Background
Renata Iochida Franco sought review in the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) in litigation arising from a collection action. The STJ’s Presidency declined to hear her appeal because her special-appeal submissions did not identify the provisions of federal law allegedly violated by the lower court.
Franco filed an internal appeal against that decision. She argued that she had briefly demonstrated the admissibility of her special appeal under article 105, III(a), of Brazil’s Constitution. The opposing party submitted a response.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously denied the internal appeal. It held that a special appeal based on article 105, III(a), must clearly and specifically identify the federal statutory provisions that the lower court allegedly contravened. Franco’s dissatisfaction with the result below, without identifying the relevant federal provisions, left the appeal inadequately reasoned and the controversy impossible to understand with the required precision.
The court applied STF Súmula 284 by analogy. That rule makes an extraordinary appeal inadmissible when deficient reasoning prevents an exact understanding of the dispute. The STJ explained that the same defect also prevents review based on conflicting precedent under article 105, III(c), unless the appellant identifies the federal provision allegedly interpreted differently by the compared courts.
Key Takeaways
- A special appeal must specifically identify each federal statutory provision allegedly violated by the lower court.
- A general assertion that an appeal satisfies article 105, III, or mere disagreement with the judgment does not adequately frame the federal controversy.
- Failure to connect the asserted error or jurisprudential conflict to a particular federal provision triggers STF Súmula 284 by analogy and prevents merits review.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the STJ’s strict briefing requirements for access to Brazil’s special-appeal jurisdiction. Counsel must do more than invoke a constitutional basis for review: the filing must identify the relevant federal provision and explain how the challenged judgment violated it.
The ruling also confirms that alleging conflicting case law does not cure the omission. The claimed divergence must concern competing interpretations of the same identified federal-law provision.