Find a debt-help route outside the United States

SettleADebt C_BR PASS-22 — Brazil

Ordinary civil agravo de instrumento and interlocutory-review gateway

Reviewed component: The ordinary interlocutory-review portion of P01 D15 only.

Actual fresh-access date: October 27, 2026, in both America/Los_Angeles and UTC. Exact source-opening clocks: Unknown. Publication, signature, judgment and review-completion dates are not treated as source-opening timestamps.

Assumed setting: A generic private consumer-money dispute proceeding under the ordinary CPC framework. Special-court, collective-consumer, insolvency, execution-specific merits and foreign-procedure questions remain separate.

P18, P19, P20 and P21 are saved but unreviewed and supply no substantive premise. The supplied P01 review record is preserved as a scoped review boundary; this report does not invent a dated provider-permission certification or reopen the provider-perimeter investigation. Necessary procedural standing and representation provisions were read afresh.

Principal conclusion: Immediate review ordinarily depends on one of four routes:

1. an express category in CPC art. 1.015;
2. an interlocutory decision in one of art. 1.015’s sole-paragraph contexts;
3. another express statutory authorization; or
4. the exceptional Tema 988 route, where waiting for review through a later apelação would make review useless.

Mere inconvenience, increased litigation expense or disagreement with an evidentiary ruling does not automatically establish the fourth route. Availability of the appeal, admissibility of the filing, and entitlement to interim relief are separate questions. C_BR-P22-C008–C030, C065–C069. Planalto+2

No actual person, entity, creditor, borrower, provider, contract, property, licence, account or private proceeding was investigated.

1. Current primary framework

1.1 Statute and commencement

The current compiled CPC was read at:

https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105compilada.htm

The operative chapter is arts. 1.015–1.020. Necessary linked provisions include decision classification, standing, representation, filing periods, preparation, electronic records, correction of defects, provisional appellate relief, deferred review and the agravo interno boundary.

Article 1.045 states that the Code enters into force one year after official publication; the official footer identifies DOU publication on March 17, 2015. Article 14 preserves completed procedural acts and established procedural situations. No exact original effective-date calculation or complete historical-case transition analysis is made. C001. Planalto

1.2 Material amendment/status crosswalk

C002–C004, C046–C051.

Full primary URLs:

• https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2024/lei/l14939.htm
• https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2026/lei/l15484.htm
• https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2026/lei/l15479.htm
• https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2006/lei/l11419.htm

These reads establish the identified provisions and dates, not an exhaustive absence-of-amendment certificate. Planalto+3

2. Classify the decision before choosing the remedy

2.1 Interlocutory decision versus sentence

CPC art. 203 distinguishes:

• a sentence, subject to special procedures, that ends the ordinary cognitive phase on an art. 485 or 487 ground, or extinguishes execution;
• an interlocutory decision, meaning another decisional judicial act; and
• a despacho, a non-decisional procedural direction.

A label such as “order,” “partial judgment” or “sentence” is not conclusive. The actual content and procedural effect control the classification. A genuine despacho is not appealable under art. 1.001. C005.

A partial merits decision under art. 356 is challenged by agravo de instrumento under §5, even though it resolves part of the substantive dispute. The partial-termination branch in art. 354’s sole paragraph also uses agravo. A decision truly ending the relevant phase is not converted into an interlocutory decision merely because it arose during enforcement. C006.

Primary URL: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105compilada.htm, arts. 203, 354, 356 §5, 1.001 and 1.009. Planalto+1

2.2 Deferred review under art. 1.009 §1

In the ordinary cognitive phase, a question decided interlocutorily that does not admit immediate agravo is not lost merely because no unavailable immediate appeal was filed. It must be raised:

• preliminarily in a later apelação against the final sentence; or
• in the relevant contrarrazões.

If raised in contrarrazões, art. 1.009 §2 gives the appellant the specified opportunity to respond. A matter listed in art. 1.015 that instead appears as a chapter of the sentence is challenged through apelação under art. 1.009 §3.

This is a route boundary, not a complete appeal report. C007.

Primary URL: CPC compiled body, art. 1.009 §§1–3. Planalto

3. Every art. 1.015 branch

The following is the actual statutory list, including the vetoed item. The list identifies a route; it does not establish that any actual ruling fits it or that the appeal will succeed.

