Amendment to the Rules of Procedure No. 53/2026 of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ): main changes in the processing of appeals and the formation of precedents.

Companies litigating before the Superior Court of Justice have been subject to a new set of rules when appealing since July 1, 2026. Amendment No. 53 to the Rules of Procedure, approved on June 30 and already in effect, alters everything from how petitions are filed to how the Court judges repetitive appeals. These are procedural changes, but with a direct impact on appeal strategy and the monitoring of precedents.

Although the focus of the reform is the internal organization of the Court, its effects extend to the conduct of litigation: the drafting of appeals, the formation of qualified precedents, and the determination of stays of proceedings. Below, we have compiled the points that most impact companies and legal departments.

What changes in the way petitions and appeals are filed?

The Amendment creates Article 343-A of the Internal Regulations, which requires that every initial petition in an original action and every appeal addressed to the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) contain a summary of the factual and legal grounds, the requests made, the decisions challenged, and the legal provisions invoked.

The exact format for presenting this summary will still be regulated by the Court's Presidency, but the requirement is already in effect. In practice, this is a new technical-formal requirement: the documents now demand not only consistent reasoning, but also a clear and structured synthesis of the issues submitted for judgment, a precaution that is especially relevant for sectors with a high volume of special appeals, such as financial institutions, concessionaires, energy, retail, and telecommunications.

Virtual trial of repetitive cases: more speed, less reaction time.

The Amendment expands the use of virtual sessions, allowing for the judgment of repetitive special appeals when there is a mere reaffirmation of already consolidated jurisprudence. In these cases, the judgment may occur electronically, including concurrently with the analysis of the referral, provided there is a simple majority and no member of the panel objects. If any minister expresses a contrary opinion, the process follows the ordinary procedure.

The result tends to be a faster consolidation of already established repetitive legal arguments, reducing the time until rulings are defined that impact thousands of cases. For companies exposed to mass litigation, this makes the continuous monitoring of precedents even more strategic, since a legal argument can be established in a potentially shorter timeframe.

Simplified allocation and distribution by lottery.

The system for assigning repetitive cases has also been simplified. It is now sufficient that the appeal does not present a serious defect that prevents its consideration and that there is, currently or potentially, multiple cases on the same legal issue to enable electronic assignment. If these requirements are not met, the case returns to the rapporteur to proceed according to the ordinary procedure.

The distribution of representative resources for the controversy will, as a rule, adopt a free draw, with prevention reserved for the cases expressly provided for in the Rules of Procedure. The Amendment also authorizes the Presidency to delegate to the Management Committee for Precedents, Jurisprudence and Collective Actions the admission of the appeal as representative of the controversy.

Opposition to virtual trials: pay attention to the 48-hour window.

The rule now expressly provides that the parties may submit a reasoned statement of opposition to the virtual trial up to 48 hours before the start of the session, and it is up to the rapporteur to assess it. The Amendment clarifies, however, that the failure to consider this statement does not automatically render the trial null and void: it is necessary to demonstrate actual prejudice to justify any renewal of the trial in a face-to-face session.

From a practical standpoint, this point reinforces the importance of rigorous procedural monitoring, given the short window for opposition and the need to consistently justify the advisability of in-person hearings in specific cases.

Redistribution of responsibilities between Sections and Panels

The Amendment adjusts the distribution of powers among the adjudicating bodies. Writs of mandamus, habeas data, and habeas corpus filed against acts of a Minister of State will now be judged by the Panels, as will claims aimed at preserving their jurisdiction and the authority of their decisions. The rules for appeals against monocratic decisions of the Presidency also change; these appeals may be reported by the President himself in a virtual session, in which case, if any member of the panel objects, the vote is disregarded and the case is redistributed to the Panel.

Although primarily organizational in nature, these adjustments may have repercussions in determining the competent body to judge certain matters involving companies, especially in controversies related to the actions of federal authorities.

What hasn't changed?

Some limitations deserve mention to avoid misinterpretations of the reform. The requirement for summaries in petitions still depends on regulations to be issued by the Presidency. The ordinary procedure remains guaranteed whenever any minister objects to virtual judgment. The assignment of repetitive cases is not automatic: if the requirements are not met, the case returns to the rapporteur. And distribution by prevention continues to apply in cases expressly provided for in the Rules of Procedure, such as cases on the same legal issue or intended to reaffirm jurisprudence.

Taken together, the changes introduced by Amendment No. 53/2026 to the Rules of Procedure reinforce the Superior Court of Justice's (STJ) movement towards streamlining the adjudication of repetitive cases and increasing the efficiency of case processing. For those litigating before the Superior Court, they recommend paying attention not only to the new formal requirements for drafting appeals, but also to closer monitoring of the formation of qualified precedents and the progress of cases submitted to the repetitive proceedings procedure.

Article written by: Leonardo Neri, Nicoly Crepaldi and Isabela Melo.

• “Amendment No. 53/2026 to the Internal Regulations of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) is more than just an update: it alters practical aspects of the processing of appeals and requires companies to adapt their procedural strategies.”
• “"The requirement for summaries in petitions values more objective and structured documents, without diminishing the importance of legal reasoning."”
• “"With the expansion of virtual trials for repetitive cases, closely monitoring qualified precedents becomes even more strategic for companies exposed to mass litigation."”
• “"The 48-hour window to object to the virtual trial reinforces the need for rigorous and timely procedural monitoring before the Superior Court of Justice (STJ)."”