This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), requesting urgent relief, filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) to hold the Federal Government objectively liable for the issuance of Presidential Decree 10.084/2019, which revoked Federal Decree 6.961/2009, which approved the agroecological zoning of sugarcane and instructed the National Monetary Council to establish standards for financing operations in the sugar and ethanol sector, under the terms of the zoning. It is alleged that when issuing the new Decree, the Federal Government failed to provide technical or political justification for revoking the previous rule. It is alleged that, due to the lack of justification, the new Decree has the potential to cause irreversible environmental damage to the Amazon biome and the ecosystem services produced by the forest, which implies potential national and global impacts, especially regarding climate regulation and rainfall distribution. The court argues that the Decree has the potential to hinder the demonstration of compliance with the goals of the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Decree 9.073/2017). The investigations that led to the action were conducted through a Civil Inquiry aimed at determining the legality of authorizing sugarcane cultivation in the Amazon, given the potential environmental damage resulting from the activity and the failure to adopt mitigation measures. The investigation was initiated through a researcher's representation, based on scientific studies published in the journal Science, which demonstrated, among other factors, the economic and environmental unfeasibility of authorizing sugarcane cultivation in the Amazon and Pantanal biomes. The lawsuit files a preliminary request for (i) the court to suspend the effects of Federal Decree 10.084/2019, reinstating the previous decree regarding the agroecological zoning of sugarcane, including notifying the licensing environmental agencies that sugarcane planting activities should not be licensed in the region, and (ii) that the Federal Government refrain from issuing a new decree on this subject until it demonstrates, through technical and scientific studies, the plausibility of the measure in light of the duty to protect the environment. One of the arguments presented by the plaintiff to justify the preliminary request was the possibility of irreparable or difficult-to-repair damage resulting from the environmental licensing of sugarcane plantations in the Amazon biome and other fragile ecosystems. The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office also requests, in a final request, that the Federal Government be ordered to pay collective material and moral damages.

In its response, the Union (i) defends the legality and constitutionality of Federal Decree 10.084/2019, alleging that the new decree is in accordance with the provisions of the RenovaBio program and with new production techniques, and that Brazil must double the production and use of ethanol as an automotive fuel to meet its Paris Agreement goals, (ii) that the practice regulated by the new decree must observe the environmental legal framework, especially environmental licensing and (iii) the absence of objective liability of the State due to the failure to prove damage.

A preliminary injunction was issued in which the court ordered the immediate suspension of the effects of Federal Decree 10.084/2019 until the Federal Government demonstrates, within 180 days, the technical studies and scientific feasibility of non-impactfulness that supported the new legislation and the repeal of the previous one in the biomes involved. Furthermore, the court ordered the Federal Government to take all necessary steps to reinstate the effects of Federal Decree 6.961/2009 until the submission of the documents or the expiration of the deadline.

The preliminary injunction was subsequently suspended in part by a decision handed down in Instrumental Appeal 1012253-37.2020.4.01.0000. The suspended portion of the appealed decision refers to the order to notify the federal, state, and municipal environmental licensing agencies in the Legal Amazon, prohibiting the authorization/licensing of sugarcane planting activities in the region. After the Federal Union filed an Internal Appeal, the 6th Panel of the Regional Federal Court of the 1st Region (TRF-1) upheld the single judge decision, denying the appeal.

Delivered in April 2025, the final ruling dismissed the request to suspend Federal Decree 10.084/2019 without resolving its merits due to the inadequacy of the type of action proposed. The ruling argued that this request should be pursued through a concentrated constitutional review action. It also dismissed the claims for moral and material damages, understanding that the revocation of the zoning did not cause concrete and determined environmental damages that had been demonstrated throughout the case by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office. It emphasized that, since there is no proven environmental damage and there are no specific recipients or direct and immediate impact on the community, compensation for collective moral damages is not applicable. The judgment became final, with the case being definitively closed and archived.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for urgent relief, filed by IBAMA against Alto Norte Indústria, Comércio e Exportação de Madeiras Ltda., seeking compensation for environmental and climate damages based on an infraction notice for the storage of logs without an environmental license. This ACP is part of a set of 9 actions filed by IBAMA with the same grounds, but against different defendants, to challenge illegal timber storage and climate damage. The plaintiff alleges that the storage of timber without proven origin is associated with illegal deforestation and predatory exploitation in the Amazon biome. Thus, it seeks compensation for resulting environmental damages, including (i) damage caused to flora and fauna, (ii) soil erosion, and (iii) contribution to global warming. Regarding climate damage, it claims that the illegal conduct not only removed carbon sinks from the forest but also caused the release of carbon into the atmosphere. The author seeks to have determined (i) an obligation to restore vegetation in an area equivalent to that estimated by IBAMA, based on the volume of seized logs, totaling 20.63 hectares, preferably in an area of the same biome within an Indigenous Land, Conservation Unit, or Agrarian Reform Settlement Project, and (ii) an obligation to pay for climate damage based on the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) in the amount of R$ 2,003,342.17. Based on the polluter-pays principle, the author argues that the negative climate externality represents an external social cost that is not internalized by the illegal vegetation suppression activity, leaving it to society. The author maintains that climate damage can be identified on an individual scale by multiplying the estimated GHG emissions from the activity by the SCC. In this specific case, IBAMA uses the Amazon Fund methodology to estimate emissions based on the area of the Amazon biome considered deforested, totaling 7,571.21 tons of carbon. It expressly mentions environmental justice and argues that accountability for climate damage consists of legally affirming the correction of the distortion of environmental burdens and benefits. The plaintiff requests, as an urgent measure: (i) suspension of financing and tax incentives and access to credit lines by the offender, (ii) freezing of assets in the estimated value for the obligation to restore vegetation and the obligation to pay for climate damage, and (iii) judicial embargo of the illegal polluting activity. It also asserts the need for reversal of the burden of proof and, definitively, requests that the defendant be ordered to restore an area equivalent to the deforested area and to pay the amount corresponding to the social cost of carbon.

The court ruled that the preliminary injunction was partially granted, finding that there was evident danger in delay, especially considering the fragility of the ecologically balanced environment. Thus, it granted and decreed (i) the suspension of the right to participate in financing lines offered by official credit institutions, communicating this decision to the Central Bank of Brazil (BACEN); (ii) the restriction of access to tax incentives and benefits offered by the Public Authorities at all three levels of the Federation; (iii) the freezing of assets of Alto Norte Indústria, Comércio e Exportação de Madeiras Ltda., in the amount of R$ 2,224,949.63. It also provided, subsidiarily, for the possibility of other forms of asset seizure.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for preliminary injunction, filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF), SOS Mata Atlântica, and ABRAMPA against the Federal Government, aiming to declare the nullity of Dispatch 4.410/2020 issued by the Ministry of the Environment (MMA). The plaintiffs claim that the challenged Dispatch altered the understanding consolidated in MMA Dispatch 64.773/2017 regarding the specialty of the Atlantic Forest Law (Federal Law 11.428/2006) in relation to the Forest Code (Federal Law 12.651/2012). They argue that the entirety of the Atlantic Forest biome is subject to the Atlantic Forest Law, which, in its system, prevents the consolidation of occupations in illegally deforested Permanent Protection Areas (APP). The problem is that Decree 4,410/2020 mandated that federal public entities apply the Forest Code, which is a more detrimental general rule, allowing the consolidation of occupation of illegally deforested Permanent Preservation Areas (APP) (up to July 22, 2008). Among other issues, they aim to prevent the cancellation of numerous environmental infraction notices for deforestation and fires as a consequence of the eventual consolidation of APP occupation. They emphasize that, in the national territory, the largest source of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions stems from deforestation and changes in land use, and that special legislation, such as the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12,187/2009), provides for the duty of preservation, conservation, and recovery of large natural biomes. Finally, they request, as a preliminary measure, (i) the suspension of the effects of the challenged Order 4,410/2021 and (ii) the reinstatement of the effects of MMA Order 64,773/2017. On the merits, they request, among other issues, the confirmation of the preliminary measure with (i) a declaration of nullity of the challenged Order and (ii) an order compelling the Federal Government to refrain from issuing another normative act with similar content, especially denying the prevalence of the special legislation of the Atlantic Forest over the Forest Code.

The 20th Civil Court of the Federal District Judicial Section (SJDF) declined jurisdiction in favor of the 1st Federal Civil Court of the SJDF, understanding that there was a connection with Popular Action 1024582-66.2020.4.01.3400. The Federal Union argued that the action had become moot due to the spontaneous revocation of Decree 4.410/2020 and emphasized that the matter had been brought by the Attorney General's Office to the Supreme Federal Court (STF) through the filing of a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality, so that the STF will decide, with binding and erga omnes effects, the best interpretation to be given to the normative framework under discussion. Therefore, it requested the dismissal of the case.

In its ruling, the court of the 1st Federal Civil Court of the Federal District (SJDF) determined that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, dismissing the case without prejudice. The case file was then sent, by mandatory review, to the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region for the mandatory double review process. In its decision, the Court upheld the dismissal of the case. After the decision became final, the case was definitively archived.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for urgent relief, filed by the Arayara Association for Education and Culture and the Z-5 Fishermen's Colony against the company Copelmi Mineração Ltda. and FEPAM (State Foundation for Environmental Protection) regarding the Guaíba Mine Project. Copelmi intends to implement the Guaíba Mine Project on the banks of the Jacuí River. The project is considered the largest open-pit coal mine in Brazil and has a high pollution potential. The undertaking is located in areas inhabited by traditional communities, such as the Z-5 Fishermen's Colony and indigenous territories. It is related to the State Policy on Mineral Coal and the Petrochemical Hub of Rio Grande do Sul (RS) – created by State Law 15.047/2017 – which the plaintiffs claim were established without public consultation. They allege that, after two public hearings, the period for submitting comments and opinions ended. They claim that other hearings were requested by affected communities, but the requests were ignored. Furthermore, they point out that there was no prior, free, and informed consultation with the fishermen of the Z-5 Colony. They assert that Copelmi ignored the area of influence of the Atlantic Forest biome and the rights of the affected communities in the Environmental Impact Study/Environmental Impact Report (EIA/RIMA). They argue that socio-environmental impacts must encompass the cultural or symbolic dimension of social life, and that the Public Authority has a legal duty to prevent damage and, should it occur, the obligation to adopt all necessary measures to reduce its effects. They allege a violation of Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO), the Federal Constitution, and the State Environmental Code of Rio Grande do Sul, which renders the licensing process for the Guaíba Mine Project null and void. Among other issues, they request: (i) as a preliminary measure, the suspension of the project's licensing process; and (ii) on the merits, the prohibition of the installation of the Guaíba Mine Project at the location specified in the EIA/RIMA carried out, as it contradicts the fight against climate change consolidated in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and, subsidiarily, the declaration of nullity of the licensing process.

A preliminary decision was issued denying the request for urgent relief, based on the following grounds: (i) the lack of opportunity for the fishermen of Colony Z-5 to express their views had not been unequivocally proven; (ii) there was no urgency at that time, as the preliminary license does not yet authorize the start of the company's activities; and (iii) FEPAM had not yet prepared an opinion on the EIA/RIMA after the company's additions, so it could not be stated that the fishermen were not considered in the preparation of the study.

A preliminary decision was issued denying the request for urgent relief, based on the following grounds: (i) the lack of opportunity for the fishermen of Colony Z-5 to express their views had not been unequivocally proven; (ii) there was no urgency at that time, as the preliminary license does not yet authorize the start of the company's activities; and (iii) FEPAM had not yet prepared an opinion on the EIA/RIMA after the company's additions, so it could not be stated that the fishermen were not considered in the preparation of the study.

In its defense, FEPAM argues, among other things, that: (i) the initial complaint is flawed because there is no basis for the request to prohibit the installation of the Guaíba Mine Project, which would violate the PNMC (National Policy for Climate Change), among other reasons; (ii) the Judiciary cannot assess the environmental viability of the project, especially its compatibility with the PNMC; (iii) the licensing process is regular, since public hearings were held and no impediment to the participation of the fishermen of the Z-5 Colony was found, also arguing that the EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) does not need to be exhaustive, and that it is possible to make additions after the granting of the environmental license.

Copelmi also filed a response, alleging, among other points, that: (i) the requests to prohibit the project in relation to the violation of the PNMC and the request for annulment lack cause of action; (ii) the environmental licensing of the project held public hearings in the municipalities that comprise its area of direct influence, in compliance with environmental legislation; (iii) the issues raised by the plaintiffs were duly analyzed in the EIA/RIMA; (iv) ILO Convention 169 does not apply to artisanal fishermen in the Jacuí Delta region, as they do not qualify as a tribal people; and (v) the Guaíba Mine Project will not cause a direct impact on fishermen.

Subsequently, a decision was issued ordering the consolidation of this action with Public Civil Action No. 9065931-65.2019.8.21.0001, filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of Rio Grande do Sul (MPRS) regarding the Petrochemical Complex, due to the connection between the claims. Because of incompatibility between the electronic systems of the Court of Rio Grande do Sul, this Public Civil Action was redistributed under number 9019860-68.2020.8.21.0001, and subsequently attached to the Public Civil Action concerning the Petrochemical Complex.

The licensing procedure for the Mina Guaíba project was declared null and void within the scope of Public Civil Action No. 5069057-47.2019.4.04.7100 (Arayara Association of Education and Culture and others vs. FUNAI, Copelmi Mineração Ltda. and FEPAM). Therefore, the court decided to suspend the present Public Civil Action for six months, in order to await the exhaustion of the appeals phase and the confirmation or not of the decision in the aforementioned action.

The case was transferred to another electronic system of the Court, and is now numbered 5125450-05.2020.8.21.0001. With the deadline having expired, the procedural suspension has been lifted.

Copelmi announced its withdrawal from the Guaíba Mine Project and requested the archiving of the environmental licensing process. Therefore, the judge recognized the loss of the object of the project and dismissed the case without prejudice. The case was archived.

This is an injunction action, with a request for urgent relief, filed by JBS SA against the non-profit organizations Greenpeace Brazil and WAP (World Society for the Protection of Animals), due to protests organized by the defendants. It is alleged that, on April 29, 2025, members of the organizations invaded the plaintiff company's headquarters in São Paulo during a shareholders' meeting, causing a disturbance by carrying out demonstrations with "hidden and unconfessed interests," intended to publicly defame the company, abusing freedom of expression and criticism. The members of the organizations displayed banners with the slogan "JBS profits, the forests burn," in English and Portuguese. Some of the invaders were arrested in flagrante delicto, and a police report was filed. The demonstration was publicized on the organizations' social media and in news outlets. On the same day, the organizations allegedly spread other posters throughout the city and on trucks, improperly using the JBS logo, with false and defamatory information such as "The people suffer, JBS profits," "JBS villains of the climate," "Climate crisis, a JBS offering," "Feeding the world with the destruction of the planet," in addition to creating websites dedicated exclusively to disseminating advertising harmful to JBS. The plaintiff alleges that the images and statements spread by the organizations have no correlation whatsoever with her actions and that the defendants' intention is to associate the plaintiff's brands with generic and unfounded accusations. She argues that the organizations' actions do not aim to protect the environment, but only to tarnish the company's national and international public opinion on the eve of its listing on the New York Stock Exchange. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants have profited economically from the improper use of JBS trademarks and argues that there is a well-founded fear of a second invasion of the company's premises at the next shareholders' meeting, to be held in May of the same year, and therefore seeks injunctive relief to prevent the defendants from repeating the acts. In preliminary proceedings, the plaintiff requests: (i) that the defendants remove online posts that use JBS logos and associate them with images without proven connection to their business activities; (ii) the issuance of a court order for the defendants to refrain from affixing or circulating vehicles containing posters that use JBS logos and associate them with images without proven relation to their operations; (iii) the granting of injunctive relief, on an anticipatory and preventive basis, to prevent the defendants from carrying out further invasions of JBS headquarters or any of its properties. In the final stage, he requested confirmation of the preliminary injunctions.