Primary URL: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105compilada.htm, art. 1.015(I)–(XIII); linked arts. 138 and 373 §1. Planalto+2

3.1 Sole-paragraph procedural contexts

Article 1.015’s sole paragraph separately admits agravo de instrumento against interlocutory decisions in:

An appeal relying directly on one of these statutory contexts does not need to manufacture Tema 988 urgency merely to establish that statutory route. Ordinary standing, timeliness, preparation and other admissibility conditions still apply. C021. Planalto

3.2 Special intervention limits

Article 138 contains its own restrictions on amicus curiae participation and appeals. Therefore, art. 1.015(IX) is not a sufficient basis to announce that every admission or exclusion of every possible third-party participant is immediately appealable.

The full amicus and intervention jurisprudence is not completed here. C022. Planalto

4. Tema 988: full judgment, majority, modulation and preclusion

4.1 Actual full judgment obtained

The full official published REsp 1.704.520-MT, one of Tema 988’s representative appeals, was obtained:

https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=19/12/2018&num_registro=201702719246

It is a 98-page official judgment document containing the majority opinion, separate writings and final certificate.

• Court: STJ Corte Especial.
• Judgment: December 5, 2018.
• Publication: DJe December 19, 2018.
• Majority: Seven votes with the relator; five dissenting votes, as counted from the final certificate.
• Result: Special appeal granted so the originating tribunal would process the interlocutory appeal concerning judicial competence, subject to the other admissibility requirements.
• Original context: A forum/competence dispute arising from a franchise contract. No consumer-contract merits rule is imported from that context.

The full text was accessible and the material passages were read. Attempts to render screenshots of selected pages failed; no pixel-review claim is made for this PDF. The read bounds and printed/zero-based page references are recorded below. C023, C027. STJ+1

The official Tema registry also identifies the companion REsp 1.696.396-MT, the thesis, modulation and recorded finality. The companion’s official published summary was read, but its attempted full-PDF route failed. It is not misclassified as a full-body read.

4.2 The majority’s test

Tema 988 characterizes the list as taxatividade mitigada. An unlisted interlocutory decision can be challenged immediately when urgency results from the uselessness of reviewing the question only in the later appeal.

The test is not simply:

• the ruling is inconvenient;
• the party will spend more money;
• the party disagrees with the evidence ruling;
• reversal later would require additional work; or
• the litigation will take longer.

The applicant must identify why later review would fail to provide a useful remedy for the specific question. The tribunal must accept that exceptional predicate; the applicant’s assertion alone does not establish admissibility. C024.

Full judgment, printed pp. 43–44 and 51–54; zero-based indices 42–43 and 50–53. STJ+2

4.3 Application in the representative judgment

The majority treated the competence question as requiring prompt review: adjudication before a potentially incompetent court could make later review of that threshold issue ineffective. The result was not a ruling that the applicant necessarily won the competence dispute. It was an order that the tribunal process the interlocutory appeal if the other admission requirements were met.

C023–C024. Full judgment, printed pp. 57–58; zero-based indices 56–57. STJ

4.4 Temporal modulation

The majority limited the thesis to interlocutory decisions issued after publication of the judgment, December 19, 2018.

That criterion concerns the date of the challenged interlocutory decision—not simply the date the lawsuit began or the later appeal was filed. Historical cases require the actual decision and publication chronology. C025. STJ+1

4.5 Preclusion: preserve the two different branches

Expressly appealable decisions

The majority explains that decisions with content within art. 1.015’s statutory immediate-review categories can become precluded if not challenged through the proper timely route. Article 1.009 §1 is not a universal rescue for an omitted expressly available appeal.

Exceptional unlisted decisions

The majority’s separate explanation for its urgency-based extension is narrower:

• the party may attempt the exceptional immediate appeal;
• the tribunal must positively admit it on the Tema 988 predicate;
• once the question is admitted and decided, it is subject to the corresponding preclusion;
• absent those conditions, the issue remains available for the later art. 1.009 challenge.

This is the majority’s actual discussion, not a statement that every interlocutory objection can safely be postponed. Nor does it make the practical harm of waiting disappear. C026.

