Background
The dispute arose from an action seeking compensation for material and moral damages, with the amount in controversy set at R$30,000. The lower court refused to admit a special appeal based on STJ Precedents Nos. 7 and 83.
The appellant then filed an appeal in special appeal, but the Presidency of the Superior Court of Justice declined to hear it because the appellant had not specifically challenged the ground based on Precedent No. 83. In an internal appeal, the appellant argued that every ground for inadmissibility had been addressed expressly and in detail, that Precedent No. 182 should not apply, and that the court should favor adjudication on the merits over dismissal on a formal ground. No response to the internal appeal was filed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously denied the internal appeal. It held that a decision refusing admission of a special appeal is indivisible and therefore must be challenged in its entirety. Under Article 932(III) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 253, sole paragraph, item I, of the STJ Internal Rules, an appeal in special appeal cannot be heard unless it specifically contests every ground supporting the challenged decision.
The Panel concluded that the appellant had not adequately challenged the application of STJ Precedent No. 83. A sufficient challenge must be effective, specific, and reasoned; the appellant’s submission did not meet that standard. The court therefore maintained the analogous application of STJ Precedent No. 182, under which an appeal is unavailable when it fails to attack specifically the grounds of the appealed decision.
Key Takeaways
- A party challenging the refusal to admit a special appeal must address every ground supporting that refusal.
- A general or inadequate objection is insufficient; the challenge must be effective, specific, and supported by reasons.
- Failure to contest even one ground permits the STJ to decline review under the rule applied by analogy from Precedent No. 182.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces a strict preservation requirement for access to special-appeal review before Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice. Appellants must organize their filings around each independent admissibility ground identified below and explain specifically why each one is erroneous.
The ruling also confirms that the indivisibility of an inadmissibility decision does not excuse selective briefing. Instead, it makes complete issue-by-issue rebuttal a condition for the STJ to consider the appeal.