Background
Iguá Rio de Janeiro S.A. filed an internal appeal against a decision by the President of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça that had declined to hear its appeal seeking review of the denial of a special appeal. The presidential decision found that Iguá had not specifically challenged the grounds on which the special appeal was deemed inadmissible.
The underlying inadmissibility decision rested on two grounds: failure to demonstrate a violation of the cited statutory provisions and the bar imposed by Súmula 7/STJ, which prevents the STJ from reexamining facts and evidence in a special appeal. Iguá argued that it had specifically addressed the inadmissibility grounds and also renewed its arguments on the merits. The opposing party filed no response to the internal appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously denied the internal appeal and upheld the presidential decision. It found that Iguá had not specifically and consistently challenged the Súmula 7/STJ ground in its appeal against the denial of the special appeal. Because that ground remained unanswered, the appeal could not be heard under Article 932(III) of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure and Article 253, sole paragraph, I, of the STJ’s Internal Rules.
The court explained that the principle of appellate dialectics requires an appellant to identify why the challenged decision is procedurally or substantively mistaken. Merely repeating arguments about the merits does not satisfy that requirement. To contest the application of Súmula 7/STJ, the appellant must concretely compare the facts established by the lower court with the appellate theories and show why deciding those theories would not require changing the established factual record.
The panel also followed the STJ Special Court’s settled rule that an appeal seeking review of a special appeal’s inadmissibility must specifically challenge every ground supporting the inadmissibility decision, whether or not those grounds are independent. An internal appeal cannot cure a failure to make the required challenge at the preceding appellate stage.
Key Takeaways
- An appeal from the denial of a special appeal must specifically address every ground for inadmissibility.
- A generic objection or repetition of the case’s merits does not adequately challenge the Súmula 7/STJ bar.
- A defect caused by inadequate argument in the earlier appeal cannot be repaired through a later internal appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that access to merits review in the STJ depends on precise treatment of each procedural obstacle identified below. Counsel challenging Súmula 7/STJ must tie the proposed legal issues to the facts already fixed by the lower court and explain why no reexamination of evidence is necessary.
The ruling also confirms the practical force of the STJ Special Court’s all-grounds requirement: leaving even one stated basis for inadmissibility unanswered can prevent consideration of the special appeal altogether.