Full judgment, printed pp. 51–54; zero-based indices 50–53. STJ+2

4.6 Separate writings

The document contains dissents by Justices Maria Thereza de Assis Moura, João Otávio de Noronha and Og Fernandes, with other listed members joining the dissenting outcome.

The separate writings objected, in substance, that:

• the legislature deliberately restricted immediate interlocutory appeals;
• a judicially created urgency exception could reproduce the broad appeal practice the new Code sought to limit;
• uncertainty about urgency could encourage protective appeals from nearly every ruling; and
• preclusion could become difficult to predict.

Those objections are dissents, not the final rule. They are relevant to understanding why the majority carefully separated the statutory list, exceptional urgency and preclusion. C027.

Selected separate-writing passages: printed pp. 68–69, 79–80 and 95–96; zero-based indices 67–68, 78–79 and 94–95. Final certificate: printed p. 98, zero-based index 97. STJ+3

4.7 Status limitation

The official Tema registry records the thesis and finality on February 22, 2019. Its displayed theme update was February 17, 2023. Accessing that registry in 2026 does not turn its update field into proof of an exhaustive 2026 citator review.

The later judgments below were separately read to test material applications. No blanket “all later cases checked” conclusion is made. C077.

Official registry:

https://processo.stj.jus.br/repetitivos/temas_repetitivos/pesquisa.jsp?novaConsulta=true&num_processo_classe=1696396&sg_classe=REsp&tipo_pesquisa=T Processo STJ

5. Material later judicial applications

5.1 Correcting the case value is not denying legal aid

In REsp 2.186.037-AM, the Third Panel unanimously held that correction of the amount assigned to the case was not automatically covered by art. 1.015(V), which concerns legal aid. The record did not establish Tema 988 urgency; later review remained useful.

• Judgment: March 20, 2025.
• Document signature: March 24, 2025.
• Publication: March 26, 2025.
• Result: Special appeal partly known and, to that extent, denied.

The distinction matters: increased costs alone do not turn a valuation ruling into an aid-denial order. The judgment’s discussion of later remedies is not a promise of an actual refund. C028.

https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=26/03/2025&num_registro=202401922245 STJ+1

5.2 Evidence inside a disregard incident is not automatically art. 1.015(IV)

In REsp 2.182.040-SP, the Third Panel distinguished a ruling permitting expert evidence inside an incident of disregard of legal personality from a ruling deciding the incident itself. The court did not treat every evidentiary direction within the incident as automatically appealable under item IV, and no sufficient Tema 988 urgency was established.

• Judgment: June 10, 2025.
• Acórdão signature: June 11, 2025.
• Publication: June 16, 2025.
• Result: Appeal denied.

The incident’s own cognitive character and the precise challenged act mattered. It would be unsafe to infer that any reference to an execution proceeding in the surrounding litigation automatically removes that classification problem. C029.

https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=16/06/2025&num_registro=202404368455 STJ+1

5.3 An evidentiary ruling does not establish urgency by its label

In REsp 2.242.573-RS, the Fourth Panel examined an accounting-expertise issue in a PASEP dispute. The lower court had deferred the expertise to a later quantification stage if liability were established. The STJ did not find a basis to overturn the conclusion that immediate review was unnecessary; the factual-review restrictions were also material.

• Session: March 10–16, 2026.
• Acórdão: March 17, 2026.
• Publication: March 19, 2026.
• Result: Special appeal partly known and denied in the known part; unanimous.

This does not establish that every evidence refusal is unappealable, or that every party must wait until liquidation. The actual evidentiary ruling, procedural stage and loss of useful review must be demonstrated. C030.

https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?num_registro=202504167899 STJ

5.4 Later authority is not a new repetitive thesis

These panel decisions apply the existing framework to particular procedural records. They do not replace Tema 988 with a universal rule that all case-value, evidence or disregard-incident questions are either appealable or unappealable.

No substantive consumer, PASEP, corporate-liability or debt-merits conclusion is imported.

6. Actor, tribunal, petition and record

6.1 Standing and adverse interest

CPC art. 996 permits an appeal by:

• the unsuccessful party;
• a prejudiced third party; or
• the Ministério Público in the legally relevant role.

A third party must demonstrate the possibility that the decision affects a right the third party claims or is authorized to litigate as substitute. Article 17 separately requires interest and standing. Mere dissatisfaction or business involvement is not enough. C031.

