New Requirements for the Admissibility of Appeals to the Superior Court of Justice (STJ)

Presumed Relevance: Criminal lawsuits, administrative misconduct lawsuits, lawsuits where the amount in controversy exceeds 500 minimum wages, lawsuits that may generate ineligibility, and cases where the appealed ruling contradicts the dominant jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice.

Relevance is Not Presumed: The established criteria follow the standard of the STF’s General Repercussion (Repercussão Geral), in place since 2004. The deliberation and recognition of relevance will consider the existence or absence of relevant economic, political, social, or legal issues that transcend the subjective interests of the lawsuit.

Specific Topic in the REsp: The demonstration of relevance must appear in a specific section of the appeal brief—in our view, even in situations where it is presumed. The STJ’s artificial intelligence system is sophisticated and used to optimize the management of procedural backlog, streamline appeal screening, and standardize the application of jurisprudence. This section should help the tools comprehend the relevance situation. This topic gains critical importance in lawsuits where the value assigned to the cause was symbolic merely for the purpose of calculating court costs (a very common situation in tax matters).

Third-Party Intervention: Prior to the admissibility decision, the reporting judge (relator) may allow third-party submissions. In cases of relevance to economic sectors, especially in tax matters, opportunities expand for strategies involving trade associations and class entities.

Quorum for Rejection of Relevance by the STJ: A minimum of two-thirds (2/3) of the competent panel to judge the appeal. The decision dismissing relevance is unappealable.

In-Person Session: Once relevance is recognized, the case must be judged in an in-person session, “unless the reporting judge’s vote is to not recognize relevance or to reaffirm the Tribunal’s dominant jurisprudence.”