An interlocutory decision was issued ordering the defendants to refrain from using JBS logos without authorization in demonstrations and from carrying out further invasions of any of the plaintiff's property, under penalty of a fine.

In its defense, Greenpeace contested the accusations of trademark infringement against JBS and trespassing, stating that the demonstrations were peaceful and part of a legitimate public interest campaign aimed at transparency in production chains in the Amazon. It emphasized that the Greenpeace demonstration at JBS headquarters and the WAP demonstration involving posters and trucks in São Paulo were independent of each other. It pointed out that all material disseminated during the demonstration and online was based on public data, technical reports, and journalistic investigations, serving to disseminate truthful information about how JBS disregards its commitments to public authorities and civil society regarding its contribution to illegal deforestation, forced labor, greenhouse gas emissions, and land grabbing. It highlighted that the demonstrations were carried out within the scope of the legitimate exercise of its institutional purpose, the duty to defend an ecologically balanced environment, and the observance of freedom of expression, the right to criticize, and freedom of thought. He argued that the action constitutes an attempt at prior censorship through the instrumentalization of an injunction, and falls under what would be considered SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) – the use of the judicial system to intimidate, silence, and financially weaken critical social movements. He requested that the action be dismissed in its entirety and that the decision granting the preliminary injunction to JBS be overturned.

In its defense, WAP BR argued that the lawsuit is an attempt at censorship disguised as a claim for the protection of the plaintiff's trademark and property rights. It stated that it never held demonstrations on the plaintiff's property. It affirmed the informative and opinion-formative role of the campaign launched by the association, which occurred in accordance with the legal and constitutional limits that safeguard freedom of expression and the right to criticize corporate practices regarding socio-environmental responsibility. It maintained that the plaintiff's narrative that it was a coordinated and orchestrated conspiratorial action between both defendant organizations is unfounded, considering that the demonstrations were entirely distinct, sharing only the intention of informing society about JBS's activities and their relationship to the impacts on animal welfare and the environmental and climate crisis. It requested that the lawsuit be dismissed in its entirety, reversing the previous decision that granted the preliminary injunction.

In August 2025, a judgment was issued that partially upheld the action, confirming the order that the defendants refrain from carrying out further invasions of the plaintiff's property. The judgment deemed the other allegations unfounded and affirmed the right to freedom of expression. The reasoning for the decision highlighted: (i) the duty to preserve and protect the environment for present and future generations, as unsustainable practices should be discouraged; (ii) that no offense to the plaintiff's honor or image was established, as the defendants acted within the limits of freedom of expression, basing themselves on facts and public news when publicizing the plaintiff's activities in the agricultural sector, emphasizing the emission of polluting gases and deforestation resulting from the activities and highlighting the commitment made between the company, the public authorities and civil society to adopt measures to reduce pollution and deforestation, supported by Article 225 of the Constitution; (iii) the protests were carried out individually and peacefully; (iv) the right to exclusive use of the trademark is not absolute and must be subject to the exceptions provided for in the Industrial Property Law and to the balance with the constitutional values of freedom of expression.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against José Barbosa de Araújo due to the deforestation of an area of 127.56 hectares, between 2015 and 2018, in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant's occupation of the land was illegal because it is an area included in an Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), owned and of interest to the Federal Government, managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractive communities. This class action lawsuit is part of a set of 22 actions filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) as a result of the investigation carried out in civil inquiry no. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, concerning illegal deforestation within the Antimary Agrarian-Extractive Settlement Project (PAE), but against different defendants. The lawsuit's arguments are based, among other points, on Brazilian Environmental Law, regarding the constitutional protection of the environment, the accusation of deforestation, civil liability propter rem for environmental damages, including climate damages, and collective moral damages. It also mentions, as an environmental liability, the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) resulting from the illegal deforestation of the area, calculated at 76,359.16 tons of carbon dioxide, which are directly related to the Brazilian State's departure from its climate goals, out of step with national and international commitments assumed by Brazil in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). Among other requests, the following are made: (i) reparation for the damages caused by the illegal deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation corresponding to intermediate and residual environmental material damages; (iv) payment of compensation corresponding to climate damages; and (v) payment of compensation corresponding to collective moral damages.

Subsequently, INCRA was included in the active party as a co-litigant assistant to the plaintiff.

A judgment was issued recognizing the relationship between deforestation and climate change, presenting extensive arguments on climate change and civil liability for climate damage, acknowledging said damage in the case. The requests were partially granted, condemning the defendant: a) to fulfill the obligation to restore the degraded area according to the Degraded Area Recovery Plan (PRAD); b) to the obligation not to act, consisting of a prohibition on the defendant's use of the area, in order to allow natural regeneration; c) to pay compensation for material damages related to interim and residual environmental damages, the value of which will be subject to settlement of judgment; d) to pay compensation for climate damages caused by deforestation, in the amount of R$ 1,996,792.13, using as a basis for calculating the amount of carbon emitted the Technical Note prepared by the Amazon Research Institute (IPAM) and, for pricing purposes, the value of 5 dollars per ton, according to the Amazon Fund; e) to the payment of compensation for collective moral damages, in the amount of 5% of the total material damages determined in the settlement of the judgment. Finally, it declared the respective CAR null and void and allocated all the resources obtained to the Fund for Diffuse Rights.

This is a Public Civil Action, with a request for urgent relief, filed by IBAMA against the company V. de Souza Brilhante EIRELI seeking compensation for environmental and climate damages caused by the storage of logs without an environmental license. This Public Civil Action is part of a set of 9 actions filed by IBAMA with the same grounds, but against different defendants, to challenge illegal timber storage and climate damage. The plaintiff alleges that the storage of timber without proven origin is associated with illegal deforestation and predatory exploitation in the Amazon biome. Thus, it seeks compensation for associated environmental damages, including (i) damage caused to flora and fauna, (ii) soil erosion, (iii) contribution to global warming. Regarding climate damage, it claims that the illegal conduct not only removed carbon sinks from the forest, but also caused the release of carbon into the atmosphere. The author seeks to have determined (i) an obligation to restore vegetation in an area equivalent to that estimated by IBAMA, based on the volume of seized logs, totaling 14.90763 hectares, and (ii) an obligation to pay for climate damage based on the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). Based on the polluter-pays principle, the author argues that the negative climate externality represents an external social cost that was not internalized by the illegal vegetation suppression activity. The author maintains that climate damage can be identified on an individual scale by multiplying the estimated GHG emissions from the activity by the SCC. In this specific case, IBAMA uses the Amazon Fund methodology to estimate emissions based on the area of the Amazon biome considered deforested. The author expressly mentions environmental justice and argues that accountability for climate damage consists of legally affirming the correction of the distortion of environmental burdens and benefits. The author requests, as an urgent measure: (i) suspension of financing, tax incentives, and access to credit lines for the offender, (ii) freezing of assets in the estimated amount for the obligation to restore vegetation and the obligation to pay for climate damage, and (iii) a court order to halt the illegal polluting activity. The author further asserts the need for reversal of the burden of proof and, definitively, requests that the defendant be ordered to restore an area equivalent to the deforested area and to pay the amount corresponding to the social cost of carbon emissions.

The court ruled in favor of the preliminary injunction and ordered the reversal of the burden of proof.

In its defense, the defendant argued preliminarily that it lacked standing due to a lack of evidence regarding its authorship of the deforestation and that the initial pleading was defective, arguing that there was no claim or cause of action. On the merits, it asserted its lack of liability due to a lack of evidence that the defendant was the author of the damage, in addition to having no control over the area where the alleged deforestation took place.

Subsequently, a judgment was issued finding the claims valid. The defendant's arguments were refuted, and it was affirmed that the infraction notice met the validity requirements and delimited the environmental damage. The allegation of lack of standing was also refuted, affirming that, in environmental matters, purely objective civil liability prevails. Thus, the defendant was ordered (i) to take action, establishing the recovery of the area, and must prepare and implement a reforestation project for the deforested area, under penalty of fine, and (ii) to pay compensation for property damage, in case of impossibility of recovering the degraded area, in an amount to be defined in the liquidation phase, by arbitration. In response to the judgment, IBAMA filed a motion for clarification requesting that the defendant be ordered to pay the amount of R$ 1,447,650.20 related to the social cost of carbon, on which the judgment did not address. Subsequently, an integrative judgment was issued in which the court remedied the omission in the previous decision by including in the sentence the obligation to pay for the social cost of carbon.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for a preliminary injunction of a precautionary and inhibitory nature, filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against Nortox SA, Syngenta Proteção de Cultivos Ltda., several other companies, and IBAMA, due to environmental damage resulting from soil and water pollution caused by pesticides containing the active ingredient atrazine produced, imported, or marketed by the defendant companies, and whose environmental monitoring of residues must be adequately promoted by the environmental agency. The widespread use of atrazine in Brazilian agriculture and the controversies and serious environmental and health concerns that its use brings with it are highlighted. Atrazine is banned in 44 countries (including the entire European Union), and exposure to the substance is associated with a range of deleterious effects on human health. In addition to its intrinsic toxicity, it is noted that atrazine has high persistence in the environment (once applied, the substance does not degrade easily) and high mobility in the soil, being transported to rivers and groundwater. It cites technical reports from Embrapa documenting the results of using the product in the Dourados River Hydrographic Basin (BHRD) in Mato Grosso do Sul, an area of intense agricultural activity where crops such as soybeans, corn, and sugarcane occupy more than half of the territory. The scientific studies highlight that the presence of atrazine and its degradation products (metabolites) is not restricted to the area of its application and that there is a shortcoming in CONAMA Resolution 357/2005, as it does not establish maximum permitted values. It states that technical assessments have confirmed the presence of atrazine and its derivatives in multiple water sources of various indigenous communities affected by agribusiness activities in the state. It explicitly states that the damage caused by the use of pesticides is not distributed neutrally and disproportionately affects rural workers, Afro-descendant populations, indigenous peoples, traditional communities, and vulnerable riverside populations, characterizing a pattern of environmental racism expressly repudiated in the Belém Declaration (2025) and incompatible with the duties of equality and non-discrimination in environmental and climate matters. It clarifies that the situation of chemical contamination must be interpreted in light of the commitments made by Brazil in the aforementioned declaration, which recognizes that historical and persistent patterns of discrimination, coupled with unequal access to decision-making processes, produce differentiated exposures to pollution, climate risks, and nature loss. It argues that Advisory Opinion (OC) 32/2025 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, although focused on the climate emergency, provides a legal roadmap directly applicable to large-scale chemical environmental damage, establishing guidelines on due diligence and the regulation of business activities. According to the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF), the conduct of the defendants and the state's omission in controlling and monitoring atrazine conflict with the duty of enhanced diligence, precaution, and corporate transparency established in OC 32/2025, which reinforces the need for accountability, the adoption of structural measures for full reparation, cessation and non-repetition, and correction of a structural pattern of disproportionate exposure of vulnerable groups to chemical contamination. Furthermore, the aggravation of the damage due to the ineffectiveness of traditional water treatment methods, exposure to the product in the workplace, the finding of its use in the production of food for which there is no food supply, and the risk assumed by the defendant companies in imposing a long-term contamination sentence on society and the environment are highlighted. In preliminary proceedings, the granting of provisional urgent relief is requested to order the defendant companies to (i) present a detailed work plan for the complete diagnosis of the contamination of the BHRD; (ii) have their assets frozen in the amount of R$ 300,000,000.00; and that IBAMA implement a pesticide residue monitoring program in the Dourados River. On the merits, the defendants are jointly and severally liable for (i) the implementation of a Degraded Area Recovery Plan to remediate/mitigate atrazine contamination in the soil and waters of the BHRD, (ii) payment for collective moral damages and irreversible environmental damages, in the amount of R$ 300,000,000.00 and, specifically in relation to IBAMA, that the agency be obliged to immediately implement environmental monitoring programs for atrazine and initiate the procedure for reassessing its registration.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of São Paulo (MPSP) against Usina Mandu SA due to the burning of sugarcane straw during a period of suspension. The judgment in the case ordered the defendant to compensate for the environmental damage caused by the illegal burning, in the amount of R$400,000.00. Both the plaintiff and the defendant appealed the decision. The MPSP requested an increase in the amount, arguing that the burning caused air pollution, with negative effects on public health and the environment.

Following the filing of an appeal by the Public Prosecutor's Office of São Paulo (MPSP), the dissenting vote of the judgment prevailed. The dissenting vote determined that the polluting company should receive an administrative fine and compensate for the damages caused by the illegal burning. To analyze civil liability, it considered the amount of gases released into the atmosphere, determining, for this purpose, the multiplication of the area by the duration of the burning. It estimated the emission at 15 tons of CO2 per hectare for 30 to 60 minutes, a time it considered average for burnings. It decided that the carbon price should be determined in the carbon market foreseen in the BM&F BOVESPA of São Paulo. It was determined that the value would be determined in a settlement by arbitration.

During the settlement phase, the calculation resulting in a judgment amount of R$215,655.50 was approved.

*The case file consists of physical documents, and therefore, the analyses were conducted based on the judgment, dissenting opinion, and decision in the liquidation phase.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief proposed by the Arayara Institute against the Regulatory Agency for Water, Energy and Sanitation of the Federal District (ADASA) and the company Termo Norte Energia Ltda.. The plaintiff seeks the cancellation of the grants of rights to use water resources granted by ADASA in favor of the defendant company for the collection of water and discharge of effluents into the Melchior River, within the scope of the project to install a natural gas thermoelectric plant in Samambaia, in the Federal District. In summary, the plaintiff claims that ADASA used outdated data to analyze and issue the grants and did not pay attention to the alarming diagnoses of water availability in the Federal District, affected by climate change, such as the record drought that occurred in 2024. It is argued that the generation of energy through thermoelectric plants consumes and pollutes a large amount of water, and is capable of affecting the water supply in the Federal District. Therefore, the implementation of power plants without a due updated assessment of water and environmental impacts is contrary to the principles of precaution and prevention, in addition to the primacy of environmental protection over economic interests. The plaintiff requests, as a preliminary injunction, the immediate suspension of ADASA's grants no. 337/2023 and no. 33/2024, including in order to prevent the irregular continuation of the environmental licensing of the project. On the merits, it requests the confirmation of the protection and the definitive cancellation of said grants.

In its defense, ADASA preliminarily pointed out the lack of standing of Instituto Arayara. On the merits, it supported the legality of the issued grants, clarifying that they were preliminary permits, of a merely indicative nature, insufficient to authorize the installation of the project. It also added that Instituto Arayara did not present technical evidence of the allegations made, relying exclusively on outdated and superficial data. Therefore, it requested that the case be dismissed in its entirety.

In addition to the reasons given by ADASA, Termo Norte Energia, in its defense, highlighted the relevance of the thermoelectric plant project for diversifying Brazil's energy matrix and increasing the supply of electricity in the Midwest. Furthermore, it highlighted that natural gas is recognized as a fuel for energy transition/green energy, as it has less impact than fossil fuels. Therefore, it requested that the case be dismissed in its entirety.

The decision on the preliminary injunction was granted, in order to suspend the effects of the prior authorizations issued by ADASA. The court disagreed that natural gas is a clean source of energy, indicating that the implementation of a thermoelectric plant does not contribute to the decarbonization of the Brazilian energy matrix and to the efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions undertaken by Brazil under the Paris Agreement. It also states that since the potential impact of the plant on the environment is evident, especially with regard to the possibility of substantial GHG emissions, the case should be examined in light of the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC). Therefore, it determined the suspension of the authorizations so that it is possible to verify, in a cautious and safe manner, the true environmental impacts of the thermoelectric plant project and the validity conditions of the environmental administrative acts in question.

