SettleADebt C_BR PASS-23 — Brazil
Ordinary civil agravo interno against a relator’s monocratic decision
Reviewed component: The relator-to-collegiate internal-review portion of P01 D15 only.
Fresh research date: October 27, 2026, in both America/Los_Angeles and UTC.
Exact source-opening clocks: Unknown. Judgment, signature, publication and review-completion dates are not source-opening timestamps.
Assumed setting: An ordinary civil consumer-money dispute governed by the CPC. No actual litigant, debt, decision, notification, court account, professional registration or private proceeding was examined.
P18–P22 and the other identified unreviewed reports supply no substantive premise. The user-supplied P01 review metadata is preserved as a scope boundary; the coordinator’s local review file was not opened or modified.
Principal determination
An ordinary agravo interno challenges a monocratic tribunal decision, ordinarily by the relator, before the corresponding collegiate body. It requires a timely, specific challenge to the decision’s actual grounds. An informal reconsideration request is not a safe substitute and does not suspend or interrupt the appeal period. Filing the appeal does not itself suspend the decision or discharge a debt.
A fine under art. 1.021 §4 is not the automatic price of losing unanimously. It requires the statutory manifest-inadmissibility or manifest-unfoundedness finding, unanimity and a reasoned collegiate decision. The fine is 1%–5% of the updated value of the case, payable to the opposing party. Once imposed, §5 creates a distinct prerequisite for a subsequent appeal, subject to the Fazenda Pública and legal-aid exceptions. C_BR-P23-C006–C011, C019, C050–C063. Planalto+2
Material source limitations
The full published Tema 1306 judgment was read. Its current official registry was also checked.
For Tema 1201, the official thesis, republished ementa, unanimous disposition and registry were read, but the attempted full-judgment routes failed. Consequently, this report does not claim a full-vote, separate-writing or complete temporal-treatment examination of Tema 1201. Its verified thesis is reported with that explicit limit.
An additional full-body gap remains for the Corte Especial’s 2025 decision concerning advance deposit when the subsequent appeal attacks the fine itself. That decision was encountered as a quotation in a read 2026 judgment; its original full body and official alternate were inaccessible. The deposit discussion below distinguishes statutory text, directly read holdings and quoted authority.
1. Current statutory framework
1.1 Principal CPC body
The current compiled Civil Procedure Code was read at:
https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105compilada.htm
The controlling provision is art. 1.021, read with the necessary actor, representation, relator-power, notice, counting, preparation, hearing and provisional-relief provisions.
Article 1.045 states a one-year period after official publication; the footer identifies DOU publication on March 17, 2015. Article 14 preserves completed procedural acts and established procedural situations. No exact original effective date or actual historical-proceeding transition is calculated. C001. Planalto
1.2 Material amendment and commencement crosswalk
| Instrument |
Material provision |
Status at access and limit |
| Lei 14.939/2024 |
CPC art. 1.003 §6, local-holiday proof |
Effective on publication, DOU July 31, 2024. Missing proof can be corrected, or disregarded if already in the electronic record. This does not create a holiday or cure actual lateness. |
| Lei 15.484/2026 |
Relevant CPC arts. 927, 932, 1.030 and 1.042 changes |
DOU extra August 4, 2026; 30-day vacatio. Operative by access. Read only for the current precedent-based and higher-admission boundaries; full special-appeal relevance procedure remains deferred. |
| Lei 15.479/2026 |
Separate CPC amendments and commencement |
DOU July 30, 2026; one-year delayed commencement. Enacted-future at access, not applied as current internal-appeal law. |
| Lei 11.419/2006 |
Electronic filing/publication and system-unavailability rules |
Operative body read. Article 22 provides 90 days after publication; footer identifies DOU December 20, 2006. Current CNJ and local implementation are not fully reviewed here. |
| Lei 14.365/2022 |
Added the material oral-argument provision in OAB Statute art. 7 §2-B |
Relevant amendment effective on publication, DOU June 3, 2022. Does not establish oral argument for every internal appeal. |
C002–C005.
Full official URLs:
These are selected amendment checks, not a certificate that every potentially applicable later enactment or regimental provision has been exhausted. Planalto+4
2. The correct decision, actor and tribunal
2.1 Proper target
Article 1.021 addresses a decision made by the relator and provides review by the corresponding collegiate body, with processing under the tribunal’s internal rules.
The following must remain separate:
| Act being challenged |
Ordinary classification |
| Relator’s monocratic tribunal decision |
Candidate for art. 1.021 agravo interno, subject to standing, timeliness and other requirements. |
| First-instance interlocutory decision |
Not converted into an internal appeal merely because it is adverse; another remedy may apply. |
| First-instance sentence |
Not ordinarily challenged by art. 1.021. |
| Collegiate acórdão |
Not the proper target of another agravo interno. |
| Clerk’s certificate or genuine non-decisional despacho |
Not made appealable by dissatisfaction alone. |
| President/vice-president higher-appeal admission decision |
The precise statutory ground determines whether the internal route or art. 1.042 route applies. |
C006–C008. CPC arts. 203–204, 994, 1.001, 1.021, 1.030 §§1–2 and 1.042. Planalto+2
Primary URL:
https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105compilada.htm
The published June 2026 judgment in AgInt no AgInt no AREsp 3.064.654-RS held an internal appeal against a collegiate decision inadmissible. A party cannot obtain another internal round merely by relabeling the collegiate result as a relator’s act. STJ
2.2 Higher-admission boundary
CPC art. 1.030 §2 directs the incisos I and III branches to agravo interno. Section 1 directs the specified inciso V inadmissibility branch to the higher-court agravo under art. 1.042.
A mixed decision may contain differently grounded chapters. It must be read rather than assigned a remedy from its title alone. This report does not supply a complete special/extraordinary-appeal dossier. C008. Planalto+1
2.3 Standing and adverse interest
Article 996 permits an appeal by the unsuccessful party, a prejudiced third party, or the Ministério Público in its relevant capacity. A third party must demonstrate the possible effect on a right it claims or may litigate as procedural substitute. Article 17 requires interest and standing.
The requested collegiate decision must offer a legally useful change to an adverse result. A general interest in the dispute or disagreement with language does not by itself establish standing. C009.
No actual party, third party or institutional role was classified. Planalto
2.4 Capacity and representation
Procedural capacity and representation follow CPC arts. 70–76 and 103–105. Ordinary representation is through a legally qualified lawyer, subject to the statute’s self-representation and urgent-act qualifications.
Article 76 permits correction of qualifying incapacity or representation defects. At appellate level, failure to obey the correction order can cause non-admission of the appellant’s appeal or removal of the respondent’s response.
This is not a provider-permission clearance, and no actual mandate, corporate authority or professional registration was checked. C010. Planalto+1
2.5 Filing and deciding body
The petition is directed to the relator. If there is no retraction after the statutory response process, the relator brings the appeal to the corresponding collegiate body with inclusion on the agenda.
The exact chamber, panel, section, electronic filing category and internal routing remain regimental/local questions. No uniform chamber name or nationwide filing form is invented. C011. Planalto
3. The relator’s powers and the specific-challenge requirement
3.1 Article 932 is not unrestricted power to decide every appeal alone
The necessary art. 932 branches include:
| Provision |
Material power or condition |
| I–II |
Direct the proceeding and decide provisional-relief matters. |
| III |
Do not hear an inadmissible or moot appeal, or one that fails specifically to challenge the relevant grounds. |
| IV |
Deny an appeal contrary to the specified súmula or qualified-precedent categories. |
| V |
After allowing response, grant an appeal where the challenged ruling conflicts with the specified categories. |
| VII–VIII |
Require MP participation where appropriate and exercise other regimental powers. |
| Sole paragraph |
Before non-admission for a curable defect, allow five days to correct it or supplement required documents. |
The current precedent categories include the material 2026 amendments. Applicability, ratio and factual fit still have to be explained; citing an unrelated case is not sufficient. C012–C015. Planalto+1
Primary URL: CPC compiled body, art. 932.
3.2 What the internal appeal must attack
Article 1.021 §1 requires specific challenge to the grounds of the monocratic decision. A useful structure is:
challenged chapter → actual decisive ground → claimed error → requested collegiate result.
This is not a filing-ready form. Merely restating the original controversy while ignoring the relator’s actual reason for rejecting it can fail the requirement. C016. Planalto
3.3 Independent chapters are not identical to multiple grounds sustaining one chapter
Two distinctions are necessary:
- Autonomous chapters: Article 1.002 allows a decision to be challenged in whole or in part. In the read 2024 judgment, the STJ accepted that failure to challenge a separate autonomous chapter precluded that chapter rather than automatically invalidating the entire internal appeal.
