Background
Notre Dame Intermédica Saúde S.A. sought to pursue a special appeal before Brazil’s Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ). The president of the lower court denied admission on several grounds, including the application of STF Precedent 735 and STJ Precedent 7, failure to demonstrate a violation of Article 300 of the Code of Civil Procedure, lack of prior consideration of other asserted statutory issues, and failure to establish factual similarity.
The STJ presidency declined to consider the company’s subsequent agravo em recurso especial because its petition did not specifically challenge every ground supporting the inadmissibility ruling. The company then filed an internal appeal, asserting that it had specifically addressed the relevant grounds and asking the Fourth Panel either to reconsider or reverse the presidency’s decision.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously denied the internal appeal. It held that a party seeking review of an order refusing admission of a special appeal must specifically contest every ground supporting that order. The company had failed to address at least the grounds concerning the asserted Article 300 violation and the relevant prequestioning deficiency.
The court explained that this requirement follows from the principle of dialeticidade recursal, under which an appellant must identify why each challenged basis of the ruling is erroneous. Failure to do so makes the appeal inadmissible under Article 932(III) of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure and the STJ’s settled approach, including STJ Precedent 182. Because the company’s petition did not challenge the inadmissibility decision in its entirety, the presidency properly declined to consider it.
Key Takeaways
- An agravo seeking STJ review of a decision denying admission of a special appeal must specifically challenge every ground supporting that decision.
- The requirement applies whether the grounds are autonomous or interrelated; leaving one ground unanswered can prevent consideration of the entire agravo.
- A general assertion that the admissibility grounds were addressed does not cure omissions in the appellate petition.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores a strict preservation rule for litigants seeking access to the STJ. Counsel must map the agravo directly to every basis stated in the lower court’s inadmissibility ruling and provide a specific rebuttal to each one.
The ruling also confirms that the general ability to challenge only part of a decision does not govern an agravo against the denial of admission of a special appeal, for which the STJ’s procedural rules expressly require a challenge to all grounds.