The decision was questioned by the defendants, with ADASA and Termo Norte Energia filing, respectively, Instrument Appeals No. 0723611-95.2025.8.07.0000 and 0723663-91.2025.8.07.0000, which were not acknowledged by the TJDF.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against Dauro Parreira de Rezende due to the deforestation of an area of 2,488.56 hectares, between 2011 and 2018, in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant's occupation of the land was unlawful because it is an area included in an Agroextractive Settlement Project (PAE), owned by and in the interest of the Federal Union, managed by the National Institute of Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractive communities. This Public Civil Action (PCA) is part of a set of 22 lawsuits filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) as a result of the investigation conducted in Civil Inquiry No. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, alleging illegal deforestation within the Antimary Agroextractive Settlement Project (PAE), but against different defendants. The lawsuit's arguments are based, among other points, on Brazilian Environmental Law, regarding constitutional protection of the environment, the accusation of deforestation, civil liability propter rem for environmental damages, including climate damages, and collective moral damages. It also mentions, as an environmental liability, the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) caused by the illegal deforestation of the area, estimated at nearly 1.5 million tons of carbon dioxide and which are directly related to the Brazilian State's failure to meet its climate goals, in disagreement with national and international commitments assumed by Brazil in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). The requests include, among other things: (i) reparation for the damage caused by illegal deforestation; (ii) the immediate cessation of activities that allow the damage to continue; (iii) payment of compensation corresponding to intermediate and residual environmental material damage; (iv) payment of compensation corresponding to climate damage; (v) payment of compensation corresponding to profits illegally obtained from deforestation, from the exploitation of timber present in deforested areas; and (vi) payment of compensation corresponding to collective moral damages.

In a preliminary ruling, the court confirmed the Federal Court's jurisdiction over the case, which concerns Federal Union lands, and granted the request for emergency relief, requiring the defendant to remove all cattle herds located in the area within 15 days of receiving notice of the decision. It ordered the evacuation of the deforested area, effectively ending the extensive cattle ranching without legal authorization. The court postponed the burden of proof shift to the remediation phase of the case. Finally, it ordered INCRA to express its interest in joining the plaintiff party in the case. The agency has already filed a statement requesting its membership as a plaintiff.

The defendant filed a counterclaim in response. Preliminarily, he challenged the value of the claim and argued that the initial claim was inadmissible. On the merits, he alleged that the anthropized area was invaded by violent occupants, who destroyed and sold the timber from the primary forest in the legal reserve. He stated that, despite being the owner of the land, he did not commit any criminal act, given that the deforestation of the area was carried out by the illegal occupants. He maintained that the government was strictly liable for failing to conduct environmental inspections of the occupants of the Santa Luiza Farm and the Antimary Environmental Protection Area (PAE). He highlighted positive actions by the Sena Madureira city government, which increased the number of new lots opened for sale. He stated that it did not remain inactive in the face of the occupations. He explained that, given the invasions of his land, INCRA did not issue the Title of Domain Recognition (TRD), and that, consequently, he was unable to apply for environmental licensing for decommissioning with the Amazonas Environmental Protection Institute (IPAAM) or the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA). He argued that the area subject to the ACP is not a special preservation area, but rather a conversion area designated for alternative land use. He proposed the preparation of a Conduct Adjustment Agreement (TAC), committing to develop a project for the appropriate reforestation of the area. He stated that he intends to join the Environmental Regularization Program (PRA), in compliance with the provisions of the Forest Code. Regarding the material damage to the environment, he emphasized that it had been delimited with imprecise data, based on a generic IBAMA opinion universally used in other actions. Regarding collective moral damages, the defendant argued that no special social harm to the community was demonstrated in the case file. The defendant stated that the payment of compensation, as requested in the initial claim, is the exception when there is no possibility of restoring the area. The defendant also argued that the fines imposed were disproportionate. The defendant alleged a lack of causal connection to establish its authorship and materiality of the environmental damage, as the degraded area was caused by the invaders. The defendant filed a counterclaim, alleging that he suffered moral damages due to undue and unnecessary coercion resulting from the plaintiff's conduct. He stated that his morals were violated by the publication in the press of an article associating him with deforestation. Finally, he requested, among other things: (i) that the environmental civil action be dismissed without a ruling on its merits; (ii) that the burden of proof be prohibited from being shifted in favor of the defendant; (iii) that the civil action be dismissed; and (iv) the merits of the counterclaim due to moral and material damage.

The defendant filed Instrument Appeal 1011982-23.2023.4.01.0000 seeking to challenge the preliminary decision issued.

A decision was issued admitting the Federal Union's entry into the action as a co-litigant assistant.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) requesting urgent relief filed by the Public Defender's Office of the State of Pará against the state of Pará, the Pará State Institute for Forestry and Biodiversity Development (IDEFLOR-BIO), and the company Terra Meio Ambiente. The aim is to protect the right to land tenure and agricultural activities of the Nossa Senhora dos Navegantes traditional community and other traditional riverside communities that make up the Belém Metropolitan Region Environmental Protection Area (APA Belém). It is alleged that these communities are being illegally impacted by the state's public works for the construction of Avenida Liberdade, known as Estrada da COP. It is alleged that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA/RIMA) prepared by the company Terra Meio Ambiente indicated that the Nossa Senhora dos Navegantes community would be impacted by the road construction, but failed to include preventive and mitigating measures to ensure land tenure and the community's agroextractive activities. It is alleged that the project's environmental permits were issued without due free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected communities, and that the ongoing construction work is affecting families' livelihoods. The Public Defender's Office points out that the communities suffered property damage, as their fundamental rights to housing, work, and food were violated. It also points out that the construction work caused environmental and climate damage, demonstrating the State of Pará's lack of concern for the ecologically balanced environment and social well-being of the area, despite promoting sustainability in light of the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 30) taking place there. The Public Defender's Office found that the road construction resulted in the removal of six hectares of vegetation in the Nossa Senhora dos Navegantes community, generating the emission of 2,235.03 tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere, resulting in R$63,251,349 in climate damages. Despite this, the licensing process lacks an emissions impact study or mitigation measures, as established in the National Policy on Climate Change, the State Policy on Climate Change, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the Paris Agreement. The request for provisional relief is (i) recognition of the residents' collective ownership; (ii) the obligation not to carry out the works until there has been prior, free, and informed consultation with the community, in accordance with ILO Convention 169; and (iii) the submission of a plan for the land regularization of the area held by the communities by the State of Pará and IDEFLOR-BIO within 30 days. The following are requested, in a definitive manner: (i) confirmation of the requests made in provisional relief; (ii) the order that the State of Pará pay the losses and damages and lost profits generated by the families of the Nossa Senhora dos Navegantes community; and (iii) the order that the State of Pará mitigate and repair climate damage through vegetation restoration and extractive projects in the affected community.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Climate Observatory organization against the Ministry of the Environment (MMA) and the Federal Government, aiming to compel the federal government to present an updated version of the National Climate Change Plan, in a consistent and detailed manner, in accordance with Article 225 of the Federal Constitution, the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009), the National Environmental Policy – PNMA (Federal Law 6.938/1981), and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). The plaintiff organization uses the AR6 report on climate change from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a scientific basis to highlight the urgency of climate change and the need for more ambitious measures. It emphasizes environmental setbacks observed within the current federal government in various economic sectors and in the national environmental and climate protection system. The document highlights the contribution of increased deforestation, especially in the Amazon, to national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Furthermore, it mentions eight foreign climate litigation cases to demonstrate the importance of the Judiciary in combating the climate crisis. Finally, it requests, among other things, that the Ministry of the Environment (MMA) and the Federal Government be ordered to present an updated version of the National Climate Change Plan that reflects the urgent need to reduce GHG emissions, considering the principle of citizen participation in all phases of its development. The Federal Government filed a response, arguing that the case is in abeyance with Public Action (APop) 5008035-37.2021.4.03.6100, which addresses the "climate manipulation" (Paulo Ricardo de Brito Santos and others vs. Ricardo Salles, Ernesto Araújo, and the Federal Government), as it deals with matters raised in this Public Action. The defendant rejected the claim of state inaction, highlighting the enactment of Decree 9.578/2018, related to the National Climate Change Fund, and Brazil's adherence to the Paris Agreement, followed by its ratification. It stated that Brazil's nationally determined contribution (NDC) corresponds to the National Climate Change Plan. It defended the absence of illegality or unconstitutionality in the actions of the Public Authority. It emphasized that Brazil's NDC is in line with the Paris Agreement and international best practices. Finally, it requested: (i) the dismissal of the case without prejudice, due to lis pendens or lack of procedural interest, or (ii), subsidiarily, recognition of the connection with the APop; and (iii), on the merits, the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim. The Climate Observatory filed a reply to the allegations of the Federal Union, stating that there is no lis pendens or connection between the present action and the APop, as they deal with different objects and requests. The court issued an interlocutory decision rejecting the preliminary objections of lis pendens and connection between the actions. Among its grounds, it held that: (i) the claim in the present action is supported by domestic law, the National Policy on Climate Change - PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and its respective regulatory decree, while the APop addresses matters of public international law, embodied in the Brazilian NDC; (ii) the claims in the actions are distinct; (iii) there is independence between the domestic and foreign spheres regarding climate change, and thus the Brazilian State can establish less stringent commitments in the international sphere and enact more robust norms and policies domestically; and (iv) the PNMC has a regulatory and political architecture that establishes instruments that can be instituted by a national plan to fulfill the objectives of the law, unlike the NDC. Following the decision, the Federal Union filed an interlocutory appeal (AI 1032447-87.2022.4.01.0000).

The parties requested the suspension of the proceedings for a period of 6 months, or until either party files a petition in the case, so that the preparation of the Climate Plan can be completed.

The process was suspended by agreement of the parties.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief filed by the Public Defender's Office of the State of Pará (DPE-PA) against the Association of Riverside Dwellers and Residents, the Rural Producers Union of Portel, Amigos dos Ribeirinhos Assessoria Ambiental Eireli, Brazil Agfor LLC, and the Municipality of Portel due to a project for the generation of illegal carbon credits sold on the voluntary market. This ACP is part of a set of 4 actions filed by the DPE-PA with the same grounds, but questioning different carbon credit projects. The project - Ribeirinho REDD+ (Project 2620), the subject of the action, overlaps with areas of five State Agro-extractive Settlement Projects (PEAEX). These PEAEX are public lands, whose real right of use is granted to traditional communities located in the municipality of Portel, in the state of Pará, who did not participate in the challenged project. Project 2620 was submitted to an international certification body in 2017, but has not yet been registered, to generate REDD+ assets (credits generated by avoided deforestation, sustainable management, and increased forest carbon stocks) for a period of thirty years. The companies and association are being sued as they are responsible for, and developers of, the project and/or alleged owners of rural properties where it is located. The Public Defender's Office of Pará (DPE-PA) alleges irregularities in the property registrations of the properties that comprise the undertaking, and that the project lacks authorization from the state of Pará, which constitutes land grabbing of public lands. Furthermore, the mayor of Portel issued a Public Utility Decree authorizing its operation, which the DPE-PA argues is unconstitutional. It should be noted that no prior study was conducted for the undertaking. The Public Defender's Office of Pará (DPE-PA) argues that the defendants acted in violation of the right to traditional territory, the right to prior, free and informed consultation of traditional communities, failed to comply with federal legislation on climate change, payments for environmental services and the concession of public forests, and did not benefit the communities directly affected by the project. It argues that the defendants' conduct gives rise to a duty to repair collective moral damages. In the context of provisional relief, it requests (i) recognition of the possession of the affected traditional communities over their overlapping areas; (ii) the suspension of Project 2620 and an injunction preventing the defendants from entering the PEAEX (Extractive Environmental Protection Areas). On the merits, the plaintiff requests (i) confirmation of the urgent requests; (ii) recognition of the right to traditional territory; (iii) invalidation of Project 2620 and legal transactions derived from it; (iv) an injunction prohibiting the defendants from entering the territories. (v) the declaration of nullity of the Public Utility Decree issued by the Municipality of Portel; (vi) the condemnation to pay collective moral damages in the amount of R$ 5,000,000.00 to be allocated to the Eastern Amazon Fund in favor of the communities of the agro-extractive territories of Portel.

Brazil Agfor and Michael Greene, a partner in said company, filed a defense, alleging preliminarily: (i) lack of standing of the Public Defender's Office of Pará (DPE-PA), due to the absence of a power of attorney to represent the communities; (ii) lack of standing, since they allegedly had no active involvement in Project 2620; and (iii) inadequacy of the initial complaint, due to the lack of demonstration of a causal link between the defendant's conduct and the alleged damages, especially regarding the request for compensation for collective moral damages. On the merits, they argue, among other points, that the lands of Project 2620 were not the object of land grabbing, indicating that, contrary to what the DPE alleges, the community's areas unduly overlapped private properties. The only mention of the climate issue was limited to the potential role of carbon credit projects in reducing deforestation, mitigating the main cause of greenhouse gas emissions in Brazil. Finally, they request (i) their exclusion from the passive pole; (ii) total dismissal of the merits of the action; (iii) challenge to the value of the case; and (iv) carrying out an expert examination of documents relating to the properties discussed in the action. They also state their willingness to enter into a conduct adjustment agreement.

The Association of Riverside Dwellers and Residents filed a response arguing that it had not been demonstrated that it acted in a way that caused harm. It accused Michael Greene and his wife, Evelise Greene, of running a "mafia" of fraudulent carbon projects. It alleged that the Association was manipulated by the couple through various means. It requested the joinder of Evelise Pires Greene as a third party and the dismissal of the action.

The Rural Producers Union of Portel filed a counterclaim. It alleged that Michael Greene was a victim of fraud, despite his attempts to help the local population, and therefore the Union accepted the proposal for the development of the projects. It claimed its lack of standing as a defendant and the lack of standing of the Agrarian Public Defender's Office of Castanhal. It argued that the projects are being developed on private land, in accordance with applicable legislation, and that Project 2620 has not yet been approved and is therefore not operational. It expressed its willingness to sign a Conduct Adjustment Agreement (TAC). It requested that the claims be dismissed.

This is a Claim of Non-Compliance with a Fundamental Precept (ADPF), with a request for preliminary injunction, filed by the Socialism and Liberty Party (PSOL) against the Federal Government and the State of São Paulo, due to acts of commission and omission by these entities regarding the duty to protect the Cerrado and Atlantic Forest biomes, in view of the fires that occurred in São Paulo in 2024. It is alleged that there is a dismantling of environmental conservation policy, inertia and inefficiency of the Public Authorities in adequately protecting these biomes, with the state in a forest and climate crisis neglected by the competent authorities. São Paulo has one of the worst air qualities in the country, mainly due to the fires, and, in contrast, has promoted the dismantling of environmental management, including the reduction of funds allocated to fighting fires. Furthermore, most municipalities in the state do not have civil defense structures or a disaster response plan. The crucial role of the Cerrado and the Atlantic Forest in supplying water to Brazil and South America is highlighted, and their destruction increases the country's climate risk. The actions of the authorities imply a violation of the right to an ecologically balanced environment, the precautionary principle due to the lack of preservation of natural resources, the principle of non-regression, commitments made internationally, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), fundamental rights such as life, health and physical integrity, and guiding principles of public administration. In summary, as a precautionary measure, it is requested that the Federal and State Governments be ordered to present detailed administrative and scientific reports; and to implement economic and administrative measures for the prevention and control of wildfires in the state in 2025 and for the structuring of environmental management in São Paulo. As final requests, it is requested that the violation of fundamental precepts be recognized in order to deem the action admissible, with the recognition of the unconstitutionality of environmental management in the state of São Paulo, especially in the omissions perpetrated in the face of major incidents of biome devastation, confirming all precautionary requests.