- A challenged chapter with independently sufficient grounds: The appellant must confront the grounds that independently sustain the adverse result being challenged. Leaving an operative reason untouched can make the challenge ineffective.
The 2024 judgment applies and quotes EREsp 1.424.404-SP. The latter’s official published summary was read, but its original full-judgment fetch failed. The 2024 application was read as a full published judgment. C017–C018. STJ+1
Full read application:
https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=19/06/2024&num_registro=202303110944
A later full judgment, AgInt no AREsp 2.444.435-RS, refused an internal appeal that did not specifically confront the relator’s grounds. It does not erase the autonomous-chapter distinction. STJ
3.4 Cure has limits
Article 932’s five-day cure mechanism addresses a curable defect or missing required documentation. It does not automatically:
- make a late appeal timely;
- turn a collegiate judgment into a monocratic one;
- create standing;
- or permit an appellant to write all missing substantive reasons after the appeal period.
An actual representation defect has art. 76’s own correction framework. The court order and the nature of the defect must be identified. C015, C018. Planalto+1
3.5 Informal reconsideration does not stop the appeal clock
In AgInt no AREsp 3.207.915-MG, published October 1, 2026, the Fourth Panel unanimously reaffirmed that a reconsideration request does not suspend or interrupt the appeal period.
The June 2026 judgment in AgInt no AREsp 3.134.766-SP likewise rejected treating a decision merely reiterating an earlier refusal as a new opportunity to challenge the old result where no genuinely new fact existed.
These are not universal findings that any informal awareness replaces lawful notification. Their actual procedural chronologies mattered. C019. STJ+1
Full URLs:
3.6 Conversion and fungibility are not automatic
CPC art. 1.024 §3 expressly permits treating embargos de declaração as agravo interno where that is the proper remedy, after prior notice allowing five days to adapt the reasons to art. 1.021 §1.
That is a specified statutory conversion—not a general promise that any reconsideration request or wrong appeal will be converted. The read September 2026 judgment concerning a non-decisional cost certificate rejected a conversion theory in its gross-error setting. C020–C021. Planalto+1
4. Filing period, notice and response
4.1 Ordinary period
The ordinary civil internal-appeal period is 15 business days:
- art. 1.003 §5 provides the ordinary appeal period;
- art. 1.070 specifically provides 15 days for an agravo, statutory or regimental, against a relator’s or other unipersonal tribunal decision;
- art. 219 supplies business-day computation for procedural periods expressed in days.
A criminal or other special-regime period must not be imported from the label agravo regimental. C022. Planalto+1
4.2 Correct notification event
Article 1.003 ordinarily measures from intimation of the legally relevant counsel, law firm or public institution. A decision pronounced in a hearing has the specified deemed-intimation rule.
The judge’s signature date, an informational email, or a client’s recollection is not automatically the legal start event. Article 272’s designated-counsel and notification-defect provisions require the actual request, publication and record. C023–C024. Planalto+1
4.3 Electronic publication and current-channel hold
Under Lei 11.419 art. 4 and CPC art. 224:
- availability in the journal;
- deemed publication on the following business day; and
- counting beginning on the next business day after publication
are distinct events.
A personal portal notification may use a different legally applicable trigger. Current CNJ/DJEN/Domicílio allocation and local implementation were not fully read in this pass; P18’s unreviewed results are not used to fill the gap. C025.
https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2006/lei/l11419.htm, arts. 4–5. Planalto+1
4.4 Calendar, suspension and impediment
CPC arts. 216 and 219–224 address court holidays, business days, exclusion of the starting day, inclusion of the endpoint, December 20–January 20 suspension, qualifying obstruction and proven justa causa.
Article 1.004 separately restores the appeal period for its death or force-majeure predicates after intimation. A suspended unused balance and a restored full period are not interchangeable calculations. C026–C027. Planalto+2
4.5 Co-parties and public institutions
Article 229’s doubling requires different lawyers from different law offices, subject to its cessation rule. It does not apply in electronic proceedings.
The Ministério Público, public-law entities and Defensoria have separate statutory period and personal-notification provisions, with express-special-period exceptions. A publicly owned company or private litigant with assistance is not automatically within every institutional category. C028–C029. Planalto+1
4.6 Holiday proof and electronic filing
Current art. 1.003 §6 provides correction of missing local-holiday proof or possible disregard of the omission where the information already appears in the electronic record.
Electronic filing, the court’s relevant timezone and official system unavailability are governed by CPC art. 213 and Lei 11.419 arts. 3 and 10. Personal internet or device failure is not automatically court-system unavailability.
No calendar, outage or final filing instant was verified. C030–C031. Planalto+1
4.7 Respondent’s period
Under art. 1.021 §2, the relator notifies the respondent to respond within 15 days, ordinarily business days. Response is an opportunity, not a condition requiring the opponent actually to file.
There is no adhesive agravo interno under art. 997 §2(II)’s listed categories. An opponent seeking affirmative change of a separately adverse chapter needs the proper independent route rather than assuming that the response supplies it. C039. Planalto+1
5. Judicial reconsideration, collegiate process and oral argument
5.1 Retraction inside the appeal
The relator can retract the monocratic decision. If there is no retraction after the response stage, art. 1.021 §2 directs collegiate judgment with inclusion on the agenda.
This statutory retraction opportunity is different from an informal reconsideration request outside the timely appeal. Article 1.021 does not provide a universal deadline within which the collegiate body must finally decide the appeal. C040. Planalto
5.2 Agenda and decision
Articles 934–935 require agenda publication and the statutory minimum interval—at least five days—between publication and the hearing, with the specified rule for postponed cases. Ordinary procedural-day counting must be applied with the actual calendar.
Virtual-session objections, submission of memoranda, recording of votes, urgent-calendar treatment and the exact competent panel depend on current regimental and implementation rules. Those local instruments were not uniformly read. C041, C044. Planalto
Article 932 remains relevant to a manifestly inadmissible filing. The ordinary art. 1.021 pathway should not be turned into a guarantee that even a plainly late or non-appealable filing must receive a merits vote. Conversely, generic disagreement with an appeal is not authority for a relator to replace the collegiate merits review required by law. C042.
5.3 Oral argument: not a universal yes or no
CPC art. 937 §3 permits oral argument in an internal appeal against a relator’s decision terminating the specified original-jurisdiction proceedings. Article 937(IX) also recognizes other statutory or regimental cases.
The current OAB Statute, art. 7 §2-B, added by Lei 14.365/2022, separately permits oral argument in a challenge to a monocratic merits/non-admission decision in the listed proceedings:
- apelação;
- recurso ordinário;
- special and extraordinary appeals;
- divergence appeals; and
- the listed and other original-jurisdiction actions.
That does not establish oral argument in every internal challenge to every interim tribunal order. The actual underlying proceeding and current court rules must be checked. C043. Planalto+1
Full URLs:
https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l8906.htm, art. 7 §2-B.
https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2022/lei/l14365.htm, arts. 2 and 5.
6. Reusing the monocratic reasons: art. 1.021 §3 and Tema 1306
6.1 Statutory starting point
Article 1.021 §3 forbids the relator merely reproducing the challenged decision’s reasons to deny the internal appeal. Article 489 §1(IV) requires engagement with arguments capable, in principle, of defeating the conclusion.
The question is therefore not whether any words were repeated. It is whether the collegiate decision meaningfully addresses the material challenge before it. C045. Planalto+1
6.2 Full repetitive judgment actually read
The full published judgment in REsp 2.148.059-MA, Tema 1306, was read:
https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=05/09/2025&num_registro=202401990934
- Court: STJ Corte Especial.
- Judgment: August 20, 2025.
- Publication: September 5, 2025.
- Disposition: Unanimous, according to the final certificate.
- Document: 34-page official judgment; selected reasons, operative theses, application and certificate examined.
The two material theses are:
- Reasoning by reference is permissible if the deciding body addresses, even succinctly, the new relevant issues; it need not answer every allegation or piece of evidence individually.
- In an internal appeal, reproduction of the earlier reasons is permissible where the party brings no new relevant argument requiring collegiate analysis.
C046–C047. STJ+1
“New” does not authorize a new claim or factual theory that procedure otherwise excludes. Nor is it a mechanical excuse for ignoring a material argument already raised but never addressed. The actual case demonstrates that limit: the court had repeatedly failed to engage with material objections and relied on generic reference-based reasoning.
6.3 Actual result and sanction distinction
The STJ quashed the challenged acórdão, ordered renewed consideration of the clarification applications and removed a fine imposed under art. 1.026 §2.
That fine was an embargos de declaração fine, not the art. 1.021 §4 internal-appeal fine. The removal of that sanction cannot be silently imported as a ruling on every internal-appeal penalty. C048. STJ
6.4 Subsequent-record limit
The official Tema 1306 registry records later clarification activity and finality on February 4, 2026. The later clarification judgment body was not independently read here. No separate temporal modulation was established from the operative passages read, and no exhaustive later-citator conclusion is claimed. C049.
