STJ Requires Structured Summaries in Petitions: What Changed Starting in July 2026

The Superior Court of Justice has amended its Internal Regulations through Regulatory Amendment No. 53/2026, and the change is already in effect. Those with cases pending before the Court need to be aware of two specific changes: a new requirement for summaries in petitions and appeals, and a new procedure for those wishing to object to virtual judgment. Neither of these changes is merely cosmetic.

Requirement for a Structured Summary in Petitions and Appeals

From now on, every initial petition for an original action (proceedings that begin directly in the STJ, without going through other instances beforehand) and every appeal addressed to the Court must contain a summary with four elements: (i) The facts and legal grounds of the case: the "why" of the request; (ii) The requests made: what exactly is being requested from the Court; (iii) The content of the decisions being challenged, if any: what the previous instance decided and why that decision is being contested; and (iv) The legal provisions cited as violated: which articles of law the party believes have been disregarded.

In other words, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) is requesting that each petition include a kind of "executive summary" of the case, instead of requiring the judge to sift through dozens or hundreds of pages of information.

The requirement has been in effect since July 1, 2026, but it still depends on a regulatory act from the Court's Presidency, which will define what happens to those who do not comply with the requirement. Until this act is issued, there is no express sanction for the absence of the summary. This does not mean, however, that it is worthwhile to wait. Experience shows that, when the regulation comes, it usually retroactively demands an adaptation that should have already been made. The safest course of action is to incorporate the summary as a practice from now on.

New Rules for Opposing Virtual Trials

The second change is in Article 184-A, a provision that already dealt with the procedure for virtual sessions and which now has two new paragraphs. According to §3, the parties may submit oral arguments and written submissions electronically, and express opposition to virtual judgment, up to 48 hours before the start of the session. §3-A introduced an important caveat: if the rapporteur does not examine this opposition beforehand, this does not invalidate the judgment per se. It is necessary to demonstrate concrete prejudice, in accordance with Article 282, §1, of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the case to be taken to an in-person session. In practice, this narrows the room for maneuver for those working with tight deadlines and reinforces the importance of procedural control attentive to this type of detail, which previously went almost unnoticed.

There is one more point worth noting. This reform did not arise in isolation. It interacts with the filter of the relevance of the federal issue, foreseen in the Constitution since Amendment 125/2022 and still without its own regulation, and with Bill 3.085/2026, already approved by the Senate's Constitution and Justice Committee. These are different fronts, but with the same objective: to reduce the volume of cases that reach the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) and transfer part of the organization of this work to those who file petitions.

Procedural changes like this often seem, at first glance, to be merely technical adjustments. But in practice, they change how a process needs to be conducted, and the cost of not adapting in time usually becomes apparent when it's too late to correct.

Strategic Recommendation

If your company or you have cases pending before the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), it is worth reviewing, with specialized legal support, whether the petitions and appeals in progress already incorporate the requirements of Regulatory Amendment No. 53/2026 — and whether the deadlines for opposing virtual judgment are being monitored with the attention they deserve.

The Litigation team at our firm closely monitors changes to the rules of the higher courts and is available to assess your case and advise on the next steps.

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

• “"All initial petitions in original actions and appeal petitions must contain a brief summary of the facts."”
• “"The presence of an artificial intelligence system from the court itself, called "STJ Logos," which will be used to read petitions and prepare summaries."“
• “"Opposition to a virtual trial is permitted up to 48 hours before the start of the session."”
• “"The requirement for a summary was a way to deliver all the procedural steps in an easier, visually appealing way, to have a faster and more efficient process."”