Background
Forte Securitizadora S/A filed an internal appeal from a decision by the President of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) that had declined to consider its appeal seeking review of the refusal to admit a special appeal. The presidential decision concluded that Forte had not specifically challenged the grounds on which the special appeal had been denied admission.
The underlying inadmissibility decision rested on three grounds: no violation of federal statutory provisions had been shown; STJ Precedent No. 7 barred the requested review; and the decisions offered to establish conflicting case law were not factually similar to the challenged judgment. Forte argued in its internal appeal that it had adequately addressed the inadmissibility grounds and that STJ Precedent No. 182 had therefore been applied incorrectly.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously denied the internal appeal and maintained the decision declining to hear the appeal in the special-appeal proceeding. It found that Forte had not specifically and consistently contested either the application of STJ Precedent No. 7 or the absence of the factual similarity required to demonstrate a conflict in case law. Those grounds were not mentioned in Forte’s filing, much less accompanied by reasons for rejecting them.
The court held that an appellant seeking to overturn a decision refusing admission of a special appeal must specifically challenge every ground supporting that decision, whether or not the grounds are independent. Failure to do so violates the principle requiring an appeal to engage directly with the challenged ruling and makes the appeal inadmissible under Article 932(III) of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure and Article 253, sole paragraph, item I, of the STJ’s Internal Rules. Repeating merits arguments or attempting to cure the omission in a later internal appeal does not satisfy that requirement.
Key Takeaways
- An appeal against the refusal to admit a special appeal must specifically address every ground supporting the refusal.
- A challenge to STJ Precedent No. 7 must concretely compare the facts established below with the appellate arguments and explain why no reexamination of facts is required.
- Generic assertions and renewed merits arguments do not cure a failure to contest an admissibility ground in the proper filing.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the STJ’s strict issue-by-issue approach to appellate admissibility. Counsel cannot obtain review merely by insisting that the special appeal has merit; the filing must directly explain why each procedural or substantive barrier identified by the lower court does not apply.
The ruling also confirms that this requirement extends to all stated grounds, whether autonomous or overlapping. Omitting even one can prevent the STJ from reaching the merits of the special appeal.