Official registry:
https://processo.stj.jus.br/repetitivos/temas_repetitivos/pesquisa.jsp?cod_tema_final=1306&cod_tema_inicial=1306&novaConsulta=true&tipo_pesquisa=T. Processo STJ
7. Costs, legal aid and provisional relief
7.1 Preparo is not the §4 fine
Article 1.007 requires preparation when the applicable legislation requires it. Article 1.021 itself does not establish a universal national filing fee or universal fee exemption for all tribunals.
The competent tribunal’s legislation, current fee schedule and internal rules are necessary before stating whether preparation is due. No amount is invented.
Where preparation is legally due, the relevant general branches remain:
| Situation |
Statutory treatment |
| Insufficient preparation |
Notification through counsel and five days to supplement under §2. |
| No proof at filing |
Notification for payment in double under §4; that paragraph itself states no numeric correction period. |
| Insufficient doubled payment |
No further supplementation under §5. |
| Proven just impediment |
Relator may relieve desertion and allow five days under §6. |
| Guide-completion error |
Not automatic desertion; five-day correction where the statutory doubt exists under §7. |
| Electronic records |
Transport/remittance-return charges are dispensed with, not necessarily every preparation component. |
C032–C036.
CPC art. 1.007, full compiled URL above. Planalto
7.2 Legal aid
CPC arts. 98–99 permit aid for qualifying insufficient-resource natural or legal persons. The statutory presumption based solely on an insufficiency allegation belongs to a natural person; legal persons require the appropriate evidentiary showing.
Under art. 99 §7, aid requested in the appeal postpones proof of preparation while the relator decides; refusal leads to a court-fixed payment period. Article 98 §4 states that aid does not remove the duty to pay procedural fines at the end.
A requested but ungranted benefit is not automatically the same as existing beneficiary status under art. 1.021 §5. C037–C038. Planalto+1
7.3 Filing does not automatically stay the decision
CPC art. 995 states the general non-suspensive rule unless a statute or judicial order provides otherwise.
A relator may suspend the decision where immediate effects create risk of grave harm that is difficult or impossible to repair and probability of success is demonstrated. Affirmative urgent relief also requires its own applicable statutory predicates, including art. 300 where relevant, and any security/irreversibility qualification.
An internal appeal seeking review of a denied stay does not itself become a stay. C050–C052.
Primary URL: CPC arts. 300, 932(II) and 995. Planalto+1
8. Fine under art. 1.021 §§4–5
8.1 Cumulative statutory requirements
The §4 sanction requires:
- an internal appeal declared manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded;
- a unanimous vote on the qualifying determination;
- a reasoned collegiate decision;
- a fine fixed between 1% and 5% of the updated value of the case; and
- payment to the respondent—agravado.
Mere defeat, unanimity alone, or a generic statement that the appeal was repetitive does not dispense with the other predicates. C053–C054. Planalto
This is not an automatic filing fee. It can arise from a qualifying first internal appeal; the statute does not require the special repeated-application sequence used by a different sanctions regime.
8.2 Directly read 2026 application: no automatic penalty
In AREsp 2.579.364-PR, the Third Panel unanimously removed an art. 1.021 §4 fine:
- judgment June 1, 2026;
- publication June 9, 2026;
- the challenged internal appeal concerned a monocratic refusal of suspensive relief;
- the STJ found no demonstrated abusive exercise merely from the sequence of unsuccessful remedies.
The decision does not grant immunity to every appeal filed to exhaust remedies. Its actual record lacked the required manifest abuse. C055. STJ+1
Full URL:
https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=09/06/2026&num_registro=202400618306
No family-law merits from that proceeding are adopted.
8.3 Tema 1201: verified thesis, full-body gap
The official registry and republished ementa/disposition identify:
- Corte Especial, judgment August 6, 2025;
- original DJEN publication September 8, 2025;
- republication October 24, 2025;
- unanimous adoption of the thesis in the published disposition;
- revision of Tema 434;
- relief in the representative case removing the fine and remitting an unrelated remaining merits issue to the relevant First Section panel.
The material thesis is:
| Branch |
Verified official proposition |
| Appeal against a decision based on a qualified STJ/STF precedent, even to exhaust ordinary remedies |
Can authorize the fine; exhaustion alone is not categorical immunity. |
| Reasoned distinction or overruling argument concerning the qualified precedent |
The thesis excludes the fine in that stated branch. |
| Challenged decision rests on a second-instance tribunal judgment |
The thesis states the fine is not applicable in that specified precedent-based setting. |
| Other cases within the issue examined |
The collegiate body must examine the case’s peculiarities; no automatic fine. |
The republished ementa also refers to a qualified precedent whose debate has ended in the superior courts and emphasizes the reasoned, nonautomatic assessment.
C056–C059.
Official registry:
https://processo.stj.jus.br/repetitivos/temas_repetitivos/pesquisa.jsp?cod_tema_final=1201&cod_tema_inicial=1201&novaConsulta=true&tipo_pesquisa=T
Official republished ementa and disposition:
https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/jurisprudencia/toc.jsp?O=JT&b=ACOR&livre=202203929638.REG.+E+24/10/2025.FONT. STJ+1
Limits that remain
The full original and republished judgment routes did not yield the judgment body. Therefore:
- the official thesis and unanimous disposition are verified at that source level;
- full reasoning and any separate writings were not independently examined;
- no unexpressed temporal modulation or categorical extension is inferred;
- the second-instance-precedent branch is not expanded into immunity for every unrelated gross procedural defect;
- a purported “distinction” must be reasoned, not merely labeled;
- the original Tema 434 rule is not independently reconstructed from memory.
The registry records different finality fields for the representative appeals; for REsp 2.043.826-SC it records May 19, 2026. That does not certify every companion’s finality or all later applications.
8.4 Advance deposit under §5
Once the §4 fine has been imposed, §5 conditions any other appeal on prior deposit of that fine, except:
- Fazenda Pública; and
- a beneficiary of gratuidade da justiça,
who pay at the end.
These are payment-timing exceptions, not immunity from the fine. Public ownership of a company is not, without classification, proof that it is Fazenda Pública. C060–C061. Planalto+1
The June 2026 judgment in AgInt no AgInt no AREsp 3.064.654-RS applied the deposit barrier where a prior art. 1.021 §4 fine remained unpaid, alongside the separate defect that the new internal appeal attacked a collegiate judgment.
That case supports the stated statutory barrier; it does not authorize treating every unsuccessful internal appeal as fined. STJ
8.5 A subsequent appeal challenging only the fine
This branch requires particular care:
- The June 2026 no-automatic-fine judgment quotes an older Second Section formulation exempting a challenge directed exclusively at the fine.
- The May 2026 judgment in AgInt no REsp 2.223.150-PB, in its actual vote, rejects such an automatic exemption and quotes EAREsp 1.938.395-DF, Corte Especial, September 9, 2025, published September 12, 2025, treating prior payment as required even where the fine itself is challenged.
- The latter full Corte Especial body and a distinct official alternate failed. Its rule is therefore reported as quoted authority, not as an independently read full judgment.
- The May 2026 document’s ementa refers to art. 1.026, while its report and vote expressly discuss art. 1.021 §§4–5. That internal citation inconsistency is preserved rather than silently repaired.
C062. STJ+1
Accordingly, this report does not promise that saying “my next appeal challenges only the fine” excuses payment. The exact sanction, preserved challenge, benefit status, governing later authority and actual order remain necessary. Nor is the contradictory quoted material converted into a new universal rule for other sanctions.
