Background
The Association of São Paulo State Tax Auditors sought a special appeal. The lower court refused to admit it on two grounds: specified provisions of Law No. 9,656/1998 had not been previously addressed by the lower court, triggering STF Precedent No. 282; and reviewing the asserted violations of other provisions of Law No. 9,656/1998 and Article 4(III) of Law No. 9,961/2000 would require reexamining evidence, barred by STJ Precedent No. 7.
The Association then filed an agravo em recurso especial seeking review of that refusal. The STJ President declined to consider the appeal because it did not specifically challenge every ground supporting inadmissibility. In its ensuing internal appeal, the Association maintained that it had adequately addressed those grounds and repeated its arguments on the merits. The opposing party filed no response.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously denied the internal appeal and left the President’s decision in place. Although the Association mentioned STJ Precedent No. 7, it offered only generic assertions and did not explain, by reference to the facts established below and its appellate theories, why the requested relief would not require reexamining the evidentiary record.
The court held that an appeal from the denial of a special appeal must specifically and substantively attack every ground for inadmissibility, whether or not those grounds are independent. Merely repeating merits arguments or referring generally to an asserted obstacle does not satisfy the principle requiring an appellant to engage directly with the challenged decision. Failure to do so requires dismissal under Article 932(III) of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure and Article 253, sole paragraph, I, of the STJ’s Internal Rules; a later internal appeal cannot cure the earlier omission.
Key Takeaways
- An agravo seeking admission of a special appeal must specifically challenge every ground on which admission was denied.
- To contest STJ Precedent No. 7, the appellant must compare the facts fixed by the lower court with its legal arguments and show why relief would not require reweighing evidence.
- A passing reference to an admissibility rule, generic assertions, or repetition of the merits does not satisfy the requirement of specific appellate argument.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that access to merits review in the STJ depends on careful treatment of each procedural barrier identified below. When a denial rests on multiple grounds, leaving even one inadequately challenged can prevent the appeal from being considered at all.
For practitioners, the ruling also clarifies what is required to overcome a Precedent No. 7 objection: the filing must concretely connect the lower court’s settled factual findings to the legal issues presented, rather than simply assert that no evidentiary reexamination is needed.