Súmula Vinculante 46 and numerous ADIs such as ADI 4.861 and ADI 5.253), state statutes that impose obligations, equipment installations (such as cell phone jammers), or service parameters on telecommunications concessionaires violate the exclusive competence of the Federal Union to legislate on telecommunications (Art. 22, IV, CF/88) and to operate telecommunications services directly or by concession (Art. 21, XI, CF/88).
7A Brazilian Federal Deputy (Deputado Federal) made harsh personal accusations and defamatory statements against a government minister during a recorded press interview granted inside the National Congress building regarding a pending parliamentary investigative commission (CPI). Regarding the Deputy's parliamentary immunity (imunidade material / inviolabilidade parlamentar under Art. 53 of the Federal Constitution), the STF establishes that:
A.Parliamentary immunity applies only to statements made from the parliamentary rostrum during formal plenary sessions, excluding press interviews.
B.Parliamentary immunity covers opinions, words, and votes uttered within the physical premises of the National Congress, enjoying an absolute presumption of functional nexus with parliamentary duties.
C.Parliamentary immunity cannot be invoked in defamation cases involving members of the Executive Branch.
D.Parliamentary immunity protects the parliamentarian only if the Federal Deputy obtains a prior authorization resolution from the Chamber of Deputies (Câmara dos Deputados).
Explanation: Under Article 53, caput, of the CF/88 and established STF jurisprudence (e.g., Inq 3.814 and Pet 5.705), when a parliamentarian utters statements, opinions, or criticisms inside the physical premises of the legislative house (intramuros), there is an absolute presumption of connection with the parliamentary mandate, guaranteeing full substantive civil and penal immunity (inviolabilidade material). For statements made outside the premises (extramuros), a functional nexus (nexo funcional) with parliamentary duties must be concretely demonstrated.
8Regarding the National Council of Justice (Conselho Nacional de Justiça — CNJ) created by Constitutional Amendment No. 45/2004, which of the following statements correctly reflects its constitutional status, powers, and STF jurisprudence?
A.The CNJ possesses jurisdictional authority to review, reform, or annul judicial decisions rendered on the merits by state and federal judges.
B.The CNJ exercises exclusively secondary/subsidiary disciplinary competence, meaning it may only investigate a judge after the local State Court Corregedoria has concluded its administrative process or failed to act within a statutory period.
C.The CNJ holds primary, concurrent disciplinary jurisdiction (competência originária e concorrente) alongside local court corregedorias, allowing it to initiate administrative disciplinary proceedings against magistrados directly.
D.The CNJ has functional authority to exercise administrative and financial control over the Federal Supreme Court (STF) and its Ministers.
Explanation: In ADI 4.638 (rel. Min. Marco Aurélio / rel. p/ acórdão Min. Luiz Fux), the STF affirmed that the CNJ possesses primary, original, and concurrent disciplinary competence with local court internal affairs bodies (corregedorias). The CNJ does not depend on local inaction, omission, or subsidiarity to exercise disciplinary oversight over judges and magistrates. Under Article 103-B, § 4º, CF/88, the CNJ is strictly an administrative and financial oversight organ with no jurisdictional capacity to overturn judicial rulings, and the STF itself is exempt from CNJ administrative oversight (ADI 3.367).
9A newly appointed state trial judge (juiz substituto) was approved in a public competitive examination and took office 14 months ago. The local Court of Justice initiated an administrative proceeding to remove the judge from his judicial district (comarca) against his will, citing general administrative convenience. Under Article 95 of the Brazilian Federal Constitution, which constitutional guarantees and conditions apply to this judge?
A.The judge enjoys inamovibilidade (non-removability) from the date of taking office, which can only be overridden for reasons of public interest by a decision of two-thirds of the competent court's members, even during the probationary vitaliciedade period.
B.The judge possesses no constitutional guarantees against removal or dismissal until completing the 2-year probationary period and acquiring vitaliciedade.
C.The judge enjoys vitaliciedade immediately upon investiture, meaning he can only be removed from office through a definitive criminal conviction.
D.The judge enjoys inamovibilidade only within the capital judicial district, but may be freely transferred across rural districts by an act of the Court President.
Explanation: Under Article 95, II, and Article 93, VIII, of the CF/88, judges enjoy the guarantee of inamovibilidade (non-removability) from the moment of taking office (investidura/posse), meaning they cannot be removed or transferred against their will. An exception exists only for reasons of public interest, based on a decision by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the competent court or Órgão Especial, ensuring full defense. Vitaliciedade (tenure) is acquired after 2 years of effective exercise, but inamovibilidade and irredutibilidade de subsídio attach immediately upon taking office.