9. Published-authority map
| Authority |
Actual court/date/result |
Proposition used and limit |
| REsp 2.148.059-MA — Tema 1306 |
Corte Especial, unanimous, August 20, 2025; DJEN September 5. Appeal granted; origin judgment quashed/remitted. |
Full judgment read. Referenced reasoning and internal-appeal reasons. Removed sanction was under art. 1.026, not 1.021. Later clarification body not read. |
| REsp 2.043.826-SC — Tema 1201 |
Published disposition records unanimity, August 6, 2025; DJEN September 8; republication October 24. Fine removed; other issue remitted. |
Official thesis and disposition read, full votes unavailable. No invented separate-writing or modulation conclusion. |
| AgInt no AREsp 2.466.469-RS |
Second Panel, unanimous, June 17, 2024; publication June 19; appeal denied. |
Autonomous chapters may be selectively challenged. Original EREsp 1.424.404 full body not obtained; its holding is quoted and applied here. |
| AgInt no AREsp 2.444.435-RS |
Fourth Panel, unanimous, May 4, 2026; DJEN May 7; appeal not heard. |
Specific challenge must address the actual monocratic grounds. No substantive pension/valuation rule imported. |
| AgInt no AREsp 3.207.915-MG |
Fourth Panel, unanimous, September 29, 2026; DJEN October 1; appeal denied. |
Informal reconsideration does not suspend or interrupt the appeal period; particular knowledge chronology remains factual. |
| AgInt no AREsp 3.130.459-RS |
Third Panel, unanimous, August 31, 2026; DJEN September 3; appeal denied. |
Non-decisional certificate/gross-error context; no automatic fungibility. |
| AgInt no AgInt no AREsp 3.064.654-RS |
Third Panel, unanimous, June 15, 2026; DJEN June 18; appeal not heard. |
Internal appeal against collegiate judgment improper; prior unpaid §4 fine also engaged §5. |
| AgInt no AREsp 3.134.766-SP |
Fourth Panel, unanimous, June 15, 2026; DJEN June 19; appeal granted. |
Reconsideration and mere reiteration did not create a new appeal period. Quoted admission-screening authorities were not independently rerun. |
| AREsp 2.579.364-PR |
Third Panel, unanimous, June 1, 2026; DJEN June 9; fine removed. |
Mere unsuccessful/unanimous appeal does not automatically satisfy §4. Family merits excluded. |
| AgInt no REsp 2.223.150-PB |
First Panel, unanimous, May 4, 2026; DJEN May 8; appeal denied. |
Selected vote/quoted deposit authority read with the ementa–vote provision inconsistency expressly retained. |
No panel judgment is upgraded to a repetitive thesis merely because it uses the word tese. No exhaustive citator, universal temporal extension or private-case outcome is claimed.
10. Fourteen fictional workflows
All actors, decisions, facts and amounts below are invented.
| Workflow |
Facts and claims |
Conditional result, adverse branch and missing proof |
| H01 — Proper monocratic target |
A relator denies an ordinary appeal in a single-judge decision. C006,C011,C016. |
Internal review is the candidate route. Need the full decision, adverse chapter, notice and tribunal rules. A special statutory inadmissibility branch may alter the classification. |
| H02 — First-instance or collegiate target |
A party labels a challenge to a first-instance order—or to an acórdão—“agravo interno.” C006–C008. |
The label does not make art. 1.021 applicable. Need the issuing actor and actual form/function of the decision; another remedy may be required. |
| H03 — Autonomous chapters |
A decision has separate fee and merits chapters; only the fee chapter is challenged. C017. |
The unchallenged chapter may preclude without automatically destroying review of the challenged chapter. Need true separability, not two reasons sustaining one outcome. |
| H04 — One sufficient ground ignored |
A challenged chapter rests on two independently sufficient grounds; the appeal addresses only one. C016,C018. |
Specific-challenge failure may prevent review. Need the exact grounds and whether each independently sustains the outcome. |
| H05 — Informal reconsideration |
Counsel asks the relator to reconsider and waits beyond the ordinary appeal period. C019. |
The request does not automatically toll the period. A genuinely new decision or proved statutory impediment requires separate facts; mere reiteration is not enough. |
| H06 — Statutory conversion |
The court considers a filed clarification application to be properly an internal appeal. C020–C021. |
Art. 1.024 §3 requires prior five-day opportunity to adapt the reasons. Gross error or untimeliness is not automatically cured by this label. |
| H07 — Reused reasons with a material challenge |
The internal appeal identifies a relevant factual distinction; the colegiado merely pastes the earlier reasons. C045–C048. |
Tema 1306 requires engagement with the relevant issue. Need the complete appeal and decision; a distinction already fully answered is an adverse alternative. |
| H08 — Same argument, no relevant addition |
The appeal repeats an argument fully addressed and supplies no material counterargument. C047. |
Referenced reasoning may be permissible under Tema 1306. Repetition does not itself establish a §4 fine; sanctions need separate predicates. |
| H09 — Unanimous defeat only |
All panel members deny the appeal, but the decision identifies no manifest inadmissibility or manifest lack of merit. C053–C055. |
Unanimity alone does not establish the fine. Need the actual reasoned sanction finding, not merely the vote count. |
| H10 — Qualified-precedent distinction |
The relator relies on a qualified STJ thesis; the appeal gives a reasoned distinction based on a material fact. C056–C059. |
Tema 1201’s verified thesis excludes the fine in the stated reasoned-distinction branch. Whether the distinction is real remains unexamined; full Tema 1201 reasoning is still a source hold. |
| H11 — Exhaustion only |
A party repeats a position contrary to an applicable qualified STJ/STF precedent solely to reach a higher court. C056,C059. |
Exhaustion alone is not categorical immunity under Tema 1201. The colegiado must still apply §4’s requirements and the thesis’s qualifications. |
| H12 — Prior fine and legal aid |
A qualifying §4 fine is imposed. The party seeks another appeal; one branch has granted aid, another only a pending request. C060–C062. |
Granted beneficiary status has the statutory payment-at-end exception. A pending request is not automatically equivalent. Need the fine order, aid decision and subsequent remedy. |
| H13 — Oral argument |
The challenged monocratic decision disposes of an apelação; a lawyer requests oral argument on internal review. C043–C044. |
The statutory oral-argument branch may apply. A challenge merely concerning interim relief in another procedural category may differ. Need the underlying proceeding and current court rules. |
| H14 — Stay assumed from filing |
A party files internal review and announces that collection is automatically frozen. C050–C052,C069. |
Unsupported without a statute or granted stay. Need the decision’s effect, probability/harm evidence and actual provisional order. |
Workflow count: 14.
11. Three conditional models
No actual notification, calendar, court closure, case value, fee or sanction order was examined.
T01 — Fifteen-business-day internal appeal
Assumptions: Valid intimation on Monday, March 2, 2026; ordinary period; no doubling, recess, interruption, holiday or closure.
- Day 0: March 2, excluded.
- 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 closure:
Conditional endpoint = Tuesday, March 24, 2026
The actual notification route and last electronic-filing instant remain held. C065.
Sources: CPC arts. 219, 224, 1.003 §5 and 1.070. Planalto+1
T02 — Five-day formal cure
Assumptions: A valid art. 932 sole-paragraph notice is given on Monday, March 9, 2026, concerning a genuinely curable missing document.
- 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 cure endpoint = Monday, March 16, 2026
If March 13 were an applicable closure:
Conditional endpoint = Tuesday, March 17, 2026
This does not cure an actually late appeal or automatically permit new substantive reasons. C066. Planalto+1
T03 — Fine range and conditional deposit
Fictional updated case value: R$50,000.00.
Statutory range:
R$50,000.00 × 1% = R$500.00
R$50,000.00 × 5% = R$2,500.00
If a reasoned unanimous qualifying decision selects 2%:
R$50,000.00 × 2% = R$1,000.00
For an ordinary appellant without a statutory payment-at-end exception, §5 makes the R$1,000.00 fine the candidate prior deposit before another appeal. For Fazenda Pública or an established legal-aid beneficiary, the statute instead provides payment at the end.
If there is merely unanimous defeat without the required manifest/reasoned finding, the example supplies no fine entitlement at all. No rounding is needed. The base is the stipulated updated case value, not an assumed debt balance or award. C067. Planalto
12. Exact P01 D15 crosswalk
Preserved literal record
| # |
Named deferred family |
Gateway reference/status |
Exact next research action |
| D15 |
Court/service/default/judgment/appeal beyond capacity |
C027, C030; Deferred |
Map CPC, local procedure, notice, default and appeal rules in a separate litigation review. |
Coordinator status remains explicit_deferred_hold_preserved.
PASS-23 additions
| D15 component |
Narrow addition |
Remaining gate |
| Target and route |
Monocratic-to-collegiate internal review distinguished from other decisions/remedies. |
Actual decision and statutory/regimental route. |
| Actor and reasons |
Standing, representation, specific challenge and chapter/ground distinctions identified. |
Actual mandate, interest and appeal content. |
| Timing and filing |
Ordinary 15-business-day period and non-tolling reconsideration rule identified. |
Actual notice, privileges, calendar and system. |
| Tribunal process |
Response, retraction, agenda, reasons and oral-argument boundaries identified. |
Current court regiment and actual record. |
| Provisional relief |
No automatic stay; independent probability/harm predicates identified. |
Actual evidence and order. |
| Fine and deposit |
Statutory predicates, Tema 1201 source-level qualification and subsequent-deposit branches identified. |
Full Tema 1201 and deposit-authority gaps; actual sanction sequence. |
| Other D15 subparts |
Not adopted from unreviewed siblings or completed here. |
Separate reviews. |
Crosswalk count: eight logical items and eight physical data rows—one preserved record plus seven dispositions.
