The Federal Supreme Court (STF) and the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) handle a specific type of action to preserve their authority. This legal instrument, known as the reclamação, is an autonomous action of original jurisdiction. It does not serve as a mere appeal. Instead, it allows an interested party or the Public Ministry to challenge decisions that infringe on a court’s jurisdiction or authority.
The STF derives its constitutional basis from Article 102, I, ‘l’, of the Constitution. The STJ finds its authority in Article 105, I, ‘f’, and the provision on binding summary rulings in Article 103-A, § 3º. In the procedural code, the reclamação moved from Law 8.038/1990 to the CPC/2015, with specific rules now located in Articles 988 to 993.
The CPC establishes when this action is appropriate. The law lists specific grounds. A reclamação may be filed to preserve a court’s jurisdiction, ensure the authority of its decisions, or guarantee the observance of a binding summary ruling or a decision from the STF in concentrated constitutional review. It also covers cases involving the Resolution of Repetitive Claims (IRDR) or Assumption of Jurisdiction (IAC).
A provision in the text clarifies that the third and fourth grounds cover both the incorrect application of a legal thesis and the failure to apply it to cases that correspond to it. The law also lists situations where the action is inadmissible, such as when it is filed after the decision becomes final (transit in julgado) or without exhausting ordinary instances to ensure the observance of a precedent of general repercussion or repetitive resources.
New Law Adds Fifth Ground to Action
A significant change occurred with Law 15.484/2026. This legislation regulates the relevance of infraconstitutional federal legal question (RQF). The law amended the CPC to add a fifth ground to Article 988. It allows a reclamação in exceptional cases to guarantee the observance of an STJ decision on a special appeal judged under the RQF regime. The text also rewrote the inadmissibility rule to extend the same mechanism to this precedent. The Internal Rules of the STJ (RISTJ), through Amendment 55/2026, completed this design. To understand what changed, it is necessary to contrast the STF experience with that of the STJ.
The STF has expanded the use of the reclamação beyond classic grounds. The Court now accepts controlling the correct application of its general repercussion precedents by second-instance courts. This orientation began under the CPC/2015. In a ruling on an interlocutory appeal in Rcl 24.686, the Second Panel, under Minister Teori Zavascki, established that the new Code created the possibility of a reclamação to guarantee the observance of a general repercussion decision. The reporter interpreted this restrictionively to prevent the STF from assuming the competence of other Superior Courts. The Court describes its current stance as peaceful: the reclamação requires the prior exhaustion of all available resources, including in Superior Courts.
STF Reclamação Volume Explodes Over Years
This path has evident virtues. It allows the Constitutional Court to verify, even exceptionally, if the theses it has fixed are being complied with. This preserves the integrity of the precedent system. However, this path has a cost. The volume of reclamações has exploded. Data from the STJ Judicial Secretariat shows that between 2007 and 2018, the STF received between 894 and 3,467 reclamações per year, representing 0.83% to 3.53% of all cases. In 2019, the number jumped to 5,789 (6.31%). Since then, the curve has been ascending: 10,131 in 2024 (12.44%) and 14,212 in 2025 (16.59%). In the first six months of 2026, there were 7,584 (16.83% of the total). The annual volume has quadrupled in seven years.
Related Post: Court Rules on Text Message Classification
This is not a reflection of a general increase in demand. In 2025, approximately one in every six new actions was a reclamação. The Ministers themselves diagnose the effect of this more permissive stance. In August 2025, discussing Rcl 73.811 in the First Panel, Minister Luiz Fux criticized the use of the reclamação as a “leapfrog” route, stating, “We are becoming packed with reclamações.” Minister Flávio Dino warned of the “ordinarization” of the STF through this route.
While the STF faces a flood of these actions, the STJ chose a restrictive path. Although it admits the reclamação in classic grounds, the STJ has consolidated an orientation against its use to control the application of a thesis established in a repetitive special appeal. The Court had already argued that the reclamação serves to preserve the authority of a decision in a concrete case, not the jurisprudence of the Tribunal.
The Special Court, in Rcl 36.476/SP, decided by majority that the reclamação does not fit to control the application of a thesis fixed in a repetitive special appeal. The majority argued that Law 13.256/2016 deliberately removed the reference to “repetitive cases” from the fourth ground of the CPC. They understood that admitting the reclamação would threaten the purpose of the repetitive regime, where the Court fixes the thesis and local judges apply it.
STJ Rejects Reclamação for Controlling Precedent
The numbers are compatible with the conclusion that this restrictive option helped contain the volume of reclamações in the STJ. After peaks in 2014 and 2015, the STJ began to receive fewer. In 2025, there were 2,089 reclamações, representing only 0.42% of the 500,622 cases received that year. This contrasts with the 14,212 in the STF. The rejection rate for these actions in the STJ was 98.66% in 2025. This perception aligns with the role of each court. Superior courts fix the qualified precedents, and ordinary instances apply them faithfully.
However, this restrictive understanding also has a systemic collateral effect. Although it rationalizes the use and volume of reclamações, one cannot deny that there are cases where ordinary instances fail, manifestly, in applying — and controlling the application of — the qualified precedent. In these hypotheses, the prejudiced party does not have a specific and effective instrument to directly submit the argument of non-observance to the court responsible for forming the precedent to the STJ.
Reclamações Against Special Appeals Under the RQF Regime
Conversely, a violation is not manifest when the party needs external elements to prove the facts. The reclamação is also inadmissible when the violation is not obvious. This happens when the decision merely errs in interpretation or lacks a clear factual basis. The text cites the Tema 1.076/STJ as an example of manifest violation. It cites the Tema 1255/STJ to illustrate the requirements for filing the action.