Background
SINOSSERRA FINANCEIRA S.A. filed an internal appeal from a decision by the President of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça that had declined to hear its interlocutory appeal seeking review of the refusal to admit a special appeal. The presidential decision concluded that SINOSSERRA had not specifically challenged the grounds on which the special appeal was denied admission.
The underlying special appeal arose from an interlocutory ruling concerning whether emergency relief should be maintained or revoked. The decision denying admission relied on two grounds: STF Precedent 735, concerning review of provisional-relief rulings, and STJ Precedent 7, which bars reexamination of facts and evidence in a special appeal. SINOSSERRA argued that it had adequately challenged the inadmissibility decision and also renewed its merits arguments. The appellee filed no response.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously denied the internal appeal and upheld the decision not to hear the interlocutory appeal. It found that SINOSSERRA had failed to address specifically and consistently both the application of STF Precedent 735 and the evidentiary-review bar under STJ Precedent 7.
The court explained that the principle of appellate dialectics requires an appellant to demonstrate specifically why the challenged decision is procedurally or substantively wrong. Under Article 932(III) of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure and Article 253, sole paragraph, I, of the STJ’s Internal Rules, an appeal may not be heard when it does not specifically contest the grounds of the challenged decision. Consistent with the STJ Special Court’s precedent, every ground supporting the refusal to admit a special appeal must be challenged, whether or not those grounds are independent.
Key Takeaways
- An interlocutory appeal seeking admission of a special appeal must specifically challenge every ground stated in the inadmissibility decision.
- Repeating arguments about the underlying merits does not cure a failure to address threshold admissibility barriers.
- An internal appeal cannot repair the absence of a specific challenge at the preceding appellate stage.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the STJ’s strict issue-preservation requirements. Counsel challenging the refusal to admit a special appeal must respond concretely and individually to each cited procedural barrier, including explaining why the proposed arguments do not require reassessment of the factual record when STJ Precedent 7 is invoked.
Failure to do so prevents review before the court reaches the merits, even when the appellant later asserts in an internal appeal that the grounds were adequately contested.