Background
Marcelo Godoy Hernandes sought to pursue a special appeal before Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice (STJ). The lower court’s inadmissibility decision rested on three grounds: no violation of a statutory provision, application of STJ Precedent No. 7, and an inadequate analytical comparison of the authorities invoked.
The STJ Presidency declined to hear Hernandes’s appeal from that inadmissibility decision because his petition did not specifically challenge every supporting ground. Hernandes then filed an internal appeal, arguing that the Presidency had incorrectly concluded that he failed to address Precedent No. 7.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously denied the internal appeal and left the Presidency’s decision in place. Although Hernandes had mentioned Precedent No. 7, the court found that he offered only generic arguments and did not explain, in a case-specific and individualized manner, why the relief sought would not require reexamining the evidence assessed below.
The court held that the principle requiring meaningful engagement with an appealed decision obliges a litigant to challenge specifically every ground supporting the refusal to admit a special appeal. Failure to do so 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. The court also followed the Special Court’s settled position that all grounds must be challenged, whether or not they are independently dispositive.
Key Takeaways
- An appeal seeking STJ review must specifically address every ground on which the special appeal was denied admission.
- Merely mentioning an STJ precedent is insufficient; the appellant must explain concretely why it does not apply to the case.
- A defect in the original appeal cannot be cured for the first time through a later internal appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the strict briefing requirements governing access to special review in Brazil’s STJ. Counsel must respond individually and substantively to each admissibility ground, because a generic objection—or silence as to even one ground—can prevent consideration of the merits.
The ruling also confirms that this requirement applies to the entire reasoning of the inadmissibility decision, not only to grounds viewed by the appellant as independent or decisive.