Background
An appellant filed an internal appeal (agravo interno) challenging a decision that had rejected a special appeal (agravo em recurso especial) on grounds of procedural inadmissibility. The appellant contended that it had specifically impugned the grounds stated in the inadmissibility decision. The case was heard by the Superior Tribunal de Justiça’s First Panel in a virtual session from June 23–30, 2026.
The procedural issue turned on whether the appellant had satisfied the requirement to specifically challenge the grounds of the lower decision, as mandated by Article 1.021, § 1 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code (CPC/2015). The court had to determine whether the appellant’s arguments constituted specific, point-by-point refutation or merely generic objections.
The Court’s Holding
The Superior Tribunal de Justiça, in a unanimous decision, did not accept (não conhecer) the internal appeal. Minister Benedito Gonçalves, writing for the court, found that although the appellant claimed to have specifically addressed the lower decision’s grounds, examination of the record revealed only generic arguments rather than targeted refutation of each stated basis for inadmissibility.
The court applied Súmula 182 of the STJ, a binding precedent holding that “an appeal under article 545 of the CPC that fails to specifically attack the grounds of the challenged decision is not viable.” The appellant, the court found, failed to meet the “burden of dialecticity” (ônus da dialeticidade)—the strict procedural obligation to argue against each specific ground of a lower court’s decision with clarity and precision. The court cited two prior decisions demonstrating consistent application of this principle, emphasizing that the appellant’s arguments lacked the required specificity and objectivity.
Key Takeaways
- Brazilian appellate procedure strictly requires parties to specifically address each ground cited by the lower court, not merely offer generic or conclusory objections.
- Failure to engage point-by-point with a lower decision’s reasoning results in automatic dismissal under Súmula 182 of the STJ, regardless of the appeal’s possible substantive merits.
- The “burden of dialecticity” (ônus da dialeticidade) is a foundational procedural requirement that demands clear, objective argumentation against each specific basis of a challenged decision.
- This requirement applies uniformly to all appeals governed by the 2015 Civil Procedure Code.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces a bedrock principle of Brazilian appellate procedure: appellants cannot simply assert disagreement with a lower court’s decision but must systematically and specifically address the precise legal and factual reasoning underlying that decision. This procedural requirement ensures the integrity and seriousness of appellate review by preventing frivolous appeals that rely on vague objections rather than substantive engagement.
For practitioners and litigants, the ruling sends a clear message that appellate briefs must be carefully drafted to address each specific ground cited by lower courts. Failure to do so—however meritorious the underlying claim—will result in dismissal under the long-established Súmula 182. The decision exemplifies the STJ’s commitment to enforcing strict procedural compliance as a gatekeeper function in appellate review.