Procedural capacity, assistance and representation are governed by arts. 70–76 and 103–105. Article 76 provides a correction mechanism for qualifying representation defects; failure to comply can lead to non-admission of the appellant’s appeal. No actual mandate or professional status is examined. C032.

Primary URL: CPC compiled body, arts. 17, 70–76, 103–105 and 996. Planalto+3

6.2 Directly to the competent tribunal

Article 1.016 directs the agravo de instrumento to the competent tribunal. The actual reviewing court and its jurisdiction, distribution, internal chamber and filing system depend on the originating proceeding.

This differs from an apelação lodged at origin. Article 1.017 §2 nevertheless recognizes several lawful filing channels, discussed below. C033. Planalto

6.3 Petition contents

Article 1.016 requires:

1. the parties’ names;
2. the facts and legal basis;
3. reasons for reforming or invalidating the challenged ruling and the requested result; and
4. the names and complete addresses of the lawyers appearing in the case.

The petition must identify the challenged decision and explain both the proper immediate-review route and the alleged error. An urgency narrative that establishes appealability does not, by itself, prove the merits. C034. Planalto

6.4 Required instrument in the non-electronic branch

Article 1.017(I) lists copies of:

• the initial petition;
• the contestation;
• the motion that generated the challenged ruling;
• the challenged ruling;
• its notification certificate or another official document proving timeliness; and
• powers of attorney given to the appellant’s and respondent’s lawyers.

If one of those documents does not exist, counsel provides the art. 1.017(II) declaration under personal responsibility. Other useful documents may be added.

A declaration of nonexistence is not a substitute for a document that exists but was inconvenient to obtain. C035–C036. Planalto

6.5 Authenticity and preservation

CPC art. 425(IV) recognizes copies of judicial-record pieces declared authentic by the lawyer under personal responsibility, if authenticity is not challenged. Article 425(VI) addresses digital reproductions subject to a reasoned allegation of adulteration. The linked preservation rules require retention of originals for the applicable period.

These provisions do not certify a particular copy, signature or electronic account. C037.

Primary URL: CPC compiled body, art. 425(IV), (VI) and §1. Planalto

6.6 Electronic origin records

If the underlying proceeding’s records are electronic, art. 1.017 §5 dispenses with the mandatory pieces and nonexistence declarations in items I and II. The appellant may attach documents useful to understanding the dispute.

The condition is not satisfied merely because the appeal itself is filed electronically. The origin record’s format and accessibility matter. C038. Planalto

6.7 Filing channels

Within the appeal period, art. 1.017 §2 recognizes:

• direct filing at the competent tribunal;
• filing in the originating comarca, judicial section or subsection;
• registered post with acknowledgment;
• fax-type transmission under the governing law; and
• another legally provided method.

For fax or similar transmission, §4 requires the accompanying pieces when the original petition is filed. These provisions are not a guarantee that a court with mandatory electronic filing will accept every physical channel without its applicable rules. C039. Planalto

6.8 Missing pieces and other curable defects

Article 1.017 §3 requires application of art. 932’s sole paragraph when a required copy is missing or another curable defect compromises admissibility. The appellant must receive five days to correct the defect or supplement required documentation.

This does not automatically cure:

• an actually late appeal;
• absence of a proper appeal route;
• every substantive failure to challenge the ruling; or
• the separately regulated failure to perform art. 1.018’s origin-notification act.

C040. Planalto+1

7. Notification to the originating court: art. 1.018

7.1 Paper origin records

For non-electronic origin records, the appellant must, within three procedural days from filing the agravo, place in the originating record:

• a copy of the appeal petition;
• proof that the appeal was filed; and
• the list of documents forming the instrument.

This is a separate period from the ordinary appeal deadline. C041. Planalto

7.2 Consequence requires respondent allegation and proof

Article 1.018 §3 ties inadmissibility to the respondent asserting and proving the failure. It is not phrased as an unrestricted ex officio dismissal ground.

In REsp 1.749.958-RS, the Third Panel applied the paper-origin requirement even though the appeal itself was electronic and rejected importing the art. 1.017 §3 documentary-cure rule to this distinct statutory act.

• Judgment: September 18, 2018.
• Publication: September 21, 2018.
• Unanimous; dismissal maintained on the record examined.

