Background
GEAP filed an internal appeal (agravo interno) challenging a decision by the court that refused to admit GEAP’s special resource appeal (agravo em recurso especial). The original decision denied admissibility on a single but crucial ground: GEAP failed to specifically challenge the application of Súmula 7 of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (a binding jurisprudential precedent), in violation of Article 932, III of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure.
The Súmula 7/STJ prevents appeals based solely on re-examination of facts and evidence already evaluated by lower courts. According to the lower court’s decision, GEAP’s special resource appeal implicated this rule but GEAP had not meaningfully addressed it in the original appeal.
GEAP argued in its internal appeal that it had presented specific and consistent challenges to all grounds for inadmissibility, that the dispute involved only legal issues (not factual re-examination), and that the special resource was not manifestly inadmissible or dilatory.
The Court’s Holding
The Superior Tribunal de Justiça unanimously rejected GEAP’s internal appeal. The court held that an appeal challenging an inadmissibility decision must specifically address all grounds cited by the lower court. Article 932, III of the Code of Civil Procedure imposes a mandatory requirement that the appealing party affirmatively refute each basis for inadmissibility—not merely state that no factual re-examination is sought.
The court emphasized that GEAP’s argument that “the dispute involves only questions of law” was insufficient. To overcome Súmula 7/STJ, the appellant must affirmatively demonstrate that resolution of the legal issue is entirely independent of re-examining the facts and evidence already evaluated by lower courts. A bare assertion that no factual re-examination is intended does not satisfy this burden. GEAP failed to provide this demonstration, and therefore failed to meet the procedural requirement to challenge the Súmula 7/STJ ground specifically.
Because GEAP did not challenge all grounds for the original inadmissibility decision in the manner required by law, the court confirmed that the lower court’s refusal to admit the special resource appeal was correct. The internal appeal was therefore dismissed in its entirety.
Key Takeaways
- Parties challenging a refusal to admit an appeal must specifically and substantively address every ground cited for inadmissibility—vague or conclusory objections are insufficient.
- To overcome Súmula 7/STJ (which bars re-examination of facts and evidence), the appellant must affirmatively prove that the legal issue can be resolved without any factual re-evaluation, not merely assert that re-examination is not requested.
- Failure to comply with Article 932, III of the Code of Civil Procedure (specific impugnation of all grounds) is a fatal procedural defect that the appellate court will not overlook.
- The court will apply settled jurisprudence strictly: appellants cannot rely on assumptions or assertions; they must demonstrate compliance with procedural requirements by affirmative proof.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces a fundamental rule of Brazilian appellate practice: procedural requirements exist and will be enforced. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça makes clear that the requirement to challenge every ground for inadmissibility is not merely technical—it reflects the principle of dialecticality in Brazilian law, which demands that each party respond to each argument raised against it. A party cannot pick and choose which grounds to challenge or offer general statements instead of specific refutations.
For practitioners, the ruling underscores that when appealing an admissibility denial, meticulous attention to each stated ground is essential. Generic arguments about the nature of the legal issue will not suffice; parties must affirmatively dismantle each obstacle cited by the court. Failure to do so forecloses appellate review and leaves the inadmissibility decision standing, regardless of the merits of the underlying legal dispute.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.