Background
Hemocat Comércio e Importação Ltda. and another party filed an internal appeal from a decision by the President of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) that declined to consider their interlocutory appeal seeking review of the refusal to admit a special appeal. The presidential decision found that the appellants had not specifically challenged the grounds on which the special appeal had been denied.
The underlying inadmissibility decision rested on several grounds: alleged constitutional violations could not support a special appeal; the issue under Article 833 of the Code of Civil Procedure had not been addressed below; the argument under Article 98 of that Code was inadequately developed; alleged violations involving Articles 98 and 99 of the Consumer Defense Code and Article 2 of Law 1,060/1950 had not been demonstrated; and reviewing the grant of fee-waiver benefits would require reconsidering facts, contrary to STJ Súmula 7. The appellants asserted that they had challenged the decision adequately and repeated their merits arguments. The opposing party sought dismissal and an increase in appellate attorney fees.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously denied the internal appeal. It held that an interlocutory appeal against the refusal to admit a special appeal must specifically and consistently address every ground supporting the refusal, whether or not those grounds are independent. The appellants failed to do so because they did not adequately contest the application of Federal Supreme Court Súmulas 282 and 284 or STJ Súmula 7.
The court explained that the principle of appellate dialecticality requires an appellant to identify why the challenged decision is procedurally or substantively erroneous. Merely repeating arguments on the merits does not overcome an unchallenged admissibility ground. The omission therefore required nonconsideration under Article 932(III) of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure and Article 253, sole paragraph, item I, of the STJ’s Internal Rules.
The panel also declined to increase appellate attorney fees. Because the appellants had not previously been ordered to pay the opposing party’s fees, there was no existing fee award that could be increased under Article 85(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Key Takeaways
- An appeal seeking to overturn the refusal to admit a special appeal must specifically challenge every ground supporting the refusal.
- Generic assertions and renewed merits arguments do not cure a failure to address procedural barriers such as lack of preservation, deficient briefing, or the prohibition on reexamining facts.
- Appellate attorney fees cannot be increased when no fee award was previously imposed against the unsuccessful appellant.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that access to merits review in the STJ depends on precise treatment of each admissibility ground. Counsel challenging the denial of a special appeal must respond individually to every stated obstacle; leaving even one ground unanswered can prevent consideration of the appeal altogether.
It also clarifies that an unsuccessful internal appeal does not independently create a basis for appellate fee enhancement when the prior decision imposed no fee obligation.