C042.

https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=21/09/2018&num_registro=201800907539 STJ

7.3 Later prejudice and proof qualification

In REsp 1.758.943-SP, the Third Panel reversed an inadmissibility result where the respondent’s proof and the demonstrated procedural prejudice did not justify that result in the record before it. The judgment emphasized the purpose of the communication and the respondent’s actual ability to defend.

• Judgment: June 23, 2020.
• Publication: June 26, 2020.
• Unanimous.

This is not permission to ignore the three-day duty. It means the statutory allegation/proof conditions and the actual procedural effect must be examined rather than mechanically treating every accusation of noncompliance as established.

C043.

https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=26/06/2020&num_registro=201800452722 STJ

7.4 Retraction and information from the originating judge

If the originating judge communicates that the challenged ruling has been entirely reformed, art. 1.018 §1 directs the relator to treat the appeal as prejudicado—without a remaining object.

Partial reform does not automatically establish complete mootness. The remaining challenged issues must be identified.

The current arts. 1.018–1.020 do not supply a separate universal “judge must report within X days” rule. Additional information or evidence may be obtained through the relator’s applicable direction and diligence powers; the actual order controls.

C044, C070–C071. Planalto+2

8. Deadlines and notification boundaries

8.1 Ordinary appeal period

The ordinary filing period is 15 business days, combining art. 1.003 §5 with art. 219. The trigger is the legally effective intimation of the relevant lawyer, law firm, public advocacy, Defensoria or Ministério Público, subject to the applicable statutory branch.

A judge’s signature date, an informal email or the date a client first hears about the ruling is not automatically the legal trigger. C045–C046. Planalto+1

8.2 Electronic journal sequence

Lei 11.419 art. 4 distinguishes:

1. availability in the electronic journal;
2. deemed publication on the following business day; and
3. counting beginning on the next business day after publication.

Personal portal notifications and current national/local electronic channels may have different rules. Those channel rules are not supplied from unreviewed P18.

C046.

https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2006/lei/l11419.htm, art. 4 §§2–4. Planalto

8.3 Calendar, suspension and just cause

CPC arts. 216 and 219–224 distinguish business days, court holidays, exclusion of the starting day, inclusion of the endpoint, the December 20–January 20 suspension, qualifying obstruction and proved just cause.

A remaining period preserved by suspension is not necessarily a new full period. The specific art. 1.004 death/force-majeure restoration rule must not be generalized to every missed filing. C047. Planalto+3

8.4 Multiple parties and institutions

Article 229 can double periods for qualifying co-parties with different lawyers from different law offices, but:

• its statutory cessation qualification must be considered; and
• the doubling does not apply to electronic proceedings.

The Ministério Público, listed public-law entities and Defensoria have separate statutory period and personal-notification rules, subject to express special periods. Public ownership of a company or private legal assistance does not automatically establish the relevant status.

C048–C049. Planalto+2

8.5 Local-holiday proof

Under current art. 1.003 §6, the appellant should prove a local holiday at filing. If the document is omitted, the tribunal must order correction, or may disregard the omission if the information is already in the electronic record.

No holiday was verified in this report. The rule does not create a nonexistent holiday or guarantee that an actually late appeal becomes timely. C050. Planalto

8.6 Electronic filing time and unavailability

Lei 11.419 arts. 3 and 10 recognize transmission through the court’s system and the final-day 24:00 rule. CPC art. 213 requires the legally relevant court timezone. Official judicial-system unavailability has its statutory treatment.

A user’s own device or internet problem is not automatically an official system outage. The actual filing channel, timestamp, court timezone, outage certificate and local implementation remain held. C051. Planalto+1

9. Preparation, legal aid and cure

9.1 Ordinary preparation

Articles 1.017 §1 and 1.007 require proof of the applicable costs and return transport charges when due, according to the tribunal’s published schedule.

No fee amount or percentage is established here. Electronic records dispense with remittance/return transport charges under art. 1.007 §3, not with every possible court fee. Statutory public-actor and other legal exemptions must be classified precisely. C052–C053. Planalto+1

9.2 Distinct correction branches

C054–C058.

