Law No. 15,484/2026 has been enacted in August 4th, regulating Article 105, Paragraph 2 of the Federal Constitution and introducing the “relevance filter” for the admissibility of Special Appeals before the Superior Court of Justice (STJ). The statute had been anticipated since 2022, when Constitutional Amendment No. 125/2022 amended the Constitution to establish this new admissibility requirement.
Under the new legislation, Special Appeals must contain a specific section demonstrating the economic, political, social, or legal relevance of the issue under review, showing that the matter transcends the parties’ individual interests.
Failure to provide such demonstration may result in the appeal being declared inadmissible. Moreover, even where the formal requirement has been met, the competent panel of the STJ may still dismiss the appeal by a two-thirds majority vote of its members, through a non-appealable decision.
Once relevance is recognized, the reporting Justice may stay, for up to six months (renewable for an additional six-month period), all pending proceedings nationwide involving the same legal issue.
The new framework closely resembles the general repercussion requirement applicable to Extraordinary Appeals before the Supreme Federal Court (STF), related to constitutional matters. Cases where the amount in controversy exceeds 500 minimum wages and cases in which the challenged appellate decision conflicts with settled STJ precedent, as well as criminal and administrative improbity and lawsuits that may result in ineligibility for public office are presumed relevant.
The statute will enter into force in 30 days, allowing the STJ time to amend its Internal Rules and regulate the procedural aspects of the relevance filter. The requirement to demonstrate relevance will apply only to Special Appeals challenging appellate decisions published after the expiration of this transitional period.
In practice, this new instrument aims to reduce the volume of cases at the STJ, creating a filter binding to all lower-level courts. If a given theme is considered without relevance this will be applied to all similar cases, retaining the discussions to the Second-level courts.
