Background
Sabemi Seguradora S.A. sought to pursue a special appeal before Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice (STJ). The lower court’s inadmissibility decision rested on several grounds: lack of prior consideration of article 9 of Decree-Law 73/1966; failure to demonstrate violations of articles 186 and 927 of the Civil Code; the bar against reexamining facts under STJ Precedent 7; an inadequate analytical comparison; and only a generic reference to Law 4,594/1964 without identifying the allegedly violated provisions.
The STJ Presidency declined to consider Sabemi’s interlocutory appeal because it did not specifically contest every ground supporting inadmissibility. Sabemi then filed an internal appeal, arguing principally that its case did not require reexamination of the facts and that the matter should not have been resolved by a single-justice decision. The appellee filed no response.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously denied the internal appeal and left the Presidency’s decision in place. It held that an appellant seeking review of a decision barring a special appeal must specifically challenge every ground supporting that decision. Sabemi had not addressed the ruling’s conclusions concerning article 927 of the Civil Code, the deficient analytical comparison, or the generic reliance on Law 4,594/1964.
The court explained that the adversarial principle governing appeals requires the appellant to identify why the challenged ruling is procedurally or substantively erroneous. Failure to do so makes the appeal inadmissible under 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 STJ Special Court’s settled approach, the obligation extends to all grounds for inadmissibility, whether or not those grounds are independent of one another.
Key Takeaways
- An interlocutory appeal seeking to unlock an STJ special appeal must specifically address every ground on which the special appeal was declared inadmissible.
- Challenging only selected obstacles—such as the prohibition on reexamining facts—does not preserve the appeal when other grounds remain unanswered.
- The ruling was procedural: the Fourth Panel did not decide the underlying merits of Sabemi’s claims.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces a strict briefing requirement for access to special-appeal review in the STJ. Counsel must map the appellate arguments to each stated ground of inadmissibility and explain separately why every ground is mistaken; leaving even some grounds unanswered can prevent consideration of the appeal altogether.