10The President of the Republic published a Provisional Measure (Medida Provisória — MP) creating a new federal regulatory offense and establishing criminal penalties (penas restritivas de liberdade) for unauthorized financial transactions. Under Article 62, § 1º, of the Federal Constitution of 1988, this Provisional Measure is:
A.Constitutionally valid, provided it is approved by the National Congress within 60 days, extendable once for an equal period.
B.Constitutionally invalid, because the Federal Constitution expressly prohibits the issuance of Provisional Measures on matters of criminal law, criminal procedural law, and civil procedural law.
C.Constitutionally valid only if the President declares an official state of economic emergency.
D.Constitutionally invalid solely because the creation of crimes can only be initiated through a complementary law (lei complementar).
Explanation: Article 62, § 1º, I, 'b', of the 1988 Federal Constitution (introduced by EC 32/2001) expressly forbids the adoption of Provisional Measures on matters pertaining to: (a) nationality, citizenship, political rights, political parties, and electoral law; (b) criminal law, criminal procedural law, and civil procedural law; (c) the organization of the Judiciary and Public Prosecutor's Office; and (d) multiannual plans, budget guidelines, and annual budget laws.
About the ENAM Exam
The Exame Nacional da Magistratura (ENAM) is the unified national qualifying examination established by the National Council of Justice (CNJ) and organized by the National School for the Formation and Improvement of Magistrates (ENFAM) and FGV. It serves as a mandatory preliminary gateway for candidates wishing to enter the career of magistrate across all state, federal, military, and labor courts in Brazil.
Assessment
A single eliminatory 5-hour session (13h-18h Brasília time) of 80 five-option multiple-choice questions across eight disciplines: Direito Constitucional 16 (which may include constitutional labour law, constitutional tax law and constitutional rules of criminal procedure), Direito Processual Civil 12, Direito Civil 12, Direito Penal 12, Direito Administrativo 10, Noções Gerais de Direito e Formação Humanística 6, Direitos Humanos 6 and Direito Empresarial 6. All questions carry equal weight, and the exam certifies eligibility rather than ranking candidates for vacancies.
Time Limit
5 hours (300 minutes)
Passing Score
70% (56 correct answers out of 80); 50% (40 correct answers) for affirmative action cohorts
Exam Fee
R$ 120,00 (ENFAM (Escola Nacional de Formação e Aperfeiçoamento de Magistrados) / CNJ / FGV Conhecimento)
ENAM Exam Content Outline
20%
Direito Constitucional
Constitutional theory, fundamental rights, judicial review, organization of powers, and judiciary governance.
30%
Direito Civil e Processual Civil
Substantive Civil Law (contracts, torts, property, family) and Civil Procedure (precedents, provisional remedies, appeals).
15%
Direito Penal
Crime theory, typicality, culpability, penalty application, and crimes against public administration.
13%
Direito Administrativo
Administrative principles, acts, public procurement (Lei 14.133/2021), administrative improbity (Lei 14.230/2021), and civil liability.
8%
Direito Empresarial
Enterprise theory, commercial companies, negotiable instruments, and bankruptcy/judicial restructuring (Lei 11.101/2005).
14%
Direitos Humanos e Formação Humanística
Inter-American human rights system, conventionality control, sociology of law, psychology, and the Code of Judicial Ethics.
How to Pass the ENAM Exam
What You Need to Know
- Passing score: 70% (56 correct answers out of 80); 50% (40 correct answers) for affirmative action cohorts
- Assessment: A single eliminatory 5-hour session (13h-18h Brasília time) of 80 five-option multiple-choice questions across eight disciplines: Direito Constitucional 16 (which may include constitutional labour law, constitutional tax law and constitutional rules of criminal procedure), Direito Processual Civil 12, Direito Civil 12, Direito Penal 12, Direito Administrativo 10, Noções Gerais de Direito e Formação Humanística 6, Direitos Humanos 6 and Direito Empresarial 6. All questions carry equal weight, and the exam certifies eligibility rather than ranking candidates for vacancies.
- Time limit: 5 hours (300 minutes)
- Exam fee: R$ 120,00
Keys to Passing
- Work through all 100 available questions
- Review every answer and explanation
- Track weak areas and revisit them
- Use our AI tutor for tough concepts
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the purpose of the ENAM examination?
The ENAM is a mandatory preliminary qualification exam instituted by CNJ Resolução nº 531/2023. Candidates must pass the ENAM to be eligible to enroll in any competitive entrance exam for the judiciary (state courts, federal regional courts, and labor courts) in Brazil.
What is the passing score for the ENAM?
Candidates in the general ranking must achieve at least 70% (56 out of 80 questions), while self-declared Black, Indigenous, or disabled candidates must achieve at least 50% (40 out of 80 questions).
How long is the ENAM qualification certificate valid?
The ENAM certificate of qualification is valid for 2 years from the date of homologation, renewable once for up to 2 additional years by decision of the ENFAM Director-General.