Background
Marcos Antonio Roberto Ribeiro filed an internal appeal against a decision by the Presidency of the Superior Court of Justice that declined to consider his interlocutory appeal seeking review of the refusal to admit a special appeal. The Presidency found that his petition had not specifically challenged every ground supporting the inadmissibility decision.
Ribeiro argued that he had adequately contested those grounds, and the opposing party submitted a response. The Fourth Panel reviewed the matter in a virtual session held from June 23 through June 30, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously denied the internal appeal. It found that the decision below had refused to admit the special appeal because no violation of a statutory provision had been shown, and that Ribeiro’s interlocutory appeal had not addressed that ground. The Presidency therefore properly declined to consider the appeal.
The court explained that the principle of dialectical appellate argument requires an appellant to challenge specifically the reasons supporting the contested decision and to show procedural or substantive error. Failure to do so makes the appeal inadmissible under Article 932(III) of Brazil’s 2015 Code of Civil Procedure and Article 253, sole paragraph, item I, of the Superior Court of Justice’s Internal Rules.
The Panel also followed the Special Court’s settled position that an interlocutory appeal seeking to unlock a special appeal must contest every ground of the inadmissibility decision, whether or not those grounds are autonomous. A party cannot cure that omission only later through an internal appeal because the opportunity to raise the challenge has already been exhausted.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant seeking Superior Court of Justice review must specifically address every ground on which the special appeal was denied admission.
- A general assertion that the inadmissibility decision was wrong does not satisfy the requirement of reasoned, point-by-point appellate argument.
- An omitted challenge ordinarily cannot be supplied for the first time in a later internal appeal.
Why It Matters
The ruling underscores that access to special-appeal review depends on strict compliance with appellate briefing requirements. Counsel must identify and rebut each basis for inadmissibility in the initial interlocutory appeal or risk having the proceeding rejected without consideration of the underlying merits.