The Superior Court of Justice is a relatively new body in the Brazilian legal landscape. Its creation came with the advent of the 1988 Constitution, which aimed to guarantee uniformity in the interpretation of federal legislation.

Established in April 1989, following debates dating back to the 1960s, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) today acts as guardian and interpreter of a myriad of laws that regulate the functioning of society, with the exception of the jurisdiction of the three specialized courts: the Labor Court, the Electoral Court, and the Military Court.

However, its history has had some murky chapters, especially regarding the identity of the body within the structure of the Judiciary. For many years, the STJ was seen solely as an appellate court, whose function was to judge appeals filed against decisions of the TRFs and TJs. 

As a result, the Court's caseload grew to much larger proportions than those expected by the drafters of the 1988 Constitution, which led to the need for internal procedural restructuring of the court. 

One of the tools created to curb the flow of appeals and fulfill the constitutional mission conferred upon the Court is the creation of a system for judging repetitive appeals, a topic that will be extensively outlined in this work.

HISTORIC CONTEXT

The system of repetitive appeals, introduced into the Brazilian legal system by Law 11.672/2008, represents one of the most important advances in the handling of mass litigation within the Superior Court of Justice (STJ). This legislative innovation aims to resolve, with binding effect and national scope, the repetitive legal controversies that multiply in thousands of cases throughout the country, ensuring greater speed, legal certainty, and equality.

The model was subsequently consolidated with the enactment of the new Code of Civil Procedure of 2015, especially in articles 976 to 987, which reaffirmed and expanded the importance of the technique of judging repetitive appeals as a mechanism for forming qualified precedents. In the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), this system is intrinsically linked to the constitutional function of that Court, which is to standardize the interpretation of federal infra-constitutional legislation (art. 105, III, of the Federal Constitution of 88).

Repetitive patterns in practice

As previously mentioned, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) was overwhelmed by a large number of pending appeals – namely, special appeals and appeals against decisions on Special Appeals. Considering that a considerable portion of the challenges against rulings dealt with identical or related issues, a system for judging repetitive appeals was established.

In practice, the repetitive case system consists of selecting special appeals that contain identical legal issues, with the aim of suspending the processing of cases dealing with the same matter throughout the national territory, so that, after the judgment on the merits by the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), the established legal precedent becomes binding on the other bodies of the Judiciary and the direct and indirect Public Administration, pursuant to Article 927, III, of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The process begins with the identification, by the courts of origin or by the STJ itself, of multiple appeals concerning the same controversy. Once the repetitive nature of the cases is identified, the president or vice-president of the court of origin may select representative appeals and forward them to the STJ. 

Alternatively, the rapporteur himself, at the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), may submit the issue to the system of article 1.036 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Once admitted as representative of the controversy, the appeals are assigned to one of the Court's sections, with broad publicity and the possibility for interested third parties, such as amici curiae , the Public Prosecutor's Office, and civil society entities, to express their views.

Following the ruling, the thesis established by the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) becomes binding at the infraconstitutional level. This means that all agents of the Judiciary must apply the guidance established by the STJ, under penalty, in theory, of being subject to a constitutional complaint (art. 988, IV, CPC) or, in the case of repeated non-compliance, of possible disciplinary action.

One of the great merits of repetitive appeals is the multiplier effect of procedural rationalization. By establishing a single legal precedent on a given topic, the proliferation of conflicting decisions is avoided, reducing legal uncertainty and promoting equality among those subject to the law. This technique also contributes to relieving the burden on the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) itself, which, due to its unifying function, ended up overloaded with thousands of appeals on identical issues.

From a practical standpoint, the adoption of repetitive appeals requires a sophisticated coordination mechanism between the courts, the Public Prosecutor's Office, the Public Defender's Office, public and private legal counsel, as well as the internal bodies of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), such as the Precedent Management Committee. This structure makes it possible to catalog, organize, and monitor repetitive issues, ensuring transparency, efficiency, and access to information.

Since the system's implementation, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) has established hundreds of binding precedents in various areas of law, such as consumer law, banking law, civil liability, social security law, contracts, etc. 

