Background
L&T Eletrônica LTDA., a company in the electrical equipment sector, initiated an appeal in special recursion (AREsp) challenging a previous decision by the Second Panel of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça. The underlying dispute concerned a fiscal execution proceeding brought by the State of Rio de Janeiro against the company. The central issue was whether the state could demand payment of a court fee (taxa judiciária) for the company to raise a pre-executivity exception—a procedural device to challenge enforcement before a full trial on merits.
In the original AREsp decision, the Second Panel partially accepted the appeal but denied the company relief on the merits. The panel held that the question of whether state law permitted the court fee involved interpretation of local law (specifically, Decree-Law 5/1975 as amended by Law 9.507/2021), which falls outside the Superior Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Súmula 280 of the Federal Supreme Court (STF). The panel also rejected arguments about judicial gratuity (free access to justice) as requiring factual-probationary review barred by Súmula 7/STJ. Additionally, the panel found that the company’s claim about violations of other established jurisprudence was barred by Súmula 518/STJ.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Panel unanimously dismissed the internal appeal (agravo interno) as procedurally improper, finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court held that Article 259 of the RISTJ (the Superior Tribunal’s internal rules) expressly prohibits filing an internal appeal against any decision issued by a collegiate body—that is, a multi-judge panel—of the court. The rule is absolute: internal appeals can only challenge individual judge decisions (decisões monocráticas), not panel decisions (decisões colegiadas).
The court emphasized that filing an internal appeal against a panel decision constitutes “gross procedural error” (erro grosseiro) that cannot be excused. In doing so, the court rejected any application of the principle of fungibility of appeals—a doctrine that sometimes allows courts to treat one type of appeal as another when the distinction is merely formal. Here, the court found the prohibition too fundamental to permit such flexibility. The court cited precedent establishing this rule across multiple contexts, including internal appeals against decisions by both individual panels and the court’s special sections.
Key Takeaways
- Internal appeals (agravos internos) are available only to challenge individual judge rulings, never panel decisions at the Superior Tribunal de Justiça.
- Filing an internal appeal against a collegiate decision is gross procedural error that cannot be remedied by invoking the fungibility doctrine.
- Once a panel of the STJ issues an acórdão (panel decision), the party’s remedy is exhaustion of that decision through finality or through other appellate routes, not an internal reconsideration motion.
Why It Matters
This decision reaffirms a strict jurisdictional boundary in Brazilian appellate practice. For practitioners litigating in the Superior Tribunal de Justiça, the lesson is clear: understanding which decisions are collegiate (and therefore not subject to internal appeal) is essential to avoid procedural traps. Filing an internal appeal against a panel decision will not only fail but may signal to the court a misunderstanding of fundamental rules.
The ruling also demonstrates the Brazilian Supreme Court system’s commitment to finality and judicial economy. Once a panel renders judgment, that decision carries weight; the court will not entertain motions to reconsider filed under the wrong procedural label. This limitation reflects a policy choice to cabin internal appeals to challenges of individual judge rulings, where they serve as a check on potential errors before cases proceed to the next appellate level.