In a single-judge decision, Minister Flávio Dino partially granted the precautionary measures. He highlighted that it is undeniable that the climate emergency is an unprecedented global threat that generates several alarming consequences, and that the data presented by the plaintiffs demonstrate the configuration of a scenario of environmental vulnerability in São Paulo, with impacts on the biomes and the local population. He understood that it is essential for the defendants to reinforce environmental monitoring and control in order to reduce new outbreaks of fire. He determined, in a decision later confirmed by a panel, the presentation of detailed reports and the implementation of measures for the prevention and combating of wildfires in the year 2025.

This is a Civil Action for Administrative Impropriety, with a request for precautionary removal from office, in which the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) alleges the practice of intentional acts that violated the constitutional duty to protect the environment by the Minister of the Environment at the time, Ricardo Salles. It indicates that the former Minister, through actions, omissions, practices, and speeches, allegedly promoted the dismantling of environmental policies and the undermining of legal precepts, by favoring interests that have no relation to the purpose of the Ministry, in violation of the constitutional principles that guide Public Administration. The MPF cites a vast set of acts by the former minister that allegedly contributed to the intentional dismantling of environmental protection structures, based on four pillars: (i) normative dismantling; (ii) dismantling of transparency and participation bodies; (iii) budgetary dismantling; and (iv) oversight dismantling. Regarding the regulatory dismantling, it indicates four normative acts considered illegal and abusive: Decree 10.347/2020, which transferred the granting power for public forests from the Ministry of the Environment (MMA) to the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply (MAPA); MMA Dispatch 4.410/2020, which allowed the regularization of illegal deforestation in permanent preservation areas in the Atlantic Forest biome; Decree 9.672/2019, which extinguished the Secretariat for Climate Change and Forests; and Joint Ordinance 298/2019, which altered the composition of the Federal Environmental Compensation Committee. The argument related to climate is highlighted in the discussion regarding the extinction of the Secretariat for Climate Change and Forests, which worked to combat climate change and actions that generate potential imbalance in the planet's ecosystem, with the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office alleging that such an act would signal that the matter would not be a priority for the federal government. In this regard, it emphasizes that there has been no re-evaluation of the topic, which has practically disappeared from the Ministry's structure. It states that this is distancing Brazil from efforts to fulfill international climate commitments undertaken under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), especially the Copenhagen Accord (2009) and the Paris Agreement (2015), enacted by Federal Decree 9.073/2017, and internal commitments within the scope of the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009). Regarding the dismantling of transparency and participation bodies, the complaint alleges reduced civil society participation in the National Environment Council (CONAMA), the removal of information from the official website of the Ministry of the Environment (MMA), interference in the dissemination of deforestation data by the National Institute for Space Research (INPE), and the restriction of information related to the activities of the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) and the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio). Regarding budgetary dismantling, it questions the reduction of budgetary resources allocated to IBAMA and the inactivation of the Amazon Fund through the extinction of its operational and guiding bodies. It is noteworthy that, regarding the paralysis of the Amazon Fund, dedicated to financing REDD+ actions linked to the reduction of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) mentions the connection between this paralysis and the lack of funding and implementation of the Plan for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon (PPCDAm), foreseen in the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC). The increase in deforestation and the Ministry's inaction in combating it are once again linked to the failure to meet climate commitments and deforestation reduction targets set out in the PNMC (National Policy on Climate Change), UNFCCC, Paris Agreement, and Copenhagen Accord. Regarding the weakening of oversight, it is stated that the former Minister, through his actions, was contributing to hindering the work of career civil servants, which is especially relevant in a context of increased deforestation. Given this broad picture of the weakening of the protection of the fundamental right to an ecologically balanced environment, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) requested, as a preliminary measure, the precautionary removal of Ricardo Salles from the position of Minister of the Environment, and presented a definitive request that the aforementioned actions be declared improper, thus condemning him to the loss of his public office.

The judge at first instance ruled against the preliminary injunction request.

In its defense, the Federal Government denied the existence of any illicit act on the part of former Minister Ricardo Salles. It invoked the principle of separation of powers, asserting that it is inappropriate to require a judicial decision regarding the choice of the Head of the Federal Executive Branch concerning the appointment of public positions of trust. It emphasized that there is no legal impediment to the various acts imputed to it, as they are decisions of administrative merit, within the scope of the public manager's competencies to direct public policies, carried out in accordance with the environmental agenda and in compliance with the laws and the Constitution. It argued that there is no basis for claiming an act of impropriety, stressing that the environmental damage attributed to the defendant, especially the increase in deforestation, occurs due to various factors that are distant from and unrelated to the personal acts performed by a Minister of State.

In his defense, Ricardo Salles alleged the non-existence of an act of impropriety, claiming that the action was an attempt to impose on the Judiciary the power to interfere in political choices. Specifically regarding the environmental and climate issue, he stated the absence of proof or indication of alleged predatory intent, as well as any evidence of the overriding of public, diffuse, or collective interests by Ricardo Salles' private interests. The defense maintains that there was no normative disorganization, contrary to what was alleged in the initial complaint. It also argued that there was no disorganization of transparency and participation bodies, since government policies can vary without this immediately signifying administrative impropriety. It also rejected the argument of the alleged decrease in social representation on councils with the enactment of Decree No. 9,806/2019. Regarding the removal of information containing maps of priority areas for biodiversity conservation from the internet, the defendant alleged the initial complaint was flawed, emphasizing that such an allegation is based solely on journalistic "news" reports, which are not confirmed by simply accessing the links attached to the case file. Regarding the alleged interference in the dissemination of data by INPE (National Institute for Space Research), the defendant stated that it has no influence over the agency, as it is a research unit subordinate to the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI). Concerning the undue restriction of institutional communication, the defendant argued that the initial complaint was flawed due to a lack of supporting evidence and an insufficient description of the facts. The defendant further argued that there was no budgetary disruption, since it is not within the competence of the Minister of State to draft or discuss the Budget Law. The defendant emphasized that there were no dismissals of employees with improper purpose, and also refuted the absence of risk to employees in their field activities or that the defendant's management had impacted this safety in any way. Finally, he concluded by emphasizing the non-existence of an act of impropriety due to the absence of a material violation of the norm and the absence of intent, requesting, preliminarily, the immediate dismissal of the action, in favor of the retroactive application of the more lenient norm – with the new wording of Law 8.429/92, by Law 14.240/21. Subsidiarily, he alleged the need for the immediate dismissal of the action due to the lack of competence of the defendant to perform the acts embodied in the decrees and the absence of a causal relationship with the alleged illicit acts, affirming the manifest non-existence of an act of administrative impropriety. Should the previous arguments be overruled, alleging the inadequacy of the initial pleading due to the atypical nature of the facts presented in the accusatory pleading, as well as the absence of individualization and evidentiary basis demonstrating the occurrence of the imputed conduct, he requested that the initial pleading be rejected. On the merits, it requested that the initial claim be dismissed as unfounded and that the Public Prosecutor's Office be condemned for bad faith litigation.

A judgment was issued rejecting the claims and dismissing the action. It concludes that the conduct attributed to the defendant was not a crime and that there were no acts of administrative misconduct, given the changes introduced by Law 14.230/2021 to Article 11 of Law 8.429/92, which eliminated the generic classification of acts that violate the principles of public administration and now requires explicit classification of the conduct, as well as the lack of adaptation of the plaintiff's claim to the new legal provisions, since it would be up to the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office to impute to the defendant one of the conducts expressly described in the legislation.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Arayara International Institute of Education and Culture against the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP) due to the inclusion of Blocks PRC-T-54, PRC-T-100, PRC-T-101, PRC-T-117, PRC-T-118, PRC-T-119, PRC-T-122, PRC-T-134, PRC-T-135 for oil and gas exploration in the 5th Permanent Concession Offer Cycle. It is alleged that the blocks were included in the auction without prior, free, and informed consultation with the directly affected Indigenous peoples, thus violating ILO Convention 169. The Arayara Institute alleges that the ANP ignored the existence of overlapping blocks with Indigenous lands and several Areas of Direct Influence (AID). It emphasizes that the ANP issued a technical note recommending the exclusion of areas within a 10- and 8-km perimeter around Indigenous lands, as an oil spill could affect the entire surrounding ecosystem, and that the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) issued a recommendation that the auction be suspended. It emphasizes that the exploration of these blocks causes harm to the health, territorial, and cultural rights of the affected populations. When discussing the supply and impact of exploration of oil blocks overlapping or within areas of influence of Indigenous lands, the author mobilizes the concept of environmental racism by explaining the motivation for offering these areas in the auction. It argues that there is a contradiction between the reality of the climate emergency and the need for energy transition, and the fact that oil and gas exploration is still increasing. The action highlights the important role of indigenous peoples in combating climate change, which is only possible with the possession and autonomy of their traditionally occupied territories. Requests the granting of a preliminary injunction to (i) suspend the offering of blocks PRC-T-54, PRC-T-PRC-T-100, PRC-T-101, PRC-T-117, PRC-T-118, PRC-T-119, PRC-T-122, PRC-T-134, PRC-T-135, ordering the Federal Union and the ANP to refrain from approving, granting, and signing the contract for these blocks until the prior, free, and informed consultation has been conducted; (ii) if the contract has already been signed, requests that its effects be suspended until the prior consultation with the monitoring of the MPI and FUNAI has taken place. As final requests, requests the cancellation of the procedure for offering and granting the blocks or, subsidiarily, the suspension of the offering until the prior, free, and informed consultation with indigenous peoples and traditional communities, with the monitoring of FUNAI and MPI has taken place.

This is a Public Civil Action, with a request for urgent relief, filed by IBAMA against Madevi LTDA seeking compensation for environmental and climate damages caused by the storage of logs without an environmental license. This Public Civil Action is part of a set of 9 actions filed by IBAMA with the same grounds, but against different defendants, to challenge illegal timber storage and climate damage. The plaintiff alleges that the storage of timber without proven origin is associated with illegal deforestation and predatory exploitation in the Amazon biome. Thus, it seeks compensation for associated environmental damages, including (i) damage caused to flora and fauna, (ii) soil erosion, (iii) contribution to global warming. Regarding climate damage, it claims that the illegal conduct not only removed carbon sinks from the forest but also caused the release of carbon into the atmosphere. The author seeks to have determined (i) an obligation to restore vegetation in an area equivalent to that estimated by IBAMA, based on the volume of seized logs, totaling 29.57 hectares, and (ii) an obligation to pay for climate damage based on the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). Based on the polluter-pays principle, the author argues that the negative climate externality represents an external social cost that was not internalized by the illegal vegetation suppression activity. The author maintains that climate damage can be identified on an individual scale by multiplying the estimated GHG emissions from the activity by the SCC. In this specific case, IBAMA uses the Amazon Fund methodology to estimate emissions based on the area of the Amazon biome considered deforested. The author expressly mentions environmental justice and argues that accountability for climate damage consists of legally affirming the correction of the distortion of environmental burdens and benefits. The author requests, as an urgent measure: (i) suspension of financing, tax incentives, and access to credit lines for the offender, (ii) freezing of assets in the estimated amount for the obligation to restore vegetation and the obligation to pay for climate damage, and (iii) a court order to halt the illegal polluting activity. The author further asserts the need for reversal of the burden of proof and, definitively, requests that the defendant be ordered to restore an area equivalent to the deforested area and to pay the amount corresponding to the social cost of carbon emissions.

The judge issued a preliminary injunction partially granting the request for an injunction regarding the freezing of the defendant company's assets, the suspension of the defendant's participation in financing programs, and the suspension or loss of tax incentives or benefits, given the strong evidence of damage and the duty to repair it (probability of the right) and of
The danger of jeopardizing the useful outcome of the process (ensuring reparation) is a factor. However, at this time, the use of the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) for the purpose of ordering the freezing of assets was deemed unfeasible due to a lack of technical support, and the amount requested appeared, at first glance, to be disproportionate.
IBAMA filed an interlocutory appeal (AI 1004508-40.2019.4.01.0000) requesting the inclusion of the value related to the Social Cost of Carbon (CSC) in the declaration of asset unavailability, considering the soundness of the methodology used as a reference for its quantification. It argues that to fully compensate for the environmental damage caused, it is necessary to include the social cost of carbon, which is classified as "residual damage" or "permanent damage".

An initial conciliation hearing was held in which the parties expressed interest in formalizing an agreement, although they did not have a prepared proposal.

In its defense, the defendant alleged a violation of the principle of due process in the administrative proceedings to investigate the environmental infraction and the absence of a causal link for imputing liability. Furthermore, it argued that using the social cost of carbon to quantify the damage implies unjust enrichment, since the extraction of forest products is conduct unrelated to its business activity.

A new hearing was held, during which the defendant presented a settlement proposal. IBAMA disagreed with the settlement offer because it only addressed the obligation to compensate for environmental damage, making no mention of the need to restore the degraded area, and requested that the proposal be supplemented. Therefore, the defendant submitted a new proposal, which is currently under review by IBAMA. Consequently, a new conciliation hearing was scheduled to reach an amicable solution to the dispute.

The defendant did not appear at the hearing, and the court deemed the attempt at amicable settlement unsuccessful. At the time, IBAMA argued that an agreement was not possible since administrative proceedings had already taken place, and this option was rejected.

A judgment of partial merit was rendered, condemning the defendant for environmental damages resulting from the irregular dumping of timber without proper proof of legal origin. The conviction was based on strict liability, imposing on the polluter the obligation to repair the damage caused to the environment, regardless of fault. It was proven that the timber was acquired illegally, through the improper use of forestry credits in the traceability system, without proof of the origin of the forest product, characterizing an environmental infraction. The obligation to recover the degraded area was converted into monetary compensation, according to established technical parameters. The court imposed the loss and suspension of tax incentives, as well as prohibiting participation in public financing programs until the environmental liability is regularized. The request for compensation for climate damages was rejected due to the lack of reports or technical studies to justify the amount to be imposed.

IBAMA filed a motion for clarification arguing that the judgment was incomplete regarding the application of the CNJ Protocol for judging environmental actions, which was acknowledged and dismissed by the court.