13. Source register
Common access metadata: October 27, 2026 in Pacific time and UTC. Exact source-opening clocks are unknown.
For HTML sources, printed page and zero-based PDF index are N/A. For the PDFs, the register identifies actual zero-based indices; printed folios were not reliably displayed on the inspected pages and are not invented.
13.1 Statutes and amendment bodies
| Source ID |
Issuer/title and complete literal URL |
Status, material read, commencement and limits |
| C_BR-P23-S001 |
Presidência, CPC, Lei 13.105/2015, compiled. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105compilada.htm |
Fresh operative selected body. Arts. 9–11,14,17,70–76,98–105,180,183,186,203–204,213,216,218–224,229,272,300,489,927,932–944,994–1008,1021,1024§3,1030§§1–2,1042,1045,1070/footer. DOU March17,2015; one-year original vacatio. No full sibling procedure or local-regiment certification. |
| S002 |
Presidência, Lei 14.939/2024. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2024/lei/l14939.htm |
Fresh amendment. Arts.1–2/footer; holiday-proof cure. DOU July31,2024; effect on publication. |
| S003 |
Presidência, Lei 15.484/2026. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2026/lei/l15484.htm |
Fresh limited amendment. Relevant932/1030/1042 text, arts.4,6–7/footer. DOU extra August4,2026;30-day vacatio. Full special-appeal relevance implementation held. |
| S004 |
Presidência, Lei 15.479/2026. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2026/lei/l15479.htm |
Fresh enacted-future boundary. Material amendments and art.4/footer. DOU July30,2026;one-year vacatio. Not applied as current internal-appeal law. |
| S005 |
Presidência, Lei 11.419/2006. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2006/lei/l11419.htm |
Fresh electronic-procedure crossover. Arts.2–5,10,22/footer. DOU December20,2006;90-day original vacatio. No actual portal, registration or outage investigated. |
| S006 |
Presidência, Lei 8.906/1994, compiled OAB Statute. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l8906.htm |
Fresh narrow oral-argument provision. Art.7§2-B only, read with current amendment annotation. No full professional-perimeter or licence inquiry. |
| S007 |
Presidência, Lei 14.365/2022. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2022/lei/l14365.htm |
Fresh amendment. Art.2’s material art.7§2-B addition and art.5/footer. Relevant provision effective on publication, DOU June3,2022. Unrelated vetoed/later-promulgated portions not adopted. |
13.2 Published judicial bodies and official records
| Source ID |
Issuer/title and complete literal URL |
Actual read, dates and limits |
| S008 |
STJ, REsp 2.148.059-MA, Tema1306 full judgment. https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=05/09/2025&num_registro=202401990934 |
**Fresh full published document, selected relevant body.**34 pages. Corte Especial unanimous, August20,2025; DJEN September5. Theses/disposition indices1–3; reasons22–23; application31; certificate32–33. Screenshots2,3,33 inspected. Printed folios not reliably displayed. Later ED body not independently read. |
| S009 |
STJ, Tema1306 official registry. https://processo.stj.jus.br/repetitivos/temas_repetitivos/pesquisa.jsp?cod_tema_final=1306&cod_tema_inicial=1306&novaConsulta=true&tipo_pesquisa=T |
Fresh thesis/status record. Registry shows later clarification activity, finality February4,2026 and update March3,2026. Status is not a substitute for unread later votes. |
| S010 |
STJ, Tema1201 official registry. https://processo.stj.jus.br/repetitivos/temas_repetitivos/pesquisa.jsp?cod_tema_final=1201&cod_tema_inicial=1201&novaConsulta=true&tipo_pesquisa=T |
Fresh thesis/status record. Exact three-part thesis, revision of434, August6,2025 judgment and representative publication/finality fields read. Update August13,2026. REsp2043826 finality field May19,2026; companion fields differ. No full votes from this source. |
| S011 |
STJ, REsp 2.043.826-SC republished ementa/disposition. https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/jurisprudencia/toc.jsp?O=JT&b=ACOR&livre=202203929638.REG.+E+24/10/2025.FONT. |
Fresh official published summary and dispositive text, not full judgment. Corte Especial unanimous per disposition; August6,2025; original DJEN September8; republication October24. Fine removed and unrelated merits remitted. Full reasoning/separate writings remain missing. |
| S012 |
STJ, AREsp 2.579.364-PR. https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=09/06/2026&num_registro=202400618306 |
**Fresh full judgment, selected passages.**7 pages. Third Panel unanimous, June1,2026; DJEN June9. Ementa0; reasons2–4; certificate5–6. Screenshot0 inspected. Fine removed; quoted older deposit exception is not the actual ratio resolving deposit in this case. |
| S013 |
STJ, AgInt no AREsp 2.466.469-RS. https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=19/06/2024&num_registro=202303110944 |
**Fresh full judgment, selected passages.**9 pages. Second Panel unanimous, June17,2024; publication June19. Ementa/result0–1, reasons4 onward; screenshot0 inspected. Autonomous-chapter rule; tax/metrology merits excluded. |
| S014 |
STJ, EREsp 1.424.404-SP official summary. https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/pesquisar.jsp?O=JT&b=ACOR&i=1&livre=(('ERESP'.clas.+e+@num%3D'1424404')+ou+('EREsp'+adj+'1424404').suce.) |
Fresh official summary; not full body. Corte Especial judgment October20,2021; DJe November17. Used with actual later application S013. Full-source failure preserved in S026. |
| S015 |
STJ, AgInt no AREsp 3.207.915-MG. https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=01/10/2026&num_registro=202600951429 |
**Fresh full judgment, selected passages.**6 pages. Fourth Panel unanimous, September29,2026; DJEN October1. Ementa0; reasons1–3; certificate4–5; screenshot0 inspected. Reconsideration/timeliness only. |
| S016 |
STJ, AgInt no AREsp 3.130.459-RS. https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=03/09/2026&num_registro=202504856837 |
**Fresh full judgment, selected passages.**9 pages. Third Panel unanimous, August31,2026; DJEN September3. Ementa0–1 and relevant reasons; screenshot1 inspected. Non-decisional certificate and gross-error context; no universal fungibility rule. |
| S017 |
STJ, AgInt no AgInt no AREsp 3.064.654-RS. https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=18/06/2026&num_registro=202503794434 |
**Fresh full judgment, selected passages.**6 pages. Third Panel unanimous, June15,2026; DJEN June18. Ementa0; reasons2–3; screenshot0 inspected. Collegiate-target defect and prior unpaid1021 fine. |
| S018 |
STJ, AgInt no AREsp 3.134.766-SP. https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=19/06/2026&num_registro=202504938985 |
**Fresh full judgment, selected passages.**8 pages. Fourth Panel unanimous, June15,2026; DJEN June19. Ementa0; reasons3–5; certificate6–7; screenshot0 inspected. Reconsideration/no genuinely new fact. Quoted original admission-screening decisions not independently opened. |
| S019 |
STJ, AgInt no AREsp 2.444.435-RS. https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=07/05/2026&num_registro=202303036990 |
**Fresh full judgment, selected passages.**8 pages. Fourth Panel unanimous, May4,2026; DJEN May7. Ementa/result0 and specific-challenge reasons; screenshot0 inspected. No pension or expert-fee merits adopted. |
| S020 |
STJ, AgInt no REsp 2.223.150-PB. https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?dt_publicacao=08/05/2026&num_registro=202502577260 |
**Fresh full document, limited vote/quotation use.**8 pages. First Panel unanimous, May4,2026; DJEN May8. Vote indices3–4 read and visually inspected. Ementa says1026 while report/vote expressly discuss1021; inconsistency retained. Quoted EAREsp1938395 is not independently full-read. |
| S021 |
STJ, Tema1306 explanatory publication. https://www.stj.jus.br/sites/portalp/Paginas/Comunicacao/Noticias/2025/22082025-Corte-Especial-fixa-teses-sobre-uso-da-fundamentacao-por-referencia-em-decisoes-judiciais.aspx |
Fresh official overview/discovery, August22,2025. Full legal analysis relies on S008, not this press explanation. |
13.3 Failed full-body routes
Source-register count: 28 rows: seven statutory bodies, nine published full-judgment documents, four official thesis/summary records, one official overview, and seven failed routes.
The full-judgment documents were read in the stated relevant portions; all nine had relevant pages visually inspected. Failed documents have no verified printed-page or PDF-index references.
