Background
Móveis Pomzan Ltda. filed an internal appeal (agravo interno) challenging a decision by the STJ’s Presidency that had refused to admit an earlier special appeal (agravo em recurso especial). The Presidency had rejected the initial appeal under STJ Summary n. 182, finding that the appellant had failed to challenge all grounds of rejection cited by the lower decision, specifically not refuting STJ Summaries n. 7, 83, and 518.
In the internal appeal, the appellant argued that it had adequately challenged Summaries n. 7 and 83, citing passages from its original special appeal. However, it did not demonstrate that it had addressed Summary n. 518 in that earlier pleading. The case was decided by the First Panel of the STJ in a virtual session held from June 16–22, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The court unanimously refused to admit the internal appeal (agravo interno não conhecido). The panel reaffirmed that under CPC Art. 1,021, § 1º, a party filing an appeal bears the burden of specifically challenging all the foundational grounds of the decision being appealed. The court emphasized that a party must refute all grounds employed in the section of the decision it seeks to challenge, not merely some of them.
The court cited its own precedent from the Special Court (Corte Especial), in case EREsp n. 1.424.404/SP, which established that in an internal appeal against a judge’s solo decision, the appellant must refute all grounds used in the impugned section or incur STJ Summary n. 182. Summary n. 182 provides: “An appeal under CPC Art. 545 that fails to specifically attack the grounds of the appealed decision is not viable.” Because Móveis Pomzan did not demonstrate it had attacked Summary n. 518 in its original special appeal, the procedural defect persisted and barred admission of the internal appeal as well.
Key Takeaways
- Appellants bear the burden of specifically and systematically addressing all grounds cited in a decision they wish to challenge; partial or selective attacks are insufficient.
- STJ Summary n. 182 applies with full force to internal appeals (agravo interno) against judges’ solo decisions, not only to direct special appeals.
- The failure to challenge even one of multiple grounds of rejection can result in dismissal of both the original appeal and any subsequent internal appeal seeking review of that dismissal.
- Procedural compliance with CPC Art. 1,021, § 1º is strictly enforced and substantive merit is not reached when procedural requirements are not met.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces strict procedural discipline in Brazil’s appellate system and serves as a cautionary reminder to litigators that incomplete argumentation at the special appeal stage cannot be remedied by an internal appeal. The ruling prioritizes formal compliance with procedural rules and reflects the STJ’s consistent application of Summary n. 182 across different types of appeals. For practitioners, it underscores the importance of conducting a thorough audit of all grounds cited in an adverse decision and ensuring that each is specifically addressed in the appellate petition.
The decision also demonstrates that the STJ will not permit a second bite at the apple through internal appeals when the original defect was a failure to engage with all available grounds. This preserves judicial efficiency and discourages incomplete appellate briefs by foreclosing opportunities for cure through the internal review process.