Background
Marcos Lima Mem de Sá filed an internal appeal against a decision by the President of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) that declined to hear his appeal from the denial of a special appeal. The presidential decision found that his filing had not specifically challenged the grounds on which the lower court refused to admit the special appeal.
The underlying inadmissibility decision rested on three grounds: no violation of federal law had been shown; STJ Precedent No. 7 barred the requested review; and STF Precedent No. 284 applied because the appellant had not identified comparator decisions supporting the alleged conflict in case law. In the internal appeal, Sá maintained that he had addressed every ground, identified a direct violation of federal law, and presented clear legal arguments. The opposing party requested dismissal and a further increase in appellate attorney’s fees.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously denied the internal appeal. It held that Sá’s earlier appeal had not specifically and consistently contested the application of STF Precedent No. 284: he did not mention that precedent or explain why it should not apply. Because an appeal from the denial of a special appeal must challenge every ground supporting the denial, the omission prevented the STJ from considering the appeal.
The court explained that the principle of appellate dialectics requires an appellant to identify why the challenged ruling is procedurally or substantively wrong. Failure to do so triggers Article 932(III) of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure and Article 253, sole paragraph, I, of the STJ’s Internal Rules. Consistent with the STJ Special Court’s precedent, all grounds for inadmissibility must be specifically challenged, whether or not they are independent. The panel also refused the opposing party’s request for another increase in appellate attorney’s fees because such fees are not increased again upon resolution of an internal appeal when the prior decision already imposed the increase authorized by Article 85(11) of the Code.
Key Takeaways
- An appeal challenging the refusal to admit a special appeal must specifically address every ground supporting the inadmissibility ruling.
- General merits arguments cannot cure the failure to contest a particular procedural bar, and an internal appeal cannot repair an omission made in the preceding appeal.
- The STJ will not impose an additional increase in appellate attorney’s fees on an internal appeal when the prior ruling already applied the increase under Article 85(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the STJ’s strict issue-by-issue approach to appellate admissibility. Counsel seeking review of a denied special appeal must identify and rebut each stated obstacle—including precedent-based deficiencies—or risk dismissal without any consideration of the underlying merits.
It also clarifies the limit on successive appellate-fee increases: an unsuccessful internal appeal does not itself justify another enhancement when the immediately preceding ruling already increased the fees under the statutory appellate-fee provision.