Background
Suzana Alcione de Souza Ribeiro Costa filed an internal appeal from a decision by the President of Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice (STJ). That decision had declined to consider her appeal seeking review of the denial of a special appeal because she had not challenged every ground supporting the denial.
In the internal appeal, Costa raised issues including alleged judicial bias, the constitutionality of appellate screening requirements, compensation for one former spouse’s exclusive use of jointly owned property, unpartitioned assets, and an asserted duty to account. The opposing party argued that the appeal was inadmissible, requested a statutory penalty, and sought revocation of Costa’s legal-aid benefit.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously declined to consider the internal appeal. It held that Article 1,021, § 1 of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure required Costa to challenge specifically the ground of the decision under review: her earlier failure to contest the complete reasoning supporting the denial of the special appeal. Instead, her submissions addressed matters disconnected from that dispositive ground and did not confront the application of STJ Precedent 182. Because an appellant must explain why the challenged ruling is procedurally or substantively erroneous, the appeal failed the principle of dialectical engagement governing appellate review.
The Panel deemed the internal appeal manifestly inadmissible and imposed a penalty equal to 1% of the updated value of the case under Article 1,021, § 4. Under § 5, any further appeal is conditioned on prior payment of that amount. The court did not consider the opposing party’s request to revoke legal aid because the benefit had not been granted at the STJ; any challenge had to be presented in the lower court that granted it.
Key Takeaways
- An internal appeal must specifically address the actual grounds supporting the challenged decision; arguments about the underlying merits do not satisfy that requirement.
- A unanimously rejected internal appeal that is manifestly inadmissible may trigger the penalty prescribed by Article 1,021, § 4 of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure.
- A challenge to legal aid must be directed to the court that granted the benefit when the STJ merely preserves the effect of an earlier award.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that access to merits review in the STJ depends on precise compliance with appellate admissibility rules. A litigant cannot cure an earlier failure to challenge the grounds for inadmissibility by repeating substantive arguments unrelated to the intervening procedural ruling.
It also illustrates the financial consequences of that failure: the court may impose a percentage-based penalty and require its deposit before permitting another appeal.