14. Atomic claim/evidence register
All IDs are C_BR-P23-Cxxx. S references identify the full literal URLs above.
| Claim |
Area; atomic proposition and limit |
Source/pinpoint |
| C001 |
A098. CPC original commencement/temporal application is distinct from access date; no exact commencement calculation. |
S001 arts.14,1045/footer. |
| C002 |
A098. Current local-holiday proof cure derives from publication-effective Lei14939. |
S002; S001 art.1003§6. |
| C003 |
A098. The relevant2026 relator/higher-admission amendments are operative by access, with full implementation held. |
S003 arts.3–7. |
| C004 |
A098. Lei15479 is enacted-future and not applied as current internal-appeal law. |
S004 art.4. |
| C005 |
A098. The material2022 oral-argument amendment commenced on publication. |
S006 art.7§2-B; S007 arts.2,5. |
| C006 |
A098. Art1021 targets a monocratic tribunal decision, not an acórdão. |
S001 art.1021; S017. |
| C007 |
A098. First-instance acts, genuine despachos and non-decisional certificates are not automatically1021 targets. |
S001 arts.203,1001; S016. |
| C008 |
A098. Higher-admission route depends on1030 grounds;1042 and1021 are not interchangeable. |
S001 art.1030§§1–2; S003. |
| C009 |
A097. Standing requires the party/third-party/MP predicate and useful adverse interest. |
S001 arts.17,996. |
| C010 |
A097. Capacity, counsel and mandates remain necessary;76 supplies correction and appellate consequences. |
S001 arts.70–76,103–105. |
| C011 |
A098. Petition is addressed to relator for corresponding collegiate review under tribunal rules. |
S001 art.1021 caput/§2. |
| C012 |
A098. Relator management/interim powers do not confer unrestricted merits discretion. |
S001 art.932(I)–(II). |
| C013 |
A098. Inadmissible, moot or nonspecifically challenged appeals can be screened under932(III). |
S001 art.932(III). |
| C014 |
A098. Precedent-based denial/grant uses932(IV)–(V), with required fit and response opportunity. |
S001 art.932; S003. |
| C015 |
A098. Curable defects/documents receive five-day correction; substantive route/lateness failures are not automatically cured. |
S001 art.932 sole paragraph. |
| C016 |
A098. Internal reasons must specifically confront the monocratic grounds. |
S001 art.1021§1. |
| C017 |
A098. Selective challenge of autonomous chapters can leave only the unchallenged chapter precluded. |
S001 art.1002; S013–S014. |
| C018 |
A098. Grounds sustaining the challenged chapter must be confronted; omission can prevent admission. |
S001 arts.932(III),1021§1; S019. |
| C019 |
A098. Informal reconsideration does not suspend/interupt the appeal period or make mere reiteration a new trigger. |
S015,S018. |
| C020 |
A098. ED-to-internal conversion requires prior five-day opportunity to adapt reasons. |
S001 art.1024§3. |
| C021 |
A098. No universal fungibility follows for grossly wrong/non-appealable targets. |
S016–S017; actual posture limited. |
| C022 |
A098. Ordinary civil internal appeal is15 business days, including the1070 regimental-agravo rule. |
S001 arts.219,1003§5,1070. |
| C023 |
A098. Lawful intimation, not signature/alert alone, supplies the ordinary trigger. |
S001 art.1003. |
| C024 |
A098. Designated-counsel and defective-intimation rules require actual notification/representation facts. |
S001 art.272. |
| C025 |
A098. Journal availability, publication and day one differ; current personal-channel rules remain held. |
S005 art.4; S001 art.224. |
| C026 |
A098. Business-day, recess and closure rules require the actual court calendar. |
S001 arts.216,219–224. |
| C027 |
A098. Just cause, suspension and1004 restoration require their separate statutory predicates. |
S001 arts.221,223,1004. |
| C028 |
A098. Co-party doubling requires229 conditions and excludes electronic proceedings. |
S001 art.229. |
| C029 |
A098. MP/public-law/Defensoria privileges have exact categories and special-period limits. |
S001 arts.180,183,186. |
| C030 |
A098. Holiday-proof correction does not establish a nonexistent holiday or cure actual lateness. |
S002; S001 art.1003§6. |
| C031 |
A098. Final filing hour/timezone/outage depend on actual system and statutory predicates. |
S001 art.213; S005 arts.3,10. |
| C032 |
A098. Preparation is due when applicable law requires;1021 alone supplies no universal fee or exemption. |
S001 art.1007 caput. |
| C033 |
A098. Statutory public exemptions and electronic transport-charge dispensation are not universal fee immunity. |
S001 art.1007§§1,3. |
| C034 |
A098. Insufficient preparation receives counsel notification and five-day supplementation. |
S001 art.1007§2. |
| C035 |
A098. No proof invokes double-payment notice;§4 has no numeric period and§5 bars further insufficient-double supplementation. |
S001 art.1007§§4–5. |
| C036 |
A098. Just impediment and guide error have specific five-day correction branches. |
S001 art.1007§§6–7. |
| C037 |
A098. Appeal-stage aid postpones preparation proof pending relator decision; natural-person presumption is not universal. |
S001 arts.98–99. |
| C038 |
A098. Aid does not remove fines; established beneficiary status differs from a pending request. |
S001 arts.98§4,1021§5. |
| C039 |
A098. Respondent receives15days; internal appeal is not in the adhesive-appeal list. |
S001 arts.1021§2,997§2(II). |
| C040 |
A098. Relator may retract; otherwise collegiate judgment follows the response stage, without a universal final-decision deadline. |
S001 art.1021§2. |
| C041 |
A098. Agenda publication/minimum interval and postponement rules apply subject to actual implementation. |
S001 arts.934–935. |
| C042 |
A098. Admission screening is distinct from the required collegiate merits path; manifest non-admission is not merits reconsideration. |
S001 arts.932(III),1021; S018 quoted application. |
| C043 |
A098. Oral argument exists in specified CPC/OAB categories, not every internal appeal. |
S001 art.937§3/IX; S006 art.7§2-B. |
| C044 |
A098. Virtual session, filing, chamber and oral-argument logistics remain regimental/local holds. |
S001 art.1021 caput; scope. |
| C045 |
A098. Art1021§3 and489 require engagement with material challenges, not unexplained repetition. |
S001 arts.1021§3,489§1. |
| C046 |
A098. Tema1306 permits referenced reasoning with adequate treatment of relevant issues. |
S008 indices1–3,22–23. |
| C047 |
A098. Tema1306 permits repeating reasons where no new relevant challenge requires decision; no licence for procedural innovation. |
S008 indices22–23. |
| C048 |
A098. Tema1306’s actual case required remand; removed fine was1026, not1021. |
S008 index31. |
| C049 |
A098. Tema1306 registry shows later ED/finality, but later ED body was not independently read. |
S009. |
| C050 |
A098. Filing internal review does not automatically suspend the decision. |
S001 art.995 caput. |
| C051 |
A098. Stay requires probability of success and grave difficult/impossible harm under995. |
S001 art.995 sole paragraph. |
| C052 |
A098. Affirmative urgent relief has independent300/932 predicates and qualifications. |
S001 arts.300,932(II). |
| C053 |
A098. Section4 fine requires manifest inadmissibility/unfoundedness, unanimity and a reasoned collegiate finding. |
S001 art.1021§4. |
| C054 |
A098. Fine is1–5% of updated case value, payable to respondent, not an automatic debt-based fee. |
S001 art.1021§4. |
| C055 |
A098. Mere unanimous defeat does not automatically justify a fine; the2026 full judgment removed one. |
S012 indices0,3–4. |
| C056 |
A098. Tema1201 permits fine despite exhaustion purpose in its qualified-STJ/STF-precedent branch. |
S010–S011. |
| C057 |
A098. Tema1201 excludes its fine where a reasoned distinction/overruling case is made. |
S010–S011. |
| C058 |
A098. Tema1201’s second-instance-precedent exception is not expanded to unrelated gross defects. |
S010–S011; scope limit. |
| C059 |
A098. Tema1201 thesis/unanimous disposition verified; full reasons/separate writings/complete temporal reach remain missing. |
S010–S011; S022–S025 failures. |
| C060 |
A098. A qualifying first1021 fine can condition any further appeal on prior deposit; repetition is not required by§5. |
S001 art.1021§§4–5; S017. |
| C061 |
A098. Fazenda Pública and aid beneficiaries pay at the end, not never. |
S001 arts.98§4,1021§5. |
| C062 |
A098. A fine-only challenge is not assumed exempt; read sources contain differently situated quotations and the originalCE body remains unread. |
S012 index3; S020 indices3–4; S027–S028 failures. |
| C063 |
A098. Preparation, sanction and deposit-for-later-appeal are separate obligations. |
S001 arts.1007,1021§§4–5. |
| C064 |
A098. Published panel applications retain posture limits and do not replace complete repetitive/citator analysis. |
S008–S020. |
| C065 |
A098. T01 is conditional on the stipulated valid notice and calendar. |
S001 arts.219,224,1003,1070; fictional inputs. |
| C066 |
A098. T02 assumes a genuinely curable defect and valid correction notice. |
S001 art.932 sole paragraph; fictional inputs. |
| C067 |
A098. T03 uses fictional updated case value and judicial percentage, not actual fee/fine entitlement. |
S001 art.1021§§4–5; fictional inputs. |
| C068 |
A098. Only D15’s internal-review component is augmented; sibling reports remain unadopted. |
Supplied P01 record/scope. |
| C069 |
A097. Procedural research establishes no provider, legal-practice, financial or collection permission. |
S001 art.103; separate-regime hold. |
| C070 |
A098. No actual deadline, sanction, court selection, stay, debt outcome or country acceptance is determined. |
Research boundary. |
Atomic claim count: 70.