Subsequently, IBAMA filed an appeal arguing, on the merits, the obligation to pay the Social Cost of Carbon (CSC). Upon discovering that the defendant had deposited forest products without the proper certification of origin, it argued that there had been illegal suppression of vegetation in the Amazon biome and carbon emissions, which is why the polluting enterprise should internalize the resulting social cost. It maintained that the methodology for calculating the social cost of carbon is referenced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and allows for pricing the values for climate damage, indicating a value to be imputed for environmental remediation for each ton of greenhouse gas emitted irregularly. Climate damage can be identified on an individual scale by multiplying the estimated GHG emissions at the source by the CSC and, for initial estimation purposes, adopted the OECD-stipulated carbon price per ton as a midpoint for estimation (to be verified during the investigation). It was indicated that the official standards of the Amazon Fund, based on Brazilian legislation and international conventions, allow for the identification of how many tons of greenhouse gases are produced from the suppression of 1 hectare of vegetation. This methodology, in the specific case, requires the conversion of the volume of wood found to the area measured in hectares, making it possible to determine the area in hectares and the tons of carbon released, and finally, to assign values to the emissions. It was further argued that the CNJ Protocol for the Judgment of Environmental Actions (CNJ Recommendation No. 145/2023, established in collaboration with Resolution 433/2021) recommends the application of the Social Cost of Carbon to the methodology for calculating climate damage and acknowledges that there is sufficient literature to support this application. It was requested that urgent provisional relief be granted to uphold the preliminary injunctions requested in the initial petition, as well as the consequent freezing of the defendant's assets and a civil injunction against all illegal polluting activity.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for preliminary injunction, filed by the Climate Observatory against IBAMA and DNIT, seeking the annulment of the Preliminary License for the reconstruction and paving of the "middle section" of the BR-319 highway. It is alleged that the paving of the BR-319 would open new fronts of deforestation and territorial occupation in the Amazon, as occurred in the 1970s with the construction of the BR-163 (Mato Grosso-Pará) and BR-230 (Trans-Amazonian Highway). It is stated that, in 2005, a licensing process for the paving works of the middle section of the BR-319 was initiated before IBAMA, during which the environmental agency allegedly demonstrated great concern about increased deforestation around the highway, threats to biodiversity, and the potential for land grabbing of public lands in the Amazon. However, according to the Climate Observatory, the issuance of Preliminary License (LP) 672/2022 by IBAMA did not consider the environmental agency's prior concerns. It is alleged that the license was granted (i) without a climate impact study; (ii) without prior consultation with the traditional communities that would be impacted by the project; (iii) despite insufficient minimum environmental governance to address the complexity of the environmental consequences arising from the undertaking; and (iv) contrary to the guidelines of a Working Group formed by environmental agencies and an Interministerial Committee, which indicated the need to adopt a series of measures associated with environmental governance before issuing the preliminary license. The importance of the Amazon rainforest for climate balance is highlighted, considering its role as a carbon sink and moisture distributor across the continent. It is indicated that deforestation in the biome would increase carbon dioxide emissions, exacerbating global warming and climate change, and that the absence of Prior, Free and Informed Consultation would be violating the rights of indigenous peoples. The Observatory argues that a climate impact study for the project is necessary and that failure to conduct one would violate the Federal Constitution (especially articles 225 and 170), the National Environmental Policy (PNMA), the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC), the Paris Agreement (the latter with supralegal status), and IBAMA's own regulations, specifically IBAMA Normative Instruction 12/2010. The Climate Observatory therefore argues that Brazilian law mandates that environmental licensing must assess the climate variable, and failure to do so would render the preliminary license granted null and void. It asserts that the flaws and irregularities present in the environmental licensing process as a whole violate the right to an ecologically balanced environment and the principles of sustainable development, prevention, precaution, the polluter-pays principle, intergenerational equity, environmental administrative efficiency, and the prohibition of regression. Based on the foregoing, it is requested that preliminary injunction be granted to suspend the effectiveness of LP 672/2022, the reversal of the burden of proof and, at the end of the trial, the annulment of the preliminary license, as well as any administrative acts arising therefrom.

In March 2024, the 9th Federal Court of the Judicial Section of Amazonas issued a monocratic decision, through which it declined jurisdiction to judge the case in favor of the 7th Federal Court of the Judicial Section of Amazonas.

DNIT filed a motion requesting the consolidation of the Public Civil Action (ACP) with the Preliminary Injunction (TCA) 1022245-88.2021.4.01.3200 for joint judgment, since both would aim at the annulment of LP 672/2022. Furthermore, it argued its lack of standing to be a party to the lawsuit and the inadequacy of the chosen legal avenue, and requested the dismissal of the preliminary injunction. It defended the presumption of legitimacy of administrative acts and the impossibility of judicial interference in administrative merit, under penalty of violating the principle of separation of powers. It argued that it could not assume the role of guarantor of necessary socio-environmental measures in the vicinity of the BR-319 highway project, which are the responsibility of environmental, indigenous, land, and other agencies and departments. Thus, it stated that environmental licensing could not compensate for the lack of structure in the various bodies and agencies involved in environmental monitoring policies and the prevention and control of deforestation in the Amazon. Regarding the request for a climate impact study, it argued that such an impact would stem from the potential increase in illegal deforestation caused by insufficient environmental governance in areas near the highway, and would not be related to the technological solution applied to the project. It stated that prior consultation with indigenous peoples had taken place and that an Indigenous Component of the Environmental Impact Studies (CI-EIA) had been carried out by FUNAI. Therefore, it argued that it had complied with the environmental licensing procedure determined by IBAMA.

Along the same lines, IBAMA filed a statement requesting the connection of the Public Civil Action with TCA 1022245-88.2021.4.01.3200, indicating the lack of standing of the Climate Observatory due to a lack of thematic relevance and requesting the dismissal of the requested injunction. It defended the presumption of legitimacy of administrative acts and the impossibility of judicial review. It argued for the lack of administrative competence of DNIT, the project proponent, to execute measures specific to environmental policies, especially within the scope of licensing. Regarding the performance of a climate impact study, it mentioned that the technical analyses evaluated the issues directly related to the subject, such as deforestation, land use change, and adaptation of the project to climatic events, and that the EIA/RIMA contains data for defining control and mitigation measures for these impacts, as applicable to the licensing process. He argued that halting the licensing process would entail additional costs in preparing new surveys and studies, and that there was no risk of harm to the useful outcome of the process, among other claims.

On July 24, 2024, a preliminary injunction was issued denying the request for connection with TCA 1022245-88.2021.4.01.3200, due to differences between the grounds for the claim and the requests. However, it ordered the consolidation of the actions for joint judgment, considering that any granting of the preliminary injunction would affect the validity of the licenses requested within the scope of the TCA. The decision did not recognize the argument of lack of standing or inadequacy of the chosen legal avenue. It was affirmed that the Public Civil Action would be an appropriate avenue for challenging the preliminary license and that the presumption of legality of administrative acts is relative, allowing for judicial review of their constitutionality and legality. This is because administrative discretion must be exercised within the limits of constitutional and infraconstitutional norms. The validity of the preliminary license was challenged in light of the potential for serious environmental damage, such as deforestation, loss of biodiversity, damage to the climate system, and impacts on indigenous and traditional communities, among others. In this sense, it was affirmed that a balanced environment is a human right and essential for the enjoyment of other rights, such as life and health, and it is the responsibility of the Judiciary to guarantee its protection against harm. The decision recognized that the objective of the case is to ensure that the licensing process is conducted responsibly and appropriately, guided by technical principles and the best applicable science for risk and damage control, to allow the BR-319 project to coexist without undermining the duty to protect the Amazon Rainforest. To this end, the action seeks the observance of legal procedures for conducting technical studies, including climate impact studies and prior consultation with indigenous peoples and traditional communities. The decision stated that environmental licensing must include a climate diagnosis to establish adequate and proportionate mitigation and compensation measures, in accordance with Brazilian legislation and international commitments. The importance of climate mitigation and adaptation dimensions was affirmed. It was understood that the insufficiency of public policies and the absence of adequate state structures to prevent the BR-319 reconstruction from resulting in the destruction of the Amazon Rainforest had been demonstrated, thus concluding that the project was environmentally unfeasible. Therefore, the request for immediate suspension of the preliminary license was granted, based on the understanding that IBAMA had contradicted itself in issuing the license and that the government lacked the structure and public policies to prevent deforestation resulting from the reconstruction of the BR-319.

On August 16, 2024, the Union and DNIT filed a motion for Suspension of Preliminary Injunction against the preliminary decision, requesting the suspension of its effects. On August 11, 2024, the Presidency of the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region issued a monocratic decision denying the request for preliminary suspension. It was argued that the suspension of a preliminary injunction is an instrument reserved to prevent the consummation of serious public damages, which was not proven, and that the requested reform of the decision could be the subject of an interlocutory appeal. Furthermore, the decision was based on the principle of prevention, arguing that the danger to public order is not present in the decision to suspend the effects of the Preliminary Injunction, but rather in the advancement of the licensing process without structural measures.

In September 2024, the defendants and the Union, as an aggrieved third party, filed interlocutory appeals challenging the preliminary injunction. In October 2024, the Union and DNIT filed an internal appeal against the single-judge decision that upheld the suspension of the LP.

On October 7, 2024, the Reporting Judge of the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region jointly reviewed the requests for a stay of execution filed in the interlocutory appeals brought by the Union, DNIT (National Department of Transport Infrastructure), and IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources), deciding to suspend the effects of the preliminary injunction. According to the judge, the appealed decision had erroneously concluded that the granting of a preliminary license was related to the executive phase of the project, while, in fact, such an administrative act was merely evaluative in nature. It was argued that the issued preliminary license fulfilled its objective of attesting to the environmental viability of the undertaking, considering the 15 years of negotiations with public administration entities that led to several changes in the project over the years. It was denied that IBAMA had suddenly altered its decision, and it was concluded that the EIA/RIMA (Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report) adequately fulfilled its purpose of exposing the real and potential environmental damages resulting from the undertaking. The decision also argued that there is no normative, jurisprudential, or doctrinal provision regarding the mandatory preparation of a climate impact study. It concludes that there are legal provisions related to the verification, by IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources), of activities that may generate GHG emissions, but there are no obligations related to the inclusion of this variable by the developer within the scope of the EIA/RIMA (Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report). Despite this, the decision argued that the EIA/RIMA exhaustively identified the activities that generate GHG emissions, which would fulfill what the appealed decision qualified as a climate impact study. Finally, it understood that (i) the environmental licensing complied with the provisions of ILO Convention 169 regarding prior consultation; (ii) the EIA/RIMA recognized the need for the implementation of public policies in the Amazon region; and (iii) it highlighted the importance of the restructuring of the BR-319 highway for the development of the region.

The 6th Panel of the Court judged the interlocutory appeals and denied the appeals, according to the dissenting vote of Judge Maria Cecília, with the reporting judge overruling. The dissenting vote of the reporting judge highlighted that the provisions of IBAMA's Normative Instruction 12/2010 are not intended for the entrepreneur, but rather for IBAMA when preparing the terms of reference that will guide the EIA/RIMA (Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report). Thus, it understood that there would be no normative command to quantify the emission of greenhouse gases by the entrepreneur, but only to verify, on the part of IBAMA, activities that may emit GHGs. It would be up to IBAMA, in the terms of reference of the respective EIA/RIMA, to direct the stipulation of mitigation and compensation measures for the environmental impacts derived from the activity capable of emitting GHGs. It argued that the appealed decision did not analyze the terms of reference, but only the EIA/RIMA and, therefore, the decision should be reversed. The winning vote acknowledged that there is no evidence in the records to prove that the indigenous peoples impacted by the project were properly consulted, free, prior, and informed, and that not halting the project at this time to allow for such consultation could lead to future harm to economic development and to the indigenous peoples. Therefore, the preliminary injunction regained its effectiveness, and the Suspension of Preliminary Injunction was dismissed due to loss of purpose.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief filed by the Arayara Institute of Education and Culture for Sustainability against the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP), the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio), and the Federal Government. This action is part of a set of 6 ACPs filed against the 4th Cycle of Permanent Offer of Concessions for oil exploration blocks. It is argued that the inclusion of the blocks located in the Potiguar Basin, in the SPOT-AP2 Sector, is illegal because they overlap areas of seamounts, which are geological formations extremely important to the region's ecosystem; because they lack technical analysis of the viability of the offer or environmental assessment studies; and because their exploration areas are located less than 100km from the coast. And because they imply investment to explore for oil and gas in a region of such rich biodiversity and tourism, in the context of a climate emergency and the urgent need for energy transition. It is pointed out that the ANP (National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels) used Joint Statement MMA/MME No. 2/2020/ANP without technically analyzing the viability of offering the blocks in the SPOT-AP2 Sector. In a preliminary injunction, it is requested that the offering in the 4th Permanent Offer Cycle of the blocks in the Potiguar Basin in the SPOT-AP2 Sector be suspended until a technical analysis is carried out demonstrating socio-environmental viability, especially with substantiated opinions from bodies such as ICMBio and IBAMA, and subsequently, that the respective Joint Statement be rectified. In the final stage, it is requested: the recognition of the illegality of the offer and the exclusion of the blocks located in the Potiguar Basin in the SPOT-AP2 Sector in the 4th Permanent Offer Cycle until a technical analysis is carried out demonstrating their viability and, subsequently, the respective Joint Statement is rectified.

The case was filed in the 21st Federal Court of the Judicial Section of Pernambuco, which then declined jurisdiction in favor of the Judicial Section of Rio Grande do Norte. Upon receipt of the action in the Judicial Section of Rio Grande do Norte, the case was assigned number 0812151-03.2023.4.05.8400.

The court denied the preliminary injunction request, arguing that a more in-depth analysis of the issues was necessary.

IBAMA filed a counterclaim, alleging: the plaintiff's lack of standing to sue because the association does not have a clear social purpose; the existence of external prejudice, since the Supreme Federal Court has already established a binding understanding, through ADPF 825, regarding the inapplicability of a prior technical evaluation before offering blocks in the auction; it also pointed out that the plaintiff, despite the existence of specific regulations on the procedures to be adopted by the ANP, is advocating for a new procedure, defined by it, to be adopted by the Public Administration, and that, by attempting to transfer this technical analysis to a previous context – that of the GTs' pronouncements – it would also be placing a burden on the Government that belongs to the investors; the absence of environmental damage resulting from the auction practice; the regularity of the area offering procedure by the ANP based on a joint technical pronouncement from the MMA and MME; and that, in the NetZero 2050 scenario, oil and gas are still foreseen as primary energy sources, used with mitigated or neutralized emissions. He therefore requested that the claim be dismissed.

In its defense, ICMBio alleged that the action had become moot and that the plaintiff association lacked standing to bring the lawsuit. It argued that the auction followed the regulations issued by the competent authorities. It stated that, through a technical note, it had already indicated that the blocks in question do not directly affect Federal Conservation Units or their buffer zones. It argued that in the International Energy Agency's NetZero 2050 scenario, the energy matrix will still rely on oil and natural gas as primary energy sources, used with mitigated or neutralized emissions, and that the greenhouse gas emission impacts of the projects can be assessed during the environmental licensing phase; therefore, the mere act of holding a bidding process does not pose a risk to the environment. It requested the dismissal of the case without prejudice or that the claims be dismissed as unfounded.

The Union filed a response. It argued that the lawsuit had become moot, since the auction was held on December 13, 2023, and the contested exploration blocks were not sold. It argued that the plaintiff association lacked standing to bring the action and that there was no interest in pursuing the matter, as it had already been decided by the Supreme Federal Court in ADPFs 825 and 887. It asserted that the offering of the exploration blocks in the auction complied with the relevant legal norms, that it had obtained approval from the Federal Court of Accounts (TCU), and that the Executive Branch's discretion to decide on the best model for service provision and economic exploitation of oil should be observed. It requested the dismissal of the case without prejudice due to lack of procedural interest or lack of standing, and, subsidiarily, the dismissal of the claims.

