Background
Adilson Roberto Cordeiro sought to pursue a special appeal after the São Paulo State Court of Justice refused to admit it. The state court relied on three independent grounds: STJ Precedent 7, STF Precedent 284, and an inadequate analytical comparison of the allegedly conflicting decisions.
Cordeiro filed an interlocutory appeal seeking to obtain STJ review, but the STJ Presidency declined to hear it because he had not specifically challenged every ground supporting the state court’s inadmissibility ruling. He then brought an internal appeal, asserting that he had addressed all of those grounds. The opposing party filed a response and requested a fine.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously denied the internal appeal. It found that Cordeiro had not challenged either the application of STF Precedent 284 or the deficient analytical comparison. Because those unchallenged grounds independently supported the refusal to admit his special appeal, his interlocutory appeal could not be heard under Article 932(III) of Brazil’s 2015 Code of Civil Procedure and the rule reflected in STJ Precedent 182.
The court explained that the principle of dialectical appellate argument requires an appellant to confront the reasons for the challenged decision and demonstrate a procedural or substantive error. Merely advancing the legal theory that favors the appellant, without specifically addressing the decision’s grounds, does not satisfy that requirement. The panel also declined to impose the requested fine, observing that filing an appeal from a reporting judge’s decision does not by itself warrant a penalty.
Key Takeaways
- An appeal seeking to unlock STJ review must specifically challenge every ground on which the lower court refused to admit the special appeal.
- Leaving an independent inadmissibility ground unanswered permits the reporting judge to decline review under Article 932(III) of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure.
- The mere filing of an internal appeal does not, without more, justify imposing a fine.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the strict briefing discipline required when seeking special review before Brazil’s STJ. Counsel must identify and separately rebut each procedural and substantive basis for inadmissibility; addressing only selected grounds can end the appeal before the court considers its merits.