15. Granular core coverage
| Row |
Issue |
Claims |
Status and exact next action |
| P23-G01 |
Ordinary civil scope |
C006–C008,C068 |
Confirm actual procedure; special regimes held. |
| G02 |
Current CPC/transition |
C001 |
Actual historic case date and later amendments remain. |
| G03 |
Holiday amendment |
C002,C030 |
Read actual holiday evidence. |
| G04 |
2026 operative amendment |
C003 |
Full relevance implementation held. |
| G05 |
Enacted-future law |
C004 |
Not applied now. |
| G06 |
Oral-argument amendment |
C005,C043 |
Exact underlying proceeding required. |
| G07 |
Monocratic target |
C006 |
Read full issuing act. |
| G08 |
Collegiate target |
C006 |
Internal route not assumed available. |
| G09 |
First-instance/certificate boundary |
C007 |
Classify content, not title. |
| G10 |
Higher-admission boundary |
C008 |
Identify1030 ground and any mixed chapters. |
| G11 |
Standing/adverse interest |
C009 |
Identify useful requested change. |
| G12 |
Third-party/MP role |
C009 |
Actual statutory status unknown. |
| G13 |
Capacity/mandate |
C010 |
Obtain representation documents. |
| G14 |
Representation cure |
C010 |
Actual order and compliance required. |
| G15 |
Filing to relator |
C011 |
Local electronic category unexamined. |
| G16 |
Corresponding collegiate body |
C011,C044 |
Read actual regiment. |
| G17 |
Relator management/relief |
C012 |
Statutory purpose and reasons required. |
| G18 |
Admission screening |
C013,C042 |
Distinguish inadmissibility from merits. |
| G19 |
Precedent-based denial/grant |
C014 |
Qualified source and factual fit required. |
| G20 |
Formal cure |
C015 |
Identify curable defect precisely. |
| G21 |
Specific challenge |
C016 |
Compare appeal with decisive reasons. |
| G22 |
Autonomous chapters |
C017 |
Determine true separability. |
| G23 |
Independent grounds within chapter |
C018 |
Confront each sustaining reason. |
| G24 |
Reconsideration |
C019 |
No assumed tolling. |
| G25 |
Reiterative decision |
C019 |
Establish genuinely new decisional content. |
| G26 |
Statutory ED conversion |
C020 |
Prior five-day adaptation required. |
| G27 |
Gross error/fungibility |
C021 |
No universal conversion promise. |
| G28 |
Filing period |
C022 |
Ordinary15business days. |
| G29 |
Notice trigger |
C023 |
Actual lawful intimation required. |
| G30 |
Counsel notification |
C024 |
Check requested names/firm and certificate. |
| G31 |
Journal sequence |
C025 |
Availability/publication/day one distinct. |
| G32 |
Personal portal/current CNJ |
C025 |
Exact operative channel held. |
| G33 |
Business days/recess |
C026 |
Actual court calendar unexamined. |
| G34 |
Suspension/restoration/just cause |
C027 |
Do not merge different effects. |
| G35 |
Co-party double period |
C028 |
Different offices/electronic exception. |
| G36 |
Institutional periods |
C029 |
Legal nature and special period required. |
| G37 |
Holiday proof cure |
C030 |
No invented closure. |
| G38 |
Final hour/outage |
C031 |
Court timezone/system certificate required. |
| G39 |
Preparation obligation |
C032 |
Actual law/fee schedule held. |
| G40 |
Exemptions/transport |
C033 |
No universal fee waiver. |
| G41 |
Insufficient preparation |
C034 |
Five-day supplement branch. |
| G42 |
No proof/double payment |
C035 |
Exact order and applicable period required. |
| G43 |
Impediment/guide error |
C036 |
Specific correction predicates. |
| G44 |
Aid application |
C037 |
Actual resources and ruling required. |
| G45 |
Aid versus fine |
C038 |
No sanction immunity. |
| G46 |
Response15days |
C039 |
Lawful response notice required. |
| G47 |
No adhesive internal appeal |
C039 |
Separate affirmative challenge may be necessary. |
| G48 |
Retraction |
C040 |
Actual changed decision required. |
| G49 |
Collegiate judgment |
C040–C042 |
Agenda and admissibility stages distinct. |
| G50 |
Agenda interval/publication |
C041 |
Local calendar and postponed-session record required. |
| G51 |
Oral argument |
C043 |
Statutory category/regiment must be read. |
| G52 |
Virtual-session logistics |
C044 |
Current local/CNJ implementation held. |
| G53 |
Mere copying prohibition |
C045 |
Read all relevant reasons and challenges. |
| G54 |
Tema1306 thesis one |
C046 |
Referenced reasons must engage material issues. |
| G55 |
Tema1306 internal branch |
C047 |
No-new-relevant-argument predicate required. |
| G56 |
Tema1306 actual result |
C048 |
Removed sanction was1026, not1021. |
| G57 |
Tema1306 later ED/status |
C049 |
Later full clarification body remains unread. |
| G58 |
No automatic stay |
C050 |
Actual effect/order required. |
| G59 |
Stay predicates |
C051 |
Probability and grave harm both required. |
| G60 |
Affirmative relief |
C052 |
Independent300 predicates/security limits. |
| G61 |
Manifest inadmissibility/unfoundedness |
C053 |
Reasoned collegiate finding required. |
| G62 |
Unanimity |
C053,C055 |
Necessary statutory element, not sufficient alone. |
| G63 |
Fine base/range/payee |
C054 |
Updated case value;1–5%;respondent. |
| G64 |
Mere defeat |
C055 |
No automatic penalty. |
| G65 |
Tema1201 exhaustion branch |
C056 |
Qualified precedent and actual fit required. |
| G66 |
Distinction/overruling argument |
C057 |
Must be reasoned, not labeled. |
| G67 |
Second-instance precedent branch |
C058 |
No blanket unrelated-defect immunity. |
| G68 |
Tema1201 full-body gap |
C059 |
Obtain original/republished full votes before full-source acceptance. |
| G69 |
Deposit after §4 fine |
C060 |
Actual sanction/order and next appeal required. |
| G70 |
Payment-at-end exceptions |
C061 |
Establish Fazenda/aid status. |
| G71 |
Appeal attacking fine only |
C062 |
OriginalCE body/current treatment gap retained. |
| G72 |
Fee versus penalty versus deposit |
C063 |
Do not combine the three. |
| G73 |
H01 proper target |
C006,C011,C016 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G74 |
H02 wrong target |
C006–C008 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G75 |
H03 autonomous chapters |
C017 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G76 |
H04 untouched ground |
C016,C018 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G77 |
H05 reconsideration |
C019 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G78 |
H06 conversion |
C020–C021 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G79 |
H07 material challenge ignored |
C045–C048 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G80 |
H08 no relevant new challenge |
C047,C053 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G81 |
H09 unanimous defeat |
C053–C055 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G82 |
H10 distinction |
C056–C059 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G83 |
H11 exhaustion |
C056,C059 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G84 |
H12 fine/aid |
C060–C062 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G85 |
H13 oral argument |
C043–C044 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G86 |
H14 stay assumption |
C050–C052 |
Conditional workflow complete. |
| G87 |
T01 filing model |
C065 |
No actual deadline. |
| G88 |
T02 cure model |
C066 |
Curable-document assumption only. |
| G89 |
T03 fine/deposit model |
C067 |
No actual sanction or amount due. |
| G90 |
D15/private/local/country limits |
C068–C070 |
Narrow addition only; acceptance held. |
Core-coverage count: 90.
