Background
Rafael Pereira de Souza filed an internal appeal challenging a decision by the President of Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice (STJ) that had declined to consider his interlocutory appeal seeking review of the refusal to admit a special appeal. The presidential decision concluded that Souza had failed to challenge specifically the grounds supporting the special appeal’s inadmissibility.
The underlying inadmissibility decision rested on three grounds: no violation of Article 1,022 of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure; no violation of Articles 11 and 99, paragraphs 2 and 3; and application of STJ Precedent No. 7, which bars reexamination of facts and evidence. Souza contended that he had addressed every ground. The respondent opposed the internal appeal and requested sanctions for bad-faith litigation, the fine under Article 1,021, paragraph 4, and an increase in appellate attorney’s fees.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously denied the internal appeal and maintained the decision declining to consider the interlocutory appeal. It held that Souza had not specifically and consistently challenged every ground for refusing admission of the special appeal. His reference to Precedent No. 7 was generic and did not compare the facts established below with his appellate arguments or explain why resolving the case would not require reexamining evidence. He also failed to show specifically how Articles 11 and 99, paragraphs 2 and 3, had been violated.
The court explained that the principle of appellate dialectics requires an appellant to demonstrate concretely why each ground of the challenged decision is wrong. Merely repeating merits arguments or making abstract assertions is insufficient. Under Article 932(III) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 253, sole paragraph, item I, of the STJ’s Internal Rules, failure to challenge all grounds for inadmissibility prevents consideration of the appeal, whether those grounds are independent or not.
The court rejected the respondent’s additional requests. It found that the internal appeal was not manifestly inadmissible, abusive, or dilatory, so the statutory fine was unwarranted. It also declined to increase appellate fees again and found no bad faith or affront to the dignity of justice because Souza had used the internal appeal legitimately to obtain review by the full panel.
Key Takeaways
- An interlocutory appeal seeking to admit a special appeal must challenge specifically every ground in the inadmissibility decision, whether or not each ground is independently dispositive.
- To contest STJ Precedent No. 7, an appellant must explain concretely why the requested review does not require revisiting the factual or evidentiary record; generic assertions and repeated merits arguments do not suffice.
- Unanimous denial of an internal appeal does not automatically justify a fine, increased appellate fees, or a finding of bad-faith litigation.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the STJ’s strict issue-by-issue approach to appellate admissibility. Counsel seeking review of a refused special appeal must engage directly with every procedural obstacle identified below, including by tying arguments to the particular facts and reasoning of the case.
It also confirms that an unsuccessful internal appeal is not inherently sanctionable. Additional penalties require a case-specific basis showing manifest inadmissibility, abuse, delay, or other improper conduct.