Primary URL: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105compilada.htm, art. 1.007 §§2, 4–7. Planalto

9.3 Aid requested on appeal versus review of an aid denial

Under art. 99 §7, a party requesting legal aid in the appeal does not initially have to prove preparation. The relator decides the request and, if refusing it, fixes a payment period. That subsection does not itself prescribe a universal five-day period.

Under art. 101:

• denial of aid or acceptance of revocation is challenged by agravo de instrumento, unless the issue is decided in a sentence;
• while that preliminary issue is unresolved, the appellant is exempt from the costs described there;
• if the refusal or revocation is confirmed, §2 requires payment within five days, subject to its non-admission consequence.

These are different procedural branches. C059–C060. Planalto+1

The natural-person insufficiency presumption and a legal person’s evidentiary burden are not interchangeable. No actual resources, fee waiver or legal-aid order is assessed.

10. Tribunal processing, response and interim relief

10.1 Relator’s initial actions

After immediate distribution, and unless the preliminary art. 932(III)–(IV) route applies, art. 1.019 provides a five-day period for the relator to take the specified initial steps.

That is an institutional processing direction, not an appellant’s additional filing period or an automatic grant if the court takes longer. C063. Planalto

10.2 Respondent’s response

Under art. 1.019(II), the respondent is notified:

• personally by registered letter with acknowledgment if not represented by counsel; or
• through the official journal or registered letter directed to counsel.

The respondent has 15 days to respond and may attach documents considered necessary. This does not authorize the researcher to infer actual receipt or compute a live deadline. C061.

The response is not an adhesive agravo de instrumento: art. 997 §2(II) does not list this remedy among the appeals admitting adhesion. An independently adverse ruling requires its own appropriate timely challenge. C073. Planalto+1

10.3 Ministério Público

Where intervention is legally required, art. 1.019(III) directs notification, preferably electronically, for a 15-day manifestation.

This express period must be read with art. 180 §2, which excludes automatic doubling where the law expressly gives the Ministério Público its own period. Ordinary private money litigation does not automatically require MP intervention. C062. Planalto+1

10.4 One-month scheduling direction

Article 1.020 directs the relator to request a hearing date within one month from the respondent’s notification.

“One month” is not “30 business days,” and this provision is not a guarantee that the appeal will be finally decided within a month. No actual month-end calculation or court-agenda prediction is made. C064. Planalto

10.5 Submission alone is not suspension

Article 995 supplies the general rule that appeals do not prevent the decision from taking effect unless law or a judicial decision provides otherwise.

Under art. 1.019(I), the relator may:

• suspend the challenged decision; or
• grant all or part of the affirmative provisional relief sought on appeal,

communicating the decision to the originating judge.

C065, C069. Planalto+1

Three different inquiries

The same facts may be relevant to more than one test, but satisfying one is not automatic satisfaction of the others. C024, C066–C068. STJ+2

Article 300 permits appropriate real or personal security where necessary, with the stated economic-insufficiency qualification. Anticipatory relief faces the statutory irreversibility limitation. No deposit, bond or security amount is invented.

10.6 Reasons, participation and evidence

The relator’s admissibility and merits powers are governed by art. 932, including the current qualified-precedent wording. Articles 9–11, 489, 933 and 938 preserve reasons, relevant opportunities to be heard and correction/evidence procedures.

Urgent interim relief may be considered before an opposing response under the applicable statutory exception, but that does not eliminate the later adversarial process.

Article 937(VIII) expressly provides oral argument for the specified provisional-relief agravo category; other oral-argument possibilities depend on law and court rules. It is not a universal oral-argument entitlement for every interlocutory appeal. C069–C071. Planalto+2

10.7 Agravo interno is a different remedy

Article 1.021 addresses a relator’s decision within the tribunal, with review by the competent collegiate body and specific attack on the challenged grounds.

That is different from the art. 1.015 appeal against a qualifying first-instance interlocutory decision. Its complete processing and sanction rules are not rerun here. No internal-appeal sanction is treated as an automatic charge for filing an agravo de instrumento. C072. Planalto

11. Sixteen fictional workflows

All actors, proceedings, amounts and documents below are invented. No actual filing, deadline, liability or appellate result is determined.

Workflow count: 16.

12. Three conditional computations

No actual calendar, fee schedule, court order or electronic certificate was checked.

T01 — Ordinary fifteen-business-day appeal

Stipulations: A valid intimation occurs on Monday, March 2, 2026. The ordinary 15-business-day period applies; there is no doubled period, recess, interruption, holiday or closure.

