Relevance Filter at the STJ: What Changes in the Special Appeal

After years of anticipation since Constitutional Amendment 125/2022, the special appeal has gained a new admissibility requirement: the relevance filter. Law 15,484/2026, sanctioned and published in Brazil's Official Gazette (Diário Oficial da União) on 08/04/2026, regulated the mechanism, which takes effect as of 09/03/2026. In practice, this changes how special appeals need to be drafted from that date forward — and demands heightened attention from anyone seeking to bring a case before the STJ.

What the relevance filter is

The relevance filter is, for the special appeal, what general repercussion already was for the extraordinary appeal: an admissibility requirement that demands the question discussed go beyond the individual interest of the parties involved in the case. Constitutional Amendment 125/2022 amended Article 105 of the Federal Constitution to condition the admission of the special appeal on a showing of relevance of the infra-constitutional federal law questions discussed in the case — but that provision depended on regulation by statute to take effect.

That regulation came with Law 15,484/2026, originating from Bill 3,085/2026, which sets out how relevance must be demonstrated, the procedure for the STJ's review, and the effects of the ruling on other cases discussing the same controversy.

How to demonstrate relevance

The new law requires the special appeal to contain a specific, substantiated section demonstrating the economic, political, social or legal relevance of the question discussed — making clear its importance beyond the subjective interest of the parties to that case. It is not enough to generically allege that the matter is relevant: the law requires its own substantiation, separate from the appeal's arguments on the merits.

Lawyers have flagged this as a "double substantiation" requirement: the special appeal now needs to simultaneously demonstrate both the grounds and the merits of the federal question and, in a separate section, its relevance. The absence of that second showing can undermine the appeal's admissibility even when the merits are solid.

Cases where relevance is presumed

The law sets out a list of cases in which relevance is presumed, waiving the need for a more thorough showing on this specific requirement:

• Criminal actions;
• Administrative misconduct (improbidade administrativa) actions;
• Actions with a case value exceeding 500 times the minimum wage;
• Actions that may result in ineligibility to run for office;
• Cases in which the appealed decision contradicts the STJ's prevailing case law.

Outside these cases, relevance must be demonstrated specifically and with substantiation, on a case-by-case basis.

What happens if relevance is not recognized

The absence of the specific section demonstrating relevance is treated as a formal requirement: its absence can lead to the appeal not being admitted, regardless of the merits of the question discussed. On the other hand, when the formal requirement is met but the STJ finds that the matter is not relevant, the law establishes an important protection for the appellant: that rejection can only occur through a vote of two-thirds of the members of the competent panel — a qualified quorum, not a single-judge decision or a simple majority.

What this changes in practice

In practice, the relevance filter requirement makes drafting a special appeal an even more technical and strategic exercise. It is not enough to identify the violation of federal law: it is necessary to independently build the arguments showing why that specific case deserves the STJ's attention — anticipating, even, the possible objection that the controversy is of interest only to the parties to the case.

• Special appeals filed from 09/03/2026 onward must already comply with the requirement;
• The relevance substantiation must be drafted in its own section, separate from the merits of the appeal;
• Cases falling under the statutory presumption of relevance have this argumentative burden reduced, but not eliminated;
• The absence of the showing is, on its own, grounds for the appeal not being admitted.

This content is for informational purposes and reflects the legislation in force as of its publication date. As the relevance filter is a new mechanism, its practical application by the STJ is still being consolidated, and the courts' interpretation of specific points may evolve. [CASE LAW TO BE CONFIRMED]

How a lawyer can help

Given this new requirement, building the special appeal now requires a technical assessment on two simultaneous fronts: the viability of the appeal's merits and the strategy for demonstrating the relevance of the federal question involved. A lawyer with a practice before the STJ can assess whether the case falls under one of the statutory presumptions, and, when it does not, build the specific substantiation required by the new law.