The specific case concerns opposing motions for clarification in the face of a judgment rendered in an interlocutory appeal that was not known due to the absence of a challenge.
The Third Panel of the Superior Court of Justice, in the judgment of the motion for clarification in the Internal Appeal in the Appeal in Special Appeal No. 1,495,380 / SP understood that the penalty provided for in paragraph 4, of article 1021, CPC / 15 “when the internal appeal is declared manifestly inadmissible or unfounded in a unanimous vote, the collegiate body, in a reasoned decision, will condemn the aggravating to pay the aggravated fine fixed between one and five percent of the updated value of the case ”is not automatic, that is, it is not logical consequence of the dismissal of the internal appeal in unanimous vote, and the possible condemnation should be analyzed in the light of the particularities of the specific case, through a reasoned decision.
The specific case concerns opposing motions for clarification in the face of a judgment rendered in an interlocutory appeal that was not known due to the absence of a challenge to the grounds for the dismissal of the special appeal, pointing out a potential omission regarding the analysis of requests for the application of a fine for handling an appeal. , according to the embargo, manifestly inadmissible and due to litigation in bad faith.
In the vote of the Reporting Minister Marco Aurélio Bellizze, the evident evidence of the inadmissibility or unfoundedness of the internal appeal was identified as requirements for the application of the fine, in such a way that “the simple filing of the appeal can be considered, by design, as abusive or delaying”, such aspects cannot be confused with “the insurgent party’s right to appeal”.
The litigation in bad faith was not recognized due to the lack of realization of any of the hypotheses of article 80, CPC / 15, together with the consolidated jurisprudence of the STJ, according to which the filing of applicable appeals does not imply bad litigation. -fe or act in breach of the dignity of justice, even if the insurrection uses arguments repeatedly refuted by the Court or without allegation of a new foundation.
By: 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...
