In the decision, the reporting rapporteur Paulo de Tarso Sanseverino emphasized that there is no limitation in the matter to be returned in the adhesive appeal.
The Third Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) decided in the judgment of REsp 1.675.996 / SP that in the cases governed by CPC / 15, in the same way as during the term of CPC / 73, there is no restriction regarding the content of the adhesive appeal, so that the appellant party can raise any matter that it would argue if it had filed the appeal in the normal way, thus setting a precedent that recognizes the absence of limitation of the matter to be raised in the adhesive appeal, whether in law, in doctrine or in the jurisprudence of the STJ.
Understand the specific case: the Special Appeal was filed against the judgment of the São Paulo State Court of Justice that did not hear an adhesive appeal, on the grounds that it was dissociated from the matter brought in the unsuccessful party’s main appeal, understanding the impossibility of adherence to change sentence not fought voluntarily through appeal. The appellant party maintained, in turn, that the only requirements present in CPC / 15 for the filing of the adhesive appeal are reciprocal succumbing, filing of the main appeal, meeting the deadline for offering the appeal grounds and knowledge of the main appeal as a condition for its appeal. exam.
In the decision, the rapporteur Minister Paulo de Tarso Sanseverino emphasized that there is no limitation in the matter to be returned in the adhesive appeal, as provided for in article 500, CPC / 73 and now in article 997, CPC / 15, changing it if in the legislation in force only the hypothesis of appropriateness related to the infringing embargoes, explaining that “there is not, with the ‘adhesive appeal’, even another appeal, even because it is not provided for in the list established by law and in numerus clausus in the old art. 496 of CPC / 73 or in art. 994 of the current CPC. Its name is adhesive appeal, special adhesive resource and extraordinary adhesive resource “, that is,” it is the same resource, with only different forms of interposition being that ordinarily used in relation to the main resource “.
Finally, it was stated that “there is no restriction in relation to the content of the irresignation handled in the adhesive way that the adhesive appellant could have raised in the normal way”, with only subordination as to the requirements of admissibility, preparation and judgment of the appeal in the Court higher, moving away, in the same way, the conclusion that the adhesive appellant “would have lost the chance to appeal in the normal way”, establishing, therefore, jurisprudence about the lack of restriction regarding the content of the adhesive resource in comparison to that that was raised in the appeal filed by the normal way.
Wilson Sales Belchior
Source: ClickJus
PEC nº 39/2021 – Changes in special features
The Chamber of Deputies approved on 07/13/2022 the final text of the Proposed Amendment to the Constitution nº 39/2021 (“PEC of Relevance”). Presented on 11/08/2021 by...
The Third Panel of the Superior Court of Justice unanimously dismissed Special Appeal 1,880,334 / SP, maintaining the judgment that denied the claim for compensation for...