In its ruling, the case was dismissed without prejudice due to the supervening loss of the object of the action. This ruling was based on the fact that, on December 13, 2023, the public bidding session for the 4th Cycle of Permanent Concession Offer was held, and on that occasion, no bids were made for the blocks that are the subject of this lawsuit.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for urgent relief, filed by IBAMA against Gabriel Indústria e Comércio EIRELI, seeking compensation for environmental and climate damages based on an infraction notice for the storage of logs without an environmental license. This ACP is part of a set of 9 actions filed by IBAMA with the same grounds, but against different defendants, to challenge illegal timber storage and climate damage. The plaintiff alleges that the storage of timber without proven origin is associated with illegal deforestation and predatory exploitation in the Amazon biome. Thus, it seeks compensation for resulting environmental damages, including (i) damage caused to flora and fauna, (ii) soil erosion, (iii) contribution to global warming. Regarding climate damage, it claims that the illegal conduct not only removed carbon sinks from the forest, but also caused the release of carbon into the atmosphere. The author seeks to have determined (i) an obligation to restore vegetation in an area equivalent to that estimated by IBAMA, based on the volume of seized logs, totaling 22.14 hectares, preferably in an area of the same biome within an Indigenous Land, Conservation Unit, or Agrarian Reform Settlement Project, and (ii) an obligation to pay for climate damage based on the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) in the amount of R$ 2,149,975.55. Based on the polluter-pays principle, the author argues that the negative climate externality represents an external social cost that is not internalized by the illegal vegetation suppression activity, leaving it to society. The author maintains that climate damage can be identified on an individual scale by multiplying the estimated GHG emissions from the activity by the SCC. In this specific case, IBAMA uses the Amazon Fund methodology to estimate emissions based on the area of the Amazon biome considered deforested, totaling 8,125.38 tons of carbon. It expressly mentions environmental justice and argues that accountability for climate damage consists of legally affirming the correction of the distortion of environmental burdens and benefits. The plaintiff requests, as an urgent measure: (i) suspension of financing and tax incentives and access to credit lines by the offender, (ii) freezing of assets in the estimated value for the obligation to restore vegetation and the obligation to pay for climate damage, and (iii) judicial injunction against the illegal polluting activity. It also asserts the need for reversal of the burden of proof and, definitively, requests that the defendant be ordered to restore an area equivalent to the deforested area and to pay the amount corresponding to the social cost of carbon.

The court ruled against the preliminary injunction request, finding no urgency or danger in delay – given that two years had already passed since the infraction notice – nor sufficient evidentiary basis to justify a restrictive measure without prior adversarial proceedings, stating that there was no minimum evidence that the services performed by the defendant would compromise the environment. The judge also understood that IBAMA's sampling measurement technique could cause inaccuracy, thus negating the "probability of the right".

IBAMA filed an interlocutory appeal against the decision (AI 1027122-39.2019.4.01.0000), which was deemed inadmissible.

The defendant company filed a response. Initially, it challenged the value of the case due to the exorbitant amount of carbon credits assessed. On the merits, it requested the dismissal of the action, arguing that there was no damage and that it is a small, family-owned company employing dozens of people in the region, not being a habitual or illegal offender, and that during the proceedings it demonstrated a willingness to cooperate with the inspection.

In its decision, the court found that the damages alleged in the initial complaint had been demonstrated. It argued that the obligation to repair environmental damage applied to the case as a real obligation (propter rem). It ordered the defendant to restore the deforested areas or, if this measure was not complied with, to pay the amount of R$ 237,827.88, based on studies by the Directorate of Sustainable Use of Biodiversity and Forests of IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources). It ordered the registration of the judgment in the property registry. It discussed the social cost of carbon, but did not grant the request, as there was no consensus or legal parameters for determining the amount of damages.

The plaintiff and defendant filed appeals, which have not yet been decided.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for urgent relief, filed by IBAMA against Seringal Indústria e Comércio de Madeiras EIRELI, seeking compensation for environmental and climate damages based on an infraction notice for the storage of logs without an environmental license. This ACP is part of a set of 9 actions filed by IBAMA with the same grounds, but against different defendants, to challenge illegal timber storage and climate damage. The plaintiff alleges that the storage of timber without proven origin is associated with illegal deforestation and predatory exploitation in the Amazon biome. Thus, it seeks compensation for resulting environmental damages, including (i) damage caused to flora and fauna, (ii) soil erosion, (iii) contribution to global warming. Regarding climate damage, it claims that the illegal conduct not only removed carbon sinks from the forest but also caused the release of carbon into the atmosphere. The author seeks to have determined (i) an obligation to restore vegetation in an area equivalent to that estimated by IBAMA, based on the volume of seized logs, totaling 39,412 hectares, preferably in an area of the same biome within an Indigenous Land, Conservation Unit, or Agrarian Reform Settlement Project, and (ii) an obligation to pay for climate damage based on the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) in the amount of R$ 3,827,228.38. Based on the polluter-pays principle, the author argues that the negative climate externality represents an external social cost that is not internalized by the illegal vegetation suppression activity, leaving it to society. The author maintains that climate damage can be identified on an individual scale by multiplying the estimated GHG emissions from the activity by the SCC. In this specific case, IBAMA uses the Amazon Fund methodology to estimate emissions based on the area of the Amazon biome considered deforested, totaling 14,464,204 tons of carbon. It expressly mentions environmental justice and argues that accountability for climate damage consists of legally affirming the correction of the distortion of environmental burdens and benefits. The plaintiff requests, as an urgent measure: (i) suspension of financing and tax incentives and access to credit lines by the offender, (ii) freezing of assets in the estimated value for the obligation to restore vegetation and the obligation to pay for climate damage, and (iii) judicial embargo of the illegal polluting activity. It also asserts the need for reversal of the burden of proof and, definitively, requests that the defendant be ordered to restore an area equivalent to the deforested area and to pay the amount corresponding to the social cost of carbon.

The court ruled in favor of the preliminary injunction, finding that there was no urgency in granting the relief or danger in delay.

The defendant filed a response alleging, as a preliminary matter, the inadequacy of the initial pleading, arguing that the facts had not been proven, presenting them as mere unfounded presumptions, as well as his lack of standing to be sued. He also alleged that there was a nullity in the evidence and the absence of a causal link connecting the environmental damage to any kind of conduct on his part, whether by action or omission. He therefore requested the dismissal of the case without prejudice or a judgment of dismissal for lack of merit.

In their closing arguments, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office and IBAMA requested that the civil public action be judged entirely in their favor, while the defendant reiterated its request for a judgment of dismissal, arguing that it has nothing to do with the facts mentioned, and that there are no relevant documents in the entire procedural record linking the defendant to the facts.

The judgment upheld the initial request and ordered Seringal Industria e Comércio de Madeiras EIRELI (i) to restore the degraded area described in the initial pleading, of 39.412 hectares, (ii) subsidiarily, in case of impossibility of restoring the area subject to the litigation, to pay compensation in the amount of R$ 423,363.70 and (iii) to pay compensation corresponding to the social cost of carbon (CSC) in the amount of R$ 3,827,228.38 (three million, eight hundred and twenty-seven thousand, two hundred and twenty-eight reais and thirty-eight cents).

The defendant company filed an appeal alleging a lack of evidence, since the causal link to the damage is presumed without mentioning the date of the deforestation, which was verified through remote systems (geoprocessed images), without on-site inspection.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of Rio de Janeiro (MPRJ) against the Municipality of Niterói, aiming to compel the defendant to conduct a Neighborhood Impact Study (EIV) prior to granting a license for the construction of large residential and commercial buildings, with more than six floors, in the Icaraí neighborhood, in Niterói. The plaintiff argues that the urban infrastructure of the neighborhood cannot accommodate greater population density, and that real estate expansion has harmed the quality of life of the local population. It argues that new building permits are being granted without the requirement of a prior urban planning study, in violation of municipal urban policies, especially the Master Plan (Municipal Law 1.157, updated by Municipal Law 2.123) and the City Statute (Federal Law 10.257/01). It states that the expansion of the real estate market must occur in accordance with municipal planning, preserving urban sustainability and environmental protection. In this sense, in anticipation of a final injunction, it requests that the defendant be ordered to conduct a prior Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for all large-scale real estate developments, as a condition for obtaining a building permit, in the Icaraí neighborhood. On the merits, among the requests, it seeks confirmation of the injunction and that the defendant be ordered to compensate the community for the moral and material damages suffered due to the omission of the EIA.

In a preliminary ruling, the court found that there was a risk of irreparable or difficult-to-repair damage. It ordered the defendant to proceed with the licensing of the questioned projects after obtaining prior approval from the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), under penalty of a fine.

In its defense, the Municipality of Niterói argued, preliminarily, the lack of standing of the plaintiff. It alleged that the claim in this Public Civil Action is already absorbed by the subject matter of a previous Public Civil Action (2009.002.051167-6). It argued that it is impossible to conduct a constitutional review of a municipal law within the context of a Public Civil Action. It maintained that the plaintiff's allegations are generic, and that conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the aforementioned projects does not fall within the parameters established by the Municipal Legislative Branch that require such an assessment. It further argued that the Municipality has no civil liability for moral and material damages. It emphasized the lack of technical evidence capable of proving the plaintiff's allegations. It requested the revocation of the preliminary injunction. Among the requests made, it was (i) that the lawsuit be dismissed due to lack of standing, inadequacy of the chosen procedure, and lis pendens, and (iv) that the plaintiff's claim be dismissed as unfounded.

In its ruling, the court understood that the City Statute introduced several instruments that allow the state to take preventive measures to avoid imbalances in urban growth and guarantee minimum conditions for the occupation of habitable spaces, such as the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). It affirmed that it is an instrument for implementing the principles of prevention, precaution, and sustainable development. It considered that the criterion used by the Public Prosecutor's Office of Rio de Janeiro (MPRJ) for requiring the EIA is based on the law, which considers large-scale developments to be those with more than six floors. It reinforced that the right to quality of life necessarily requires a guarantee of an ecologically balanced environment, and that the City Statute, in outlining instruments for environmental protection, is linked to the collective system of diffuse rights. It did not grant the request for material and moral damages. The court partially granted the request, confirming the preliminary injunction and ordering the defendant to obtain prior approval of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for all large-scale real estate developments, whether multi-family residential or commercial, with more than six floors, in the Icaraí neighborhood, in the section corresponding to the urban areas IC-06, IC-07 (up to Pedra Itapuca), IC-08, IC-12, and IC-14, under penalty of a fine.

Subsequently, the Municipality of Niterói filed an appeal. In its ruling, the Seventeenth Civil Chamber of the Court of Justice of the State of Rio de Janeiro (TJRJ) emphasized that the right to an ecologically balanced environment (Article 225 of the Federal Constitution) includes urban planning as an integrating factor and the right to sustainable cities, which is a fundamental right related to the guiding principles of urban development (Article 182 of the Federal Constitution). It understood that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) seeks to consider the positive and negative impacts of projects on the quality of life of the local population and surrounding areas. It highlighted that the principle of adaptation, included in the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017) and foreseen in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009), obliges the reduction of the vulnerability of natural and human systems, such as cities, to the effects of climate change. The court considered that the action does not seek a declaration of unconstitutionality of a municipal law, but rather aims to enforce urban and environmental regulations in order to oblige the Municipality to require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) before approving large-scale projects, with a view to reducing urban risks and ensuring the sustainability of cities. Therefore, the appeal was denied.

The Municipality of Niterói filed a Constitutional Claim (Rcl 35.699/RJ) with the Supreme Federal Court (STF) alleging a violation of the decision of the TJRJ (Court of Justice of Rio de Janeiro) and Binding Precedents 10 and 37. The Claim was dismissed in a single-judge decision and, after the filing of an Internal Appeal, in a final judgment. The First Panel of the STF understood that there was no violation of the plenary session clause, as per Binding Precedent 10, since the basis of the decision does not concern the unconstitutionality of the municipal law. It also concluded that the discussion concerns the prior approval of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the granting of a license for the construction of large-scale projects, which is not related to Binding Precedent 37.

The Municipality of Niterói filed Special and Extraordinary Appeals against the appeal decision, which were admitted by the Third Vice-Presidency of the TJRJ (Rio de Janeiro State Court of Justice). The Special Appeal (REsp 1.923.322/RJ) was assigned to the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), where it was denied in a decision that recognized that the appealed judgment presented concrete and sufficient grounds to support its conclusions. The Extraordinary Appeal (RE 1.522.706/RJ) was assigned to the Supreme Federal Court (STF), which also denied its appeal, understanding that the appealed judgment did not diverge from the STF's jurisprudence regarding the possibility of judicial intervention in public policies aimed at realizing fundamental rights. The judgments became final and the case was closed in the first instance, with the commencement of the enforcement of the sentence.

The execution is deemed terminated, given the information from the Public Prosecutor's Office regarding the approval of Municipal Law No. 3,385/2019, which establishes the new Master Plan for the city, and the consequent fulfillment of the obligation by the defendant. The judgment is certified as final, with the case being duly closed and archived.

This is a preventive Citizen Suit (APop) filed by Samuel Almeida da Silva against the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) regarding the request for an environmental license to explore the FZA-M-59 oil block, located at the mouth of the Amazon River, off the coast of the state of Amapá, requested by Petrobras SA. It is stated that the company's request was denied due to several inconsistencies and that the licensing process documents indicate the possibility that a potential oil spill could reach the coast of eight countries, in addition to two French territories. It argues that, beyond the specific impacts of the production and transportation project, the installation of the oil and gas industry would promote an extensive chain of related ventures. It is alleged that exploration at the mouth of the Amazon would trigger the drilling of more than 40 blocks off the coast of the North and Northeast regions of the country, which would go against global ambitions to reduce the use of fossil fuels. There is a global effort to modify the energy matrix towards sources other than oil and coal, which are the main causes of high greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Given this scenario, the exploration of oil blocks puts the local ecosystem and climate balance at risk. The author argues that denying the environmental license for the project is a way to protect everyone's right to an ecologically balanced environment, fulfilling article 225 of the Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988. The author requests the invalidation of any license that authorizes oil exploration in the Amazon River estuary.

IBAMA filed a response alleging the initial petition was flawed due to a lack of specification of the facts and legal basis for the request, and that there was no act to be annulled, as no activity is being carried out in the area of interest of the lawsuit. Regarding the FZA-M-59 exploration block, it alleged that the environmental license was denied and that an appeal is under review. It requested, preliminarily, the dismissal of the case without prejudice. On the merits, it requested the complete dismissal of the claims.

In June 2025, a judgment was issued dismissing the initial petition and declaring the case closed without prejudice. The court held that there was no administrative act to be annulled or invalidated, since the plaintiff was seeking the invalidation of an environmental license that had not even been issued or, potentially, of a license that may be issued in the future.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF), with a request for preliminary injunction, against INEA and Karpowership Brasil Energia Ltda., due to alleged irregularities in the Environmental Licensing process for 36 temporary power transmission line towers in Sepetiba Bay, in Itaguaí, Rio de Janeiro. The plaintiff alleges that INEA, when granting Integrated Environmental License (LAI IN000312), disregarded the synergistic and cumulative impacts when analyzing the request for installation and operation licenses for four floating thermoelectric power plants (UTE) in the same region, which are part of the same project. It is argued that the absence of an Environmental Impact Study/Environmental Impact Report (EIA/RIMA) and a public hearing with the participation of the local community was verified. The MPF bases the claim on the duty of the Public Power to defend and preserve the ecologically balanced environment as provided for in Article 225 of the Federal Constitution. Based on Complementary Law 140/2011, it argues that the authority to license projects likely to cause environmental impacts in the coastal zone and territorial sea belongs to the Federal Government and, therefore, the environmental licensing of the four thermoelectric plants is the responsibility of the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA). Thus, the cumulative and synergistic impacts of the projects, which require a joint assessment of viability, also attract federal jurisdiction over the 36 energy transmission towers. It emphasizes the special protection afforded to the Atlantic Forest biome (granted by Federal Law 11.428/2006) when it comes to vegetation suppression. The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office points out that the thermoelectric projects generate pollution from Greenhouse Gases (GHG). For this reason, INEA should require prior studies to assess the project's contribution to climate change, taking into account the objectives of the National Climate Change Policy - PNMC (Federal Law 12.189/2009) and the targets assumed by Brazil under the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). Among other measures, the following is requested: the preliminary suspension of the LAI and, definitively, the: (i) declaration of nullity of the LAI; (ii) assessment of the project considering its contribution to climate change, in order to ensure that emissions are mitigated; (iii) condemnation of INEA to the obligation not to grant licenses without conducting an EIA; (iv) condemnation of INEA to the obligation to consider, after the presentation of the EIA/RIMA, the overall analysis of the licensing, considering the cumulative and synergistic effects of the projects; (v) condemnation of the defendants to the obligation to recover the already deforested areas and the existing environmental liabilities; and (vi) condemnation of the defendants to indemnify and compensate for the damages caused, considering their material and non-material nature, including collective moral damages.