16. Separately deferred families
| Row |
Deferred family |
Exact next action |
| P23-D01 |
First-instance commencement and service |
P18 unreviewed; establish actual lawful notice independently. |
| D02 |
Default and ensuing judgment |
P19 unreviewed; no merits or default conclusions imported. |
| D03 |
Full apelação |
P20 unreviewed; only necessary target/oral-argument boundary used. |
| D04 |
Full embargos de declaração |
P21 unreviewed; conversion boundary only. |
| D05 |
Full agravo de instrumento |
P22 unreviewed; no Tema988 rerun. |
| D06 |
Higher special/extraordinary admission |
Identify precise1030/1042 grounds and current implementation. |
| D07 |
Full Tema1201 body and republication |
Obtain complete original/republished reasons and any separate writings. |
| D08 |
Original deposit-precedent body |
Obtain EAREsp1938395 and later treatment of fine-only challenges. |
| D09 |
Later Tema1306 clarification |
Read the recorded later ED body before complete precedent-history acceptance. |
| D10 |
Criminal, labor, electoral and administrative procedures |
Separate statutes/regiments; no civil-period analogy. |
| D11 |
Juizados and special courts |
Read actual remedy and representation rules. |
| D12 |
Rescisória, reopening and exceptional remedies |
Determine finality, ground, court and period. |
| D13 |
Enforcement and property effects |
No stay, release, attachment or discharge outcome inferred. |
| D14 |
General bad-faith and other procedural sanctions |
Do not merge with1021§§4–5. |
| D15 |
Consumer contract, fee and cancellation merits |
P04 unreviewed. |
| D16 |
Prescription and substantive defenses |
P05 unreviewed. |
| D17 |
Payment, release and settlement |
P09 unreviewed. |
| D18 |
Collection conduct and privacy/reporting |
P08/P10 and sector modules remain separate. |
| D19 |
Surety, solidarity and co-party substantive rights |
P16 unreviewed; procedural benefit does not establish debt liability. |
| D20 |
Provider/OAB/financial/payment permission |
No operating authority from internal-review rules. |
| D21 |
Current regiments, virtual sessions, fees and calendars |
Read the competent tribunal’s actual instruments. |
| D22 |
Foreign recognition, law and accessibility |
No foreign or special-access premise adopted. |
| D23 |
Private records and exhaustive citator |
None investigated; later primary verification still required. |
| D24 |
Component/parent/A066/A097/A098/country acceptance |
HOLD pending separate review and residual source/fact work. |
Deferred-family count: 24.
17. All 27 inherited states and Distrito Federal
Names are inherited from the preserved P01 inventory. No fresh geography API or territorial certification was used. A published STJ decision originating in a state does not verify that state’s current internal rules.
| State/DF |
Local read status |
Exact remaining local question |
| Acre (AC) |
No operative local body read. |
TJAC chamber, filing, fees, agenda and calendar. |
| Alagoas (AL) |
No operative local body read. |
TJAL internal-review procedure and electronic notice. |
| Amapá (AP) |
No operative local body read. |
TJAP virtual-session, oral-argument and filing rules. |
| Amazonas (AM) |
No operative local body read. |
TJAM timezone, fees, agenda and outage treatment. |
| Bahia (BA) |
No operative local body read. |
TJBA preparation, distribution and internal rules. |
| Ceará (CE) |
No operative local body read. |
TJCE panel, publication, oral argument and calendar. |
| Distrito Federal (DF) |
No operative local body read. |
TJDFT actual regiment, deposit procedure and calendar. |
| Espírito Santo (ES) |
No operative local body read. |
TJES filing, agenda, fees and digital implementation. |
| Goiás (GO) |
No operative local body read. |
TJGO internal-review forms, notice and session rules. |
| Maranhão (MA) |
No operative local body read. |
TJMA current rules; Tema1306’s origin is not a local audit. |
| Mato Grosso (MT) |
No operative local body read. |
TJMT appeal category, agenda and preparation rules. |
| Mato Grosso do Sul (MS) |
No operative local body read. |
TJMS electronic filing, court closures and fees. |
| Minas Gerais (MG) |
No operative local body read. |
TJMG actual notice and regiment; federal case does not certify them. |
| Pará (PA) |
No operative local body read. |
TJPA internal routing, access and local calendar. |
| Paraíba (PB) |
No operative local body read. |
TJPB sanction/deposit handling and session rules. |
| Paraná (PR) |
No operative local body read. |
TJPR actual internal appeal and notice implementation. |
| Pernambuco (PE) |
No operative local body read. |
TJPE filing, oral-argument and fee requirements. |
| Piauí (PI) |
No operative local body read. |
TJPI forms, publication and court closures. |
| Rio de Janeiro (RJ) |
No operative local body read. |
TJRJ chamber, virtual agenda and deposit procedure. |
| Rio Grande do Norte (RN) |
No operative local body read. |
TJRN internal rules, fees and calendar. |
| Rio Grande do Sul (RS) |
No operative local body read. |
TJRS actual rules; cited STJ applications are not local certification. |
| Rondônia (RO) |
No operative local body read. |
TJRO timezone, system outages and filing instructions. |
| Roraima (RR) |
No operative local body read. |
TJRR access, session calendar and preparation. |
| Santa Catarina (SC) |
No operative local body read. |
TJSC current rules; Tema1201’s origin does not clear them. |
| São Paulo (SP) |
No operative local body read. |
TJSP actual chamber, calendar, fees and oral-argument practice. |
| Sergipe (SE) |
No operative local body read. |
TJSE internal routing, publication and closures. |
| Tocantins (TO) |
No operative local body read. |
TJTO electronic procedure, accessibility and calendar. |
Territorial count: 27; no state or DF branch is cleared.
18. Evidence-backed article, checklist and conditional-tool opportunities
| Specification |
Supported use |
Guardrail |
| Decision-target classifier |
Separate monocratic, first-instance, collegiate and non-decisional acts. |
No remedy chosen from a document title alone. |
| Specific-challenge map |
Match each challenged chapter and sustaining ground to the requested change. |
Autonomous chapters and multiple grounds are not conflated. |
| Internal-review timeline |
Notice, ordinary15days, response, correction and agenda. |
Informal reconsideration is not a tolling event. |
| Reasoning audit |
Test1021§3 against489 and Tema1306. |
No automatic nullity from repeated words or automatic approval of copying. |
| Fine/deposit checker |
Manifest finding, unanimity, reasons, updated case value and exceptions. |
No fine from mere loss; no filing-fee substitution. |
| Precedent-fit worksheet |
Qualified source, ratio, distinction/overruling argument and source status. |
Tema1201 full-body gap must remain visible. |
No operational tool, website, court filing or publication was created.
19. Reconciliation and self-check
| Item |
Actual result |
| Assigned component |
Ordinary civil relator-to-collegiate internal review only. |
| Unreviewed sibling findings used as premises |
None. |
| Coordinator review-file access |
User-supplied metadata preserved; local file not opened or modified. |
| Source-register rows |
28. |
| Statutory bodies |
7. |
| Published full-judgment documents |
9, relevant portions read. |
| Official thesis/summary records |
4. |
| Official overview |
1, discovery only. |
| Failed routes |
7, not treated as operative bodies. |
| Full Tema1306 judgment |
Read, with relevant screenshot inspection. |
| Full Tema1201 judgment |
Not obtained; thesis and unanimous disposition read at their actual source level. |
| Original deposit-precedent full body |
Not obtained; quoted authority expressly identified. |
| Atomic claims |
70. |
| Core coverage |
90. |
| Deferred families |
24. |
| Territorial rows |
27. |
| Total coverage rows |
141:90 core +24 deferred +27 territorial. |
| Fictional workflows |
14. |
| Conditional models |
3. |
| P01 crosswalk |
8 logical items and8 physical data rows. |
| Actual deadline, fee, fine, stay or merits outcome |
None determined. |
| Actual party, account, property, licence or private-case investigation |
None. |
| Contact, filing, purchase, payment or account action |
None. |
| API, hidden endpoint or security workaround |
None. |
| Coordinator-file write |
None performed or claimed. |
| Source-opening clocks |
Unknown; no access window invented. |
| Independent/all-source/current-law certification |
Not claimed. |
| Provider, component, locality, parent or country acceptance |
Not granted; holds remain. |
Exact residual work
The principal source residual is the full original and republished Tema1201 judgment, including any separate reasoning and temporal qualifications. The original Corte Especial deposit decision and the later Tema1306 clarification body also remain unread.
For an actual application, the necessary facts would include the full monocratic decision, challenged chapters and grounds, lawful notice, mandate, applicable tribunal regiment, calendar and electronic rules, preparation or aid status, complete sanction sequence, the actual qualified precedent and proposed distinction, and any provisional-relief order.
Final disposition: PASS-23 establishes the bounded federal internal-review framework and the source-supported qualifications concerning specific challenge, reconsideration, timing, collegiate reasoning, oral argument, costs, suspension and art.1.021 sanctions. It does not establish that any actual internal appeal is timely, admissible or well founded; that a fine or deposit is owed or waived; that enforcement is stayed; or that any provider, court-specific implementation or Brazil-wide model is accepted.
END C_BR PASS-23