Background
This was an internal appeal (agravo interno) brought against a decision by the President of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça that had declined to admit a special appeal (agravo em recurso especial). The original decision had rejected the special appeal on two grounds: absence of violation of Article 1,022 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and application of Summary 7 of the STJ.
The appellant filed the internal appeal arguing that the special appeal met all necessary requirements for admission and review. The appellee did not respond to the appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Third Panel of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça unanimously denied the internal appeal. The court found that the appellant had failed to specifically challenge all the grounds cited in the inadmissibility decision. Instead of directly addressing each ground, the appellant had presented only generic arguments.
The court emphasized that Article 932, III and Article 1,021, §1º of the CPC require appellants to specifically impugn each and every ground of the decision being challenged. This requirement is mandatory and applies even when some grounds are dependent on others. The court stated: “The jurisprudence of the STJ requires that the impugnation of the grounds of the challenged decision be effective, concrete, and detailed, under penalty of application of Summary 182/STJ.” Generic arguments do not satisfy this standard. The failure to meet this procedural requirement justified denying the internal appeal without reviewing its merits.
The court cited multiple precedents confirming that the absence of specific impugnation of autonomous grounds constitutes grounds for dismissal under Summary 182/STJ, which provides: “An appeal is not viable when it fails to specifically attack the grounds of the challenged decision.”
Key Takeaways
- When filing an internal appeal or other appellate proceeding, the appellant must specifically and thoroughly address each and every ground cited in the decision being appealed.
- Generic or conclusory arguments are insufficient; the impugnation must be effective, concrete, and detailed.
- Failure to meet the requirement of specific impugnation results in dismissal regardless of the appeal’s potential merits, pursuant to Summary 182/STJ.
- The burden rests on the appellant to demonstrate that their arguments are tailored to dismantle the specific reasoning of the challenged decision.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces well-settled but strictly enforced procedural requirements in Brazilian appellate practice. Attorneys drafting appeals before the Superior Tribunal de Justiça must ensure that every argument is specifically responsive to the grounds cited in the decision being challenged. The court has made clear through multiple precedents that procedural precision is not optional; appeals that fail to meet these standards will be dismissed summarily without review of substantive claims.
The holding reflects the court’s policy of managing its docket efficiently by requiring appellants to make focused, targeted arguments. For practitioners, this means that careless drafting of appellate briefs can be fatal to a case, emphasizing the need for careful attention to each ground of the lower court’s decision and discrete rebuttal of each point.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.