The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) subsequently added a document in which the Z-15 RJ Fishermen's Association of Sepetiba Bay expressed its opposition to the project. It argues that fishing is an activity of social and economic importance, but above all, it is part of the life history of generations of fishermen. It maintains that the fishermen should be included, as they will be directly affected.

In its defense, Karpowership Brasil Energia Ltda. argued that: (i) there was no separation of environmental licensing, since the project is treated as one within the “UTE Rio de Janeiro Project”; (ii) the characteristics of the transmission line do not require an EIA/RIMA or a public consultation; (iii) there is a Technical Cooperation Agreement between IBAMA and INEA with the objective of transferring the execution of the environmental licensing of the Project; (iv) the project implementation site is a consolidated area; (v) the project is part of the Federal Government's emergency energy generation policy and has been declared strategic by the Government of the State of Rio de Janeiro; and (vi) there is a study identifying the trees to be removed, a management report for species vulnerable to extinction, and a Fauna Monitoring Plan. For these reasons, it requests, among other measures, the dismissal of the requests for preliminary injunction and that the claims made in the initial complaint be dismissed.

A judgment was issued dismissing the case without prejudice. The court analyzed, jointly, the present Public Civil Action and Public Civil Action No. 5041112-20.2022.4.02.5101, also filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, due to the connection and complementarity between the claims. It highlighted that both proceedings should be dismissed due to (i) lack of standing of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office; (ii) absolute lack of jurisdiction of the court; and (iii) lack of interest in bringing the action due to the inadequacy of the chosen procedure. It was understood that the claim filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office would be the responsibility of the Attorney General of the Republic, with original jurisdiction belonging to the Supreme Federal Court. It argued that the requested claim would be, without due process of law, a type of intervention representation action. It pointed out that the fact that the thermoelectric plant is located in territorial waters does not remove it from state territory and, therefore, does not give rise to the intervention of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office. In this regard, he pointed out that the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office filed a similar lawsuit, obtaining a favorable decision, but it has already been suspended by the President of the Court of Justice of the State of Rio de Janeiro.

The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office filed an appeal with a request for urgent provisional relief, challenging the decision to dismiss the case. The appeal has not yet been decided.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for preliminary injunction, filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of Pará (MPPA), due to the omission of the State Secretariat for the Environment and Sustainability (SEMAS) in fulfilling its duty to require the assessment of climate impacts in environmental licensing in the state of Pará, with emphasis on sources emitting greenhouse gases (GHG) such as CO2 and methane. It argues that the global climate crisis is proven by data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), arguing in favor of the essential need to consider a climate approach in all public policies, particularly in the context of the Amazon and the special relationship between solid waste management and the climate system, as it is a significant source of GHG emissions. It points to state omission, especially in the case of landfills, whose significant polluting potential requires a rigorous licensing process to support decisions on the viability and mitigation of climate impacts as essential conditions for adequately addressing the climate crisis. As an example, the Marituba Waste Processing and Treatment Center (CPTRM) is cited, which lacks an adequate system for treating the gases produced in waste management and a climate impact assessment in its licensing process. Due to this omission, the Public Prosecutor's Office of Pará (MPPA) alleges that the state of Pará is failing to comply with national and international commitments to address the climate crisis, such as the Paris Agreement, the National Environmental Policy, the National Policy on Climate Change, and the State Policy on Climate Change. It is argued that this omission violates the principle of prohibiting deficient protection in environmental matters, breaking with climate federalism by failing to integrate the climate agenda into state public policies. In a preliminary injunction, it is requested that the state of Pará be determined to: (i) include in the Terms of Reference and other technical documents that support the environmental assessment of environmental licensing conducted by SEMAS the obligation to present studies that prove the assessment of climate impact and mitigation actions, for the issuance or renewal of environmental licenses, especially for sanitary landfills; (ii) regulate the environmental licensing of sanitary landfills incorporating climate impact assessment; (iii) not grant or renew environmental licenses for projects that cause climate impacts without the prior and necessary assessment of this type of environmental impact and the establishment of mitigation measures. On the merits, it requests the granting of the same requests made in the preliminary injunction and compensation for collective moral damages suffered by the society of Marituba due to the deficient protection against the climate impacts resulting from the installation of the CPTRM.

In September 2025, an interlocutory decision was issued granting the requested urgent relief, ordering the state of Pará, through SEMAS: (i) to prepare and publish Terms of Reference that must include the requirement for a climate impact assessment and a GHG mitigation plan as conditions for the environmental licensing of projects with significant pollution potential, especially sanitary landfills, including CPTRM; (ii) to present a technical diagnosis of the current status of all active environmental licenses for GHG-emitting projects under its jurisdiction; (iii) to refrain from issuing or renewing environmental licenses for potentially GHG-emitting projects without the proper prior climate impact assessment and without imposing concrete mitigation measures.

This is a preventive Public Action (APop) with a request for preliminary injunction filed by an individual against the state of Minas Gerais, Taquaril Mineração S/A, and Vale S/A – later excluded from the passive pole – due to omission regarding the analysis of the aggravation of extreme weather events in the environmental licensing process of mining projects in the state of Minas Gerais. The plaintiff alleges that mineral exploration in the state is being affected by extreme atmospheric phenomena, a situation that is being neglected by the federative entity. Thus, it points out that the negligence regarding the climatic issue resulted in the flooding of the Downstream Containment Structure (ECJ) dam built by Vale S/A in the Municipality of São Sebastião das Águas Claras after intense rains, flooding roads in the region, leaving the district without access to water, electricity, transportation, garbage collection, and other essential services. The objective of the ECJ is to minimize any damage caused by the rupture of the B3/B4 dam. The author indicates that the project was not preceded by an Environmental Impact Study (EIA) or the required environmental licensing. She highlights that the company cannot measure the impacts of a potential breach of the B3/B4 dam if the ECJ reservoir is filled with water and tailings. She asserts that a review of the hydraulic modeling for this type of project is therefore necessary through a corrective environmental licensing process. Regarding Vale S/A, she requests the suspension of the Apolo Project, which intends to implement mining exploration between the municipalities of Caeté and Santa Bárbara, since the studies presented within its environmental licensing processes did not analyze the influence of the intensification of extreme weather events on the operation of the activity. Similarly, she seeks to halt the environmental licensing process for the Serra do Taquaril Mining Complex, managed by Mineração Taqueril S/A, considering that the effects of climate change on the project have not been evaluated. According to the EIA, due to the Complex, sediment containment basins BS-1 and BS-2 will be built, which, if they rupture, will directly impact the water intake pipeline of Bela Fama, Nova Lima, affecting the supply of approximately 70% of the capital's population. The argument is that the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the State Policy for the Prevention and Combat of Disasters Resulting from Intense Rainfall (State Law 15.660/2005) should guide environmental licensing in the State of Minas Gerais, so as to include the climate variable in the procedure, following a decision issued by the 9th Federal Court of Porto Alegre that determined the inclusion of climate guidelines in the Terms of Thermoelectric Power Plants in Rio Grande do Sul, in reference to Public Civil Action 5030786-95.2021.4.04.7100 (AGAPAN and others vs. IBAMA and others). The request is for the suspension of environmental licensing for the Serra do Taquaril Complex and the Apolo Project, and for the immediate commencement of corrective licensing for ECJ.

In its defense, Vale S/A stated that the Apolo Project was in a preliminary phase, still under analysis by the competent environmental agency, and therefore did not represent a danger to the environment. Similarly, it stated that ECJ was already undergoing a corrective licensing phase with SEMAD, which is why the plaintiff had no interest in pursuing the matter. Furthermore, it argued that there was no impossible passive joinder of parties, since there was no relationship between the defendants or any affinity between the claims made against each defendant.

Subsequently, the plaintiff requested an amendment to the initial complaint, in order to exclude Vale S/A from the defendant's side, as it would be more beneficial for the debate on Project Apollo and the ECJ to take place in a separate action.

Thus, in August 2022, a partial judgment was issued that dismissed the case in relation to Vale S/A. Subsequently, the court dismissed the action without prejudice due to the inadequacy of the chosen legal avenue. It understood that the Public Action for Non-Compliance with Public Prosecution (APop) is not an appropriate procedural means for the claim, as it involves requests for an order compelling a public entity to perform an action. According to the court, the APop is intended for the annulment or invalidation of an act detrimental to public assets; therefore, it cannot be used for the purposes of this action.

The case files were sent for mandatory review by the 2nd instance of the TJMG (Court of Justice of Minas Gerais), which upheld the sentence and reaffirmed the inadequacy of the chosen legal avenue. The ruling stated that there was no concrete harmful act, but rather a presumption or fear of harm to the environment, and that the acts in question could be the subject of a public civil action or an action for specific performance, with a popular action not being the appropriate legal avenue.

In view of the conclusion of the process, the case files were permanently archived.

This is a lawsuit filed as a Precautionary Action (AC) by five civil society organizations, and subsequently converted into a Public Civil Action (ACP). Initially, the AC aimed to suspend the holding of a public hearing regarding (i) an open-pit coal mining project, (ii) the construction of the Nova Seival Thermoelectric Power Plant (UTE), considered the largest in the State of Rio Grande do Sul (RS), and (iii) the construction of other works in a hydrographic basin. The plaintiff organizations stated that the convening of the public hearing was carried out in violation of current legislation and that the violations of procedural rights could lead to serious legal and social consequences, including compliance with Brazil's Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), assumed under the Paris Agreement, and the provisions of the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC) and the Rio Grande do Sul State Policy on Climate Change (PGMC), as well as having impacts on public health. They argued that the Environmental Impact Study and the Environmental Impact Report (EIA/RIMA) present an incomplete and inaccurate analysis, especially because they disregard the socio-environmental damages and risks to the region's water security. When addressing community participation and access to information, the petitioners discussed the pillars of environmental justice. They also stated that the construction of the thermal power plant should be preceded by a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Finally, they requested the suspension of the virtual public hearing and, in the final ruling, that a new public notice be published.

A decision was issued denying the precautionary measure. Objections were presented (i) by Copelmi Mineração Ltda. and Energia da Campanha Ltda., claiming that Copelmi lacked standing to be sued in favor of the latter, which supposedly owned the project, and (ii) by IBAMA. Both defenses alleged the absence of irregularities in the procedure.

Subsequently, the petitioners filed a request to convert the AC (Preliminary Injunction) into a Public Civil Action with a preliminary injunction. They emphasized that Nova Seival is part of a complex network of projects that have environmental impacts and that these should be analyzed together. In addition to procedural flaws and issues related to transparency, they pointed out several omissions in the EIA/RIMA (Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report), such as the use of modeling based solely on past data, without presenting a projection for the operating period of the Nova Seival Thermal Power Plant and without relating it to other thermal power plants in the region. They argued that no analysis was conducted on its synergistic and cumulative impacts on the social structures already weakened by pollution in the region, nor on the impacts of the dam's construction on agroecological production. Based on the precautionary principle and in light of the climate emergency, they requested that IBAMA include the guidelines of the PNMC and PGMC in the Terms of Reference (TRs) that deal with the licensing processes of thermal power plants in Rio Grande do Sul, considering the need to carry out environmental impact assessments (EAAs) in projects with a high pollution potential due to the burning of coal, in addition to the inclusion of an analysis of risks to human health.

The court accepted the request to convert the AC into an ACP and, subsequently, partially granted the preliminary injunction, especially regarding (i) the annulment of the virtual hearing held, (ii) the suspension of the environmental licensing process, and (iii) the inclusion of climate guidelines in the Terms of Reference for Thermal Power Plants in Rio Grande do Sul, considering the need for SEA for potential large polluters.

Due to the preliminary injunction, the companies Copelmi Mineração e Energia da Campanha filed an interlocutory appeal (AI) 5040314-16.2021.4.04.0000, followed by IBAMA (AI 5041566-54.2021.4.04.0000). Within the scope of the companies' appeal, a single-judge decision was issued suspending the appealed decision regarding (i) the annulment of the virtual public hearing held on May 20, 2021, and (ii) the inclusion of climate guidelines in the Terms of Reference. Subsequently, similar rulings were issued within the appeals, denying the appeals and upholding the preliminary injunction. It was concluded that the granting of preliminary relief is appropriate when the judge deems it necessary and relevant based on the general duty of care and the precautionary principle.

The Federal Union filed a defense alleging lack of standing and absence of a cause of action or claim related to it. The companies Copelmi Mineração e Energia da Campanha filed a new defense alleging the lack of a cause of action related to the request regarding the TRs (Terminal Reference Values) and that there would be illegality regarding this request, since energy planning already considers the contribution of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) from the sector to the NDC assumed by Brazil in the Paris Agreement, stating that the Nova Seival Thermal Power Plant is aligned with national energy planning; in addition to emphasizing the importance of maintaining fossil fuel sources for energy security. It further stated that the SEA (Strategic Environmental Assessment) is intended to evaluate the environmental effects of a specific policy, plan, or program and not of individual projects, and therefore its requirement is not applicable in this case.

IBAMA filed a new objection alleging, among other issues, that the plaintiffs did not request, in the preliminary injunction, the annulment of the virtual public hearing held on May 20, 2021, nor the inclusion of TRs (Territorial Regulations) in the licensing of the questioned project and in all licensing of thermoelectric plants in Rio Grande do Sul. It considered that there is no risk of harm that justifies granting the preliminary injunction, since the EIA/RIMA (Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report) is still under analysis, and IBAMA has not yet granted the license or the consequent authorization to begin construction. It highlighted the inadequacy of the initial complaint regarding the claim to include the guidelines of the PNMC (National Policy on Climate Change) and the PGMC (General Policy on Climate Change), because (i) there is no cause of action for this claim and (ii) it stated that it is an illegal request, considering that it is an abstract control of the legality of a generic administrative act in a Public Civil Action with a specific object. Furthermore, on the merits, IBAMA refuted several arguments presented by the authors, such as the unnecessary nature of a merit analysis of environmental licensing before holding a public hearing, based on CONAMA Resolution 237/1997. It also emphasized that assessments of climate change are already addressed in the required Terms of Reference (TOR), as measures for compensation and mitigation of environmental impacts in licensing processes for projects that emit greenhouse gases are provided for in IBAMA Normative Instruction 12/2010. Regarding the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), IBAMA stated that it is not responsible for preparing such a study. It affirmed that the creation of SEAs with the objective of providing a more holistic view of environmental assessment in plans, programs, and public policies does not negate the fact that it is not regulated at the federal level and, consequently, is not mandatory in the licensing process. He stated that measuring cumulative and synergistic impacts is not exclusive to the AAE (Environmental Impact Assessment), being present in the EIA (Environmental Impact Study), as foreseen in CONAMA Resolution 01/1986. He emphasized, in conclusion, that by introducing a requirement not foreseen in federal legislation for all licensing of thermal power plants in Rio Grande do Sul, the court would be acting as a positive legislator, usurping the competence of CONAMA. Finally, he requested (i) the revocation of the preliminary injunction, (ii) the recognition of the initial pleading's inadequacy regarding the request to include the guidelines foreseen in the PNMC (National Policy on Climate Change) and PNMG (National Policy on Mineral Production) in the TRs (Technical Reports) dealing with the licensing of the thermal power plant in the state, and (iii), on the merits, the dismissal of the claims.

