Background
UPS Serviços — Sociedade Brasileira de Gestão em Assistência Ltda. filed an appeal in special-appeal proceedings after the lower court refused to admit its special appeal. That refusal rested on several grounds: constitutional issues were outside the scope of a special appeal; the alleged violations of Articles 64 and 337(II) of the Code of Civil Procedure were stated too generically, triggering STF Precedent 284; review of claims under Article 1 of Law 8,984/1965 and Article 65 of the Consolidated Labor Laws would require reexamining facts and evidence, barred by STJ Precedent 7; and STJ Precedent 83 also applied.
The STJ Presidency declined to hear UPS’s appeal because it did not specifically challenge the grounds for refusing admission. UPS then filed an internal appeal, asserting that it had adequately contested 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 Presidency’s decision intact. It found that UPS had not specifically and consistently contested every ground supporting the refusal to admit the special appeal, particularly the application of STF Precedent 284 for deficient briefing.
The court held that the principle of appellate dialectics requires an appellant to explain specifically why the challenged decision is procedurally or substantively wrong. Merely repeating arguments on the underlying merits does not satisfy that requirement. Failure to challenge the decision’s grounds 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 Internal Rules.
The Panel further applied the STJ Special Court’s settled position that an appeal challenging refusal to admit a special appeal must address all grounds for that refusal, whether or not those grounds are autonomous. Because UPS failed to do so, the court did not reach the merits of the special appeal.
Key Takeaways
- An appeal from a decision refusing admission of a special appeal must specifically challenge every ground supporting that refusal.
- Generic assertions and repetition of the underlying merits do not cure a failure to address an admissibility ground such as deficient briefing under STF Precedent 284.
- An internal appeal cannot repair the absence of a specific challenge at the earlier appellate stage.
Why It Matters
The ruling underscores the strict briefing requirements governing access to special-appeal review before Brazil’s STJ. Counsel must respond individually and concretely to each reason given for non-admission; leaving even one ground unanswered can prevent review of the entire appeal.
The decision also confirms that this requirement applies whether the grounds for non-admission are independent or overlapping, reinforcing the STJ Special Court’s uniform approach to appellate admissibility.