The Divergence Boards serve as an appropriate solution within the Supreme Federal Court (STF) and the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) to standardize the internal legal decisions of these courts.
They are presented when there is a disagreement between decisions made by various divisions of the same court on the same legal issue.
This appeal aims to ensure legal certainty and equality before the law, preventing similar cases from being treated differently by the same judiciary.
This article presents a practical model for using Embargos de Divergence to help lawyers in appellate proceedings.
It is crucial to first examine the eligibility criteria, including the existing differences between the conflicting judgments, which we will discuss further.
Admissibility criteria for Divergence Embarges.
- The difference in opinions being challenged must be current, meaning both interpretations must be valid during the appeal.
- Conflicting judgments in cases must be handled in a fair and legal manner to ensure the consistent resolution of contested rights.
- It is important to clearly specify the paradigm judgments (which have different interpretations of the decision) and provide authenticated copies or certificates.
- The appeal must be filed within the specified legal timeframe of 15 working days, as stated in Article 1.003, § 5 of the Civil Procedure Code.
- Procedural costs need to be verified, except when free legal aid is provided.
Embargo Model of Divergence
Enhance the performance of the President of the Court of Justice.
Paraphrased: The President of the Federal Supreme Court is excellent.
Case Number: [Original case number at the initial instance and in the Court]
Embargant: [Full Name], [Country], [Marital Status], [Occupation], holding RG number [G Number] and CPF number [CPF Number], residing at [Complete Address], represented by their attorney as indicated in the attached document.
Various restrictions,
Based on Articles 1,033 and subsequent provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, following the respected ruling issued by the [Collegiate Body that rendered the appealed judgment], the Special Appeal documents in Appeal Number [Number] provide the following remarks:
Select the menu of the decision being challenged.
due to the factual reasons and the entitlement to proceed
I – Storminess
The court decision was made available in the Electronic Justice Diary on [Publication Date], which was the final day for submitting the current Divergence Appeals by [Last Term]. Therefore, this appeal is considered untimely under Article 1.003, § 5 of the Civil Procedure Code.
II – Physical Appearance
The current Divergence Boards have the authority to identify a discrepancy between the Court’s ruling and other judgments issued by the Court of Justice on the same legal issue, as outlined in Article 1.043 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Jurisprudential divergence in Section III.
Judgment is prevented.
The court ruling, issued by the [Court body that issued the ruling], interpreted [Quoting the portion of the ruling that illustrates the court’s understanding of the matter].
III.2 – Model(s)
The difference in legal interpretation continues based on the understanding established in the following model(s).
Paradigm 1:
- Judge: College official who issued the model decision
- Case Number: [Identification of the Paradigm Judgment Process]
- Rapporteur: [Name of the Rapporteur(a)]
- Date of Judgment: [Court where Judgment was made]
- [Information on Advertising]
- Select the menu for the model judgment.
The passage from the paradigm judgment demonstrates a different interpretation of the same legal question.
Repeat the same structure for every paradigm judgment mentioned.
III.3 – Proof of Divergence
The comparison of the judgment under review with the paradigm(s) clearly shows a significant difference in the interpretation of [Specify the disputed legal issue].
The judgment under review supported a particular interpretation, while opposing views were presented by different paradigms.
The similarity in tactics and legal aspects between the cases is apparent, as both cases involve discussing the tactical and legal resemblances.
The diverse legal opinions from various factions within the Court indicate the necessity for consistent case law on the issue.
IV – REQUEST
The Embargante must be the current recognized source and, upon revising the appealed judgment, the interpretation established in previous judgments is consistent with the case law of this Tribunal on the subject.
Terms under which
He has deviated from his route.
[Location], [Date]
The Lawyer’s Name
OAB/[State abbreviation] [OAB Number]
Instantly decrease entire components.
Having a prepared template can be crucial for increasing your efficiency. Picture an AI system that can generate tailored legal documents using just the vital details of your case.
We are a cutting-edge AI platform designed for lawyers to transform their legal practice with fair and efficient solutions.
At Legal AI, you can quickly access a completely customized document for your case.
Explore the advantages of utilizing Legal AI.
- Efficiency and precision: create your process components more quickly, guaranteeing clarity and minimizing writing errors.
- Legal security involves possessing documents that comply with constantly updated regulations and legal precedents.
- Our artificial intelligence adapts the writing based on the specific requirements of the case, ensuring a solid argumentation.
- Automate administrative tasks and focus more on important aspects like negotiations and decision-making.
The top AI for lawyers is available for a free trial.