Among the paradigmatic examples, one can cite STJ Case 938, which defined that the base date for updating the FGTS balance should be the date of actual payment and not the date of the summons. Another relevant case was STJ Case 106, which dealt with the possibility of seizing the family home of a guarantor in a commercial lease agreement, a decision that generated intense debates in legal scholarship and jurisprudence.

Despite undeniable progress, the system of repetitive appeals also faces criticism. One of the main criticisms concerns its potential rigidity. By consolidating a particular legal thesis, it can stifle judicial interpretation and hinder the adaptation of jurisprudence to new social and economic realities. Another sensitive point is the risk of judging abstractly, disregarding the factual peculiarities of specific cases. There are also concerns regarding democratic participation in the precedent-setting process, as many lawyers and parties are unable to directly intervene in the referral and judgment phase.

Aiming for democratic dialogue, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) promotes public hearings and invites entities from civil society and the legal academy, seeking to ensure a more plural and participatory deliberation. Furthermore, the system allows for the review and overcoming of repetitive legal arguments (art. 927, § 4º), upon request from the parties or ex officio, provided it is duly justified.

Another positive aspect is the integration between the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) and the second-instance courts through the Precedent Management Centers (NUGEPs), created by a CNJ Resolution. These centers are responsible for identifying repetitive demands, assisting in the selection of representative appeals, and disseminating qualified precedents among judges and court staff.

The application of repetitive precedents also produces relevant repercussions in terms of the effectiveness of judicial protection. Once the legal principle is established, suspended cases must be resolved through a single-judge decision by the judge or justice, based on the precedent, unless there is a distinction or a need for further factual analysis. This makes the system more agile and allows the Justice system to better fulfill its function of social pacification.

In quantitative terms, data from the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) indicates that, after the implementation of repetitive appeals, there was a significant reduction in the number of appeals on matters already decided, allowing the Court to dedicate itself to truly relevant and controversial issues. The technique also favors strategic procedural management by courts and law firms, which can anticipate the outcome of certain legal arguments and avoid unnecessary litigation.

However, it is important to emphasize that the system of repetitive cases should not be seen as a panacea. It depends on the qualified performance of judges, the adequate justification of decisions, and the continuous updating of established legal principles. The role of lawyers is fundamental in this context, both for identifying cases with the potential to affect the system and for challenging the overturning of precedents that become obsolete.

Finally, it is worth highlighting that the binding precedent model adopted in Brazil with repetitive appeals brings the Brazilian procedural system closer to the common law model , without, however, abandoning the civil law tradition . This represents an evolution towards providing greater rationality, predictability, and coherence to judicial decisions, for the benefit of society as a whole.

CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, repetitive appeals in the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) constitute a powerful instrument for the standardization of jurisprudence and the rationalization of the Judiciary. While ensuring the stability and integrity of jurisprudence, they contribute to procedural efficiency and the strengthening of legal certainty. Their success, however, depends on constant institutional vigilance, procedural transparency, and an ethical commitment from the actors of the justice system to the effectiveness of fundamental rights.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES

ASSIS, Araken de. Manual of the Execution Process . 8th ed. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 2016.

MARINONI, Luiz Guilherme. Incident of resolution of repetitive demands and repetitive appeals: between precedent, res judicata on the issue, subjective right to special appeal and fundamental right to participate. Revista dos Tribunais , v. 962, p. 131-151, 2015.

MARINONI, Luiz Guilherme. Binding precedents . São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 2010.

MITIDIERO, Daniel Francisco. Superior Courts and Supreme Courts: From Control to Interpretation, from Jurisprudence to Precedent. São Paulo: Thomson Reuters Revista dos Tribunais, 2017

SAUSEN, Dalton. General Repercussion Summaries and Repetitive Appeals : A Critique of the Standardization of Law and Hermeneutical Rescue. Livraria do Advogado Editora, 2021.

TUCCI, José Rogério Cruz e. Judicial precedent as a source of law . São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 2004.