Background
Notre Dame Intermédica Saúde S.A. sought to pursue a special appeal before Brazil’s Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ). The lower court had refused to admit that appeal on two grounds: changing the underlying judgment would require reexamining facts and evidence and interpreting the parties’ contractual relationship, barred respectively by STJ Precedents 7 and 5; and the asserted conflict in case law could not be considered because of the bar under Precedent 7.
The President of the STJ declined to entertain the company’s subsequent appeal because it did not specifically challenge the grounds for inadmissibility. Notre Dame filed an internal appeal, contending that it had adequately addressed those grounds and reiterating its arguments on the merits. The opposing party, although notified, filed no response.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously denied the internal appeal and left the President’s ruling in place. It found that Notre Dame had not specifically and consistently challenged the application of STJ Precedent 5 concerning review of the parties’ contractual relationship. Because an appeal from a decision refusing a special appeal must address every ground supporting that refusal, the omission prevented consideration of the appeal.
The court explained that the principle of appellate dialectics requires an appellant to show specifically why the challenged ruling contains either a procedural or substantive error. Merely repeating arguments about the merits does not cure a failure to confront an admissibility ground in the preceding appeal. The court applied Article 932(III) of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure and Article 253, sole paragraph, item I, of the STJ’s Internal Rules, following the Special Court’s settled position that every ground for refusing a special appeal must be challenged, whether or not the grounds are autonomous.
Key Takeaways
- An appeal seeking STJ review must specifically address every ground on which the special appeal was refused.
- General assertions and renewed merits arguments do not satisfy the requirement of specific appellate challenge.
- An internal appeal cannot repair a failure to challenge an admissibility ground at the prior appellate stage.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the strict briefing requirements governing access to special-appeal review before the STJ. Counsel must identify and rebut each admissibility barrier individually; leaving even one ground unanswered can prevent the court from reaching the merits.