• Day 0, excluded: March 2.
• March 3–6: days 1–4.
• March 9–13: days 5–9.
• March 16–20: days 10–14.
• March 23: day 15.

Conditional endpoint = Monday, March 23, 2026

If March 6 were an applicable court closure, with every other assumption unchanged:

Conditional endpoint = Tuesday, March 24, 2026

This does not determine the correct notification channel or actual final filing instant. C074.

Source: CPC arts. 219, 224 and 1.003 §5, full CPC URL above. Planalto+1

T02 — Three-day paper-origin notification

Stipulations: The agravo is filed on Friday, March 6, 2026; the origin record is not electronic; no holiday or closure intervenes.

• Day 0: March 6.
• Monday, March 9: day 1.
• Tuesday, March 10: day 2.
• Wednesday, March 11: day 3.

Conditional art. 1.018 §2 endpoint = Wednesday, March 11, 2026

If March 10 is an applicable closure:

Conditional endpoint = Thursday, March 12, 2026

This period starts from filing the appeal, not from the original decision’s intimation. It is separate from the 15-day appeal period. C075. Planalto

T03 — Five-day documentary correction

Stipulations: A valid relator’s notice under arts. 1.017 §3 and 932 sole paragraph is received on Monday, March 9, 2026. It concerns a genuinely curable missing document; no special period or closure applies.

• Day 0: March 9.
• March 10: day 1.
• March 11: day 2.
• March 12: day 3.
• March 13: day 4.
• March 16: day 5.

Conditional correction endpoint = Monday, March 16, 2026

If March 13 is an applicable closure:

Conditional endpoint = Tuesday, March 17, 2026

This does not establish that an omitted art. 1.018 act, an actually late appeal or a wrong remedy becomes curable. C076. Planalto+1

No monetary example is forced: actual preparation requires the competent tribunal’s fee schedule, which was not read.

13. Exact P01 D15 crosswalk

Preserved literal record

Coordinator status remains explicit_deferred_hold_preserved.

PASS-22 narrow dispositions

Crosswalk count: nine logical items and nine physical data rows—one preserved record plus eight dispositions.

14. Source register

Access metadata for every row: October 27, 2026 in Pacific time and UTC. Exact source-opening clocks unknown.

“Full judgment” describes the official document obtained. It does not imply independent review of every quoted authority or every unrelated passage.

Source-register count: 17 rows: five statutory bodies; six published full-judgment documents, including Tema 988; three official registry/overview/summary records; and three failed routes.

15. Atomic claim/evidence register

All IDs below are C_BR-P22-Cxxx. Source references identify the complete literal URLs in the register. A097 concerns actors/capacity; A098 concerns procedure, review, timing, effects and limits.

Atomic claim count: 80.

16. Granular core coverage

Core-coverage count: 100.

17. Separately deferred families

Deferred-family count: 28.

18. All 27 inherited states and Distrito Federal

The names are inherited from the preserved P01 inventory. No geography API or fresh territorial certification was used. Published STJ judgments from state-origin disputes do not establish those states’ current local rules.

Territorial count: 27; no state or DF branch is cleared.

19. Evidence-backed article, checklist and conditional-tool opportunities

No website, court filing, operational tool or publication was created.

20. Reconciliation and researcher self-check

Exact unresolved inputs for an actual application

The complete challenged decision and procedural stage; the proposed statutory or Tema988 route; the specific loss of useful later review; the party’s interest and mandate; the lawful notification certificate; court calendar and filing rules; origin-record format and access; mandatory pieces or truthful nonexistence declarations; preparation or legal-aid documents; origin-notification proof; respondent objections; any retraction; the requested interim relief and its evidence; and the competent tribunal’s current rules and later controlling treatment.

Final disposition: PASS-22 establishes the bounded federal gateway for ordinary agravo de instrumento: statutory categories, Tema988’s majority urgency test and limits, filing and record requirements, paper-origin notification, periods, costs, response, relator processing and provisional relief. It does not establish that any actual ruling is immediately appealable, any filing is timely or admissible, any stay should issue, any debt is discharged, or any provider, locality, component or Brazil-wide operating model is accepted.

END C_BR PASS-22