In the first instance, a decision was rendered rejecting the preliminary arguments based on the understanding that: (i) the preliminary objection of lack of standing of the Federal Union is intertwined with the merits and will be decided as such; (ii) COONATERRA – BIONATUR has standing; (iii) regarding the lack of standing argued by the defendant, it highlighted that it had already decided on the standing of Copelmi previously; and (iv) it understood that the preliminary argument that the case does not discuss licensing damages that could generate liability for Copelmi and that the mine and the thermoelectric plant should have separate licenses is intertwined with the merits and will be decided as such. Furthermore, it granted the requests to participate as amicus curiae made by the Brazilian Association of Members of the Public Prosecutor's Office for the Environment (ABRAMPA), the Arayara International Institute of Education and Culture, and the Brazilian Association of Thermoelectric Generators (ABRAGET). Finally, the court deemed it possible to proceed with an early judgment on the merits, as the case involves a matter of law that requires exclusively documentary evidence, and declared the evidentiary phase of the proceedings closed.

The Federal Union filed a Motion for Clarification, followed by IBAMA and the companies Energia da Campanha and Copelmi. The appeals were acknowledged but rejected on the merits. It is noteworthy that the court understood that the request to include legal guidelines foreseen in the PNMC and PGMC in the Terms of Reference for licensing thermal power plants in Rio Grande do Sul was well-founded, based on the precautionary principle due to the climate emergency, which demonstrates the need for SEA (Strategic Environmental Assessment) in projects with high pollution potential.

A judgment was issued in which the court: (i) upheld the preliminary objection of lack of standing of the Union, as it understood that there was no claim directed at the entity; and (ii) rejected the preliminary objection of lack of standing of Copelmi, understanding that the company has a relationship with the project. On the merits, the court highlighted the climate issue, emphasizing the recognition by the UN General Assembly of a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a universal human right and several other jurisdictional positions regarding the climate emergency. Thus, it ratified the conclusions reached in the judgment in which the urgent relief was granted. It understood that there was no effective participation of the affected populations in the environmental licensing procedure. It felt that participation should be allowed through transparent and accessible information. It stressed the importance of measuring synergistic and cumulative impacts arising from the Nova Seival Thermal Power Plant and the Seival Mine, and that environmental licensing cannot be fragmented. In this way, an effective analysis of the environmental impact, including the climate impact, is possible. He highlighted the measures foreseen in the Paris Agreement, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC), and the General Policy on Climate Change (PGMC). Furthermore, he considered that the Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report (EIA/RIMA) did not foresee mitigating or compensatory measures for GHG emissions as stipulated in the IBAMA Normative Instruction, nor did it address air quality standards. He emphasized the application of the precautionary principle, given the legal certainty of environmental damage resulting from the installation and operation of the project. Regarding the Strategic Environmental Assessment (AAE), he understood that it was necessary to conduct it based on the PGMC, which is the most beneficial and protective standard for the environment. He highlighted the principle of the integrity of the climate system. Finally, he ruled in favor of the plaintiffs' requests and concluded that the environmental licensing of the power plant is inconsistent with the technical, regulatory, and legal standards relevant to the case and with the commitments made internationally by Brazil, as it ignored transgenerational and climate health issues.

Following the pronouncement of the sentence, a ruling was issued regarding the appeals filed by Copelmi, Energia da Campanha, and IBAMA, dismissing the appeals due to loss of object. AGAPAN, Instituto Gaúcho de Estudos Ambientais, Instituto Preservar, COONATERRA - Bionatur, and CEPPA filed appeals, requesting the reversal of the sentence to condemn the defendants to pay increased attorneys' fees. Energia da Campanha Ltda and Copelmi Mineração Ltda also filed appeals requesting the reversal of the sentence, arguing that the plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed or, alternatively, that the validity of the public hearing held should be upheld. IBAMA, in turn, filed an appeal requesting the reversal of the sentence to dismiss the initial claims. In its arguments, it alleged that the challenged ruling violates several legal norms, including resolutions and licensing procedures of IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources), and that it aims to establish, for a specific case and through judicial norms, parameters applicable to all licensing of thermoelectric power plants in the state of Rio Grande do Sul.

In April 2025, the appeals were judged. The Third Panel of the TRF 4 (Regional Federal Court of the 4th Region) unanimously decided to dismiss par of the case regarding the requests related to public hearings and environmental studies (requests “a”, “b”, “c”) of the licensing process for the Nova Seival Thermal Power Plant, since the developers had withdrawn from the project and, consequently, there was a supervening loss of interest in pursuing the action. The last request, accepted by the judgment to "order IBAMA to include in the Terms of Reference that deal with the licensing processes of Thermal Power Plants in Rio Grande do Sul the legal guidelines foreseen in the PNMC (National Policy on Climate Change) and the PGMC (General Policy on Climate Change), including the need to carry out a Strategic Environmental Assessment in projects with a high pollution potential from burning coal, as well as the need to include an analysis of risks to human health, given the need to analyze the synergistic and cumulative effects of this type of thermal power plant," was confirmed by the Court. In its reasoning, the Court recognized the global unity of the climate system and that disputes such as the one in question, in accordance with the precautionary and preventive principles, give rise to claims for environmental justice, aiming at the realization of fundamental rights to adequate, possible and informed participation by the population directly and indirectly affected, and attention to disproportionate impacts on the most vulnerable. It considered the legitimacy of considering international references in light of the national reality of the case and the need to understand the relevance of the project in relation to its direct and indirect impacts on the community and its surroundings, especially in view of the impacts already experienced by Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, and the world. He highlighted that "the emission of greenhouse gases, in itself, resulting from any economically employed physical-chemical processes, is a matter of undeniable public, collective and transindividual interest, as well as the subject of internal and international legal norms with normative force," referring to the document "Assessment of climate impacts in fossil fuel projects: legal strategies for environmental licensing," prepared by the Association of Members of the Public Prosecutor's Office for the Environment (ABRAMPA).

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for urgent relief, filed by the Arayara International Institute of Education and Culture - Arayara Institute of Education for Sustainability against Copel Geração e Transmissão SA, the Paraná Water and Land Institute (IAT), the State of Paraná, the National Electric Energy Agency (ANEEL), and the Federal Government, based on alleged irregularities in the operation of the Figueira Thermoelectric Power Plant (UTE-FRA). The plant is owned by Copel, and it is alleged that there are illegalities in the environmental licensing and operation, which have caused environmental and climate damage. It is pointed out that the coal used by the thermoelectric plant has a high concentration of radioactive elements and generates degradation of the atmosphere, climate, water, and soil. The environmental agency allegedly denied access to documents related to the environmental licensing of the activity, and the UTE allegedly operated for 18 years without the proper Operating License, emitting pollutants above the levels permitted by law. Furthermore, the expansion of the project was not subject to a licensing process and operated for 35 years without mechanisms to control particulate matter emissions. It is argued that the climate damage caused by illegal GHG emissions should be considered, quantified through the social cost of carbon. Pricing of tons of carbon emitted, prepared by the World Bank and the OECD, is presented. To reliably quantify emissions, the provision of documents by the defendant company and the performance of an expert assessment were requested, since the emissions from the operation of the power plant presented were based on estimates prepared by the plaintiffs without access to the necessary documents. It is urgently requested that a series of measures be granted, including the presentation of documents and reports, the production of advance evidence to ascertain environmental damage, and the suspension of environmental licensing and regulatory procedures. Finally, in summary, it is requested (i) the annulment of the environmental licensing process and authorizations that allowed the expansion of the plant; (ii) the defendants are ordered to refrain from acting until a proper licensing process is carried out, accompanied by an EIA/RIMA and the necessary technical studies; (iii) the annulment of the environmental compensation agreement; (iv) the defendants are ordered to repair the environmental damage resulting from the irregular operation of the UTE and to pay compensation for any damage that cannot be recovered; (v) the defendants are ordered to pay compensation for climate damage due to the irregular operation of the UTE; (vi) the payment of collective environmental moral damages.

The request for urgent relief was denied by the court. It was argued that the requested evidence could be produced at an appropriate procedural moment, and there was no need for anticipation. It was alleged that the Figueira Thermal Power Plant has been operating for a long time and contributes to the electricity supply of the state of Paraná, and therefore, granting the preliminary injunctions could create a risk for consumers.

In its defense, ANEEL argued that issues related to the licensing of the power plant are not within its jurisdiction and that it acted in accordance with the law. It requested that the claims be dismissed.

This is a lawsuit filed by Rio Doce, represented by the Pachamama Association, against the Federal Government and the state of Minas Gerais due to the collapse of the Samarco mining company's tailings dam in the municipality of Mariana/MG. The lawsuit seeks to recognize the Rio Doce Hydrographic Basin as a legal entity and to hold the Federal Government and the State of Minas Gerais responsible for omissions in disaster prevention measures. The disaster contaminated the Rio Doce with 62 million cubic meters of iron ore sludge, causing damage to the Rio Doce ecosystem and its riverside populations. It is argued that the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Law 12.187/2009) and the National Policy on Civil Protection and Defense (Law 12.608/2012) were not complied with, which actively contributed to the socio-environmental disaster. It is argued that the National Climate Change Policy (PNMC) obliges the State to reconcile socio-economic development with the protection of the climate system, and that the National Adaptation Plan to Climate Change (PNA) has identified flaws in its implementation, especially regarding the failure to establish a national registry of municipalities with areas susceptible to disasters and the lack of a State Civil Protection and Defense Plan. These would be important instruments to guarantee the protection of river basins and the prevention of future disasters. Thus, it is asserted that the State's omission in fulfilling obligations for preventive disaster management foreseen in the norms of the Law of the Sea, Climate Law, and Disaster Law must be remedied. In a preliminary injunction, it is requested that the Doce River Basin be recognized as a subject of law; and that all persons have broad standing to defend the right to a healthy existence of the Doce River Basin. The lawsuit seeks to condemn the Federal Government and the state of Minas Gerais to establish a national registry of municipalities with areas susceptible to disasters and to develop a Disaster Prevention Plan for Minas Gerais, with the participation of representatives from academic institutions and riverside communities. Ultimately, it requests that the action be upheld, confirming the preliminary injunctions.

The ruling dismissed the case without prejudice, finding that the Rio Doce Hydrographic Basin lacked legal personality. The case was archived after the ruling became final.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief, filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against Sebastião da Costa Mariano, due to the illegal deforestation of an area of 903.22 hectares in the Municipality of Boca do Acre/AM, which occurred in 2021 and was verified as a result of Operation Smoke. Between 2021 and September 2024, in the same location, the defendant allegedly started fires in the vegetation with the aim of clearing and maintaining pastures for agriculture. The action expressly argues about the relationship between deforestation and climate change and about its extreme local and regional effects. It highlights that the main form of greenhouse gas emissions in Brazil is through deforestation, emphasizing the situation in the Amazon and Brazil's commitments to reducing deforestation in the biome. It points out that the illegal deforestation being combated resulted in the emission of 534,613.750272 tons of carbon dioxide, which imposes the duty to compensate for intermediate and residual climatic material damages. It uses the Amazon Fund's calculation basis to assign a value of US$ 5.00 for each ton of CO2 emitted, resulting in the quantification of compensation at R$ 15,236,491.88. It requests the granting of provisional anticipatory relief to, among other measures, remove the herd from the treated area, suspend access to financing, and suspend registration in the CAR (Rural Environmental Registry). As final requests, it requests (i) the defendant's conviction to repair the environmental damages through the recovery of the area; the conviction to pay compensation for intermediate and residual environmental material damages, for the social cost of the illegality, with the restitution of illegally obtained profits, in the amount of R$ 19,404,778.48; the obligation to pay for residual and intermediate climatic material damages, in the amount of R$ 15,236,491.88; the conviction to pay compensation corresponding to collective moral damages in the amount of R$ 9,702,389.24 and (ii) the reversion of the conviction amounts to the federal inspection bodies (IBAMA and ICMBio).

A judgment was issued dismissing the case without prejudice due to the existence of a connection between case no. 1043380-54.2024.4.01.3200 (the main case - filed within the scope of the 4th phase of the "Amazônia Protege" project of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office) and the present case (the contained case). Case no. 1043380-54.2024.4.01.3200 has a broader scope, including other defendants and covering a total deforested area of 2041.3 hectares, while the present case specifically addresses the deforestation of 903.22 hectares by the defendant Sebastião da Costa Mariano. The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office has already formally amended the initial petition in those proceedings to expressly include the facts and requests related to the deforestation by the defendant Sebastião da Costa Mariano. The case was definitively closed.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) and Petróleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras), due to the granting of authorization for Pre-Operational Assessment (APO) in Block FZA-M-59, located in the Foz do Amazonas Basin, a stage prior to the license for drilling offshore oil wells. The objective is to annul Decision Order No. 33/2025/Gabin, issued by the President of IBAMA, which granted the authorization and the non-issuance of an operating license for well drilling until the licensing irregularities are remedied. The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) argues that the aforementioned Decision Order is null and void because it contradicts environmental licensing regulations, international obligations, and a technical opinion from the agency itself, which recommended the denial of the license due to serious flaws in the Oiled Fauna Protection and Care Plan (PPAF). Furthermore, the nullity is based on the absence of an Environmental Assessment of the Sedimentary Area (AAAS), the failure to conduct prior, free, and informed consultations with the affected indigenous, quilombola, traditional fishing, and riverside communities, and the failure to consider some of these communities in the environmental studies, despite the prediction of various impacts on them, in violation of ILO Convention No. 169 and the Federal Constitution. It further argues that the licensing documents do not consider extreme weather events, violating IBAMA regulations, the National Policy on Climate Change, and the Forest Code. The argument is that the authorization granted violates the precautionary and preventive principles, representing a serious risk to the populations and coastal ecosystems of the Amazon River mouth, a region that shelters mangroves and reefs. It maintains that IBAMA's decision ignores the global climate emergency and the international commitments undertaken by Brazil, such as the Paris Agreement, and that the expansion of oil exploration goes against the energy transition and decarbonization policy, perpetuating an unsustainable model based on fossil fuels, which affects Brazil's credibility on the international climate agenda, especially on the eve of COP-30. Thus, the authorization granted without climate impact studies and without AAAS would put Brazil in breach of its commitments to mitigate climate change. In provisional relief, it requests (i) the immediate suspension of Order No. 33/2025/Gabin, or, subsidiarily, the prohibition of granting the Operating License (LO) until the necessary environmental and climate studies are carried out, as well as free, prior and informed consultation with the affected communities; (ii) the prohibition of Petrobras or related companies from entering the villages located in the Uaçá, Galibi and Juminã Indigenous Territories without prior authorization from FUNAI. On the merits, it requests the definitive annulment of the order and the acts resulting therefrom and the suspension of the licensing until the identified nullities are remedied.

The preliminary injunction was partially granted by the 1st Federal Civil Court of the SJAP, which upheld the authorization of the APO, but ordered Petrobras to refrain from direct contact with indigenous and traditional communities without the presence of FUNAI.

The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office filed an interlocutory appeal with the TRF1 (1025450-83.2025.4.01.0000), seeking the complete suspension of the authorization.

In its defense, IBAMA requested the complete dismissal of the plaintiff's claims, with recognition of the legality of Decision Order No. 33/2025/Gabin and the regularity of the environmental licensing. It argued that the challenged act was technically sound and without any illegality. Finally, it requested the full maintenance of the licensing and the denial of the injunction sought by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office.

Petrobras, in its defense, requested that the claims be dismissed due to a lack of factual and legal grounds to support them. The defense was based on the legality of the environmental licensing process conducted by IBAMA, the absence of procedural irregularities or violation of indigenous rights, and finally, it maintained compliance with all applicable legal and technical requirements.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against Nilton Oliveira da Silva for the deforestation of an