{"id":5083,"date":"2026-10-07T10:00:03","date_gmt":"2026-10-07T13:00:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/feadv.com.br\/?p=5083"},"modified":"2026-10-05T20:43:42","modified_gmt":"2026-10-05T23:43:42","slug":"normative-instruction-no-42-of-2026-of-the-stj-structured-summary-and-new-standard-of-procedural-practice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/feadv.com.br\/en\/instrucao-normativa-n-o-42-2026-do-stj-o-resumo-estruturado-e-o-novo-padrao-da-pratica-recursal\/","title":{"rendered":"STJ Normative Instruction No. 42\/2026: the structured summary and the new standard of the appellate practice"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The publication of Normative Instruction No. 42 on August 19, 2026, by the Superior Court of Justice (STJ)<\/span>)\u00b9<\/span>, It consolidates one of the most profound transformations in the routine of litigation before the higher courts.<\/span><\/p>

By regulating Article 343-A of the Court's Internal Regulations\u00b2<\/span>, The regulatory act establishes the obligation to submit a structured summary for all originating actions and appeals directed to the court, with the exception of rare legal exceptions\u00b3.<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>

More than a bureaucratic formality, the new guideline imposes a methodological revision in the drafting of procedural documents, requiring analytical synthesis and technical rigor from legal professionals.<\/span><\/p>

\u00a0<\/p>

The context and purpose of the new procedural requirement<\/b><\/h3>

The Superior Court of Justice has been dealing with a massive volume of cases distributed daily for years. The search for rationalizing the delivery of justice and for the utilization of technological tools has driven the creation of the structured summary.<\/span><\/p>

The standard stipulates that the summary be made available in a machine-readable format, inserted in a specific field of the electronic systems of the STJ itself or of the original courts.<\/span><\/p>

This systematic approach aims to speed up thematic screening, facilitate the identification of repetitive arguments, and improve the admissibility review of appeals, especially the Special Appeal.<\/span><\/p>

Treating this innovation as mere routine automated filling constitutes a high risk of procedural error. The consistency between the summary and the recitals is rigorously scrutinized by the adjudicating bodies.<\/span><\/p>

\u00a0<\/p>

Mandatory requirements for the structured summary<\/b><\/h3>

Article 3 of Normative Instruction No. 42\/2026 sets the maximum limit of 3,000 characters for the abstract, requiring direct language and compliance with the following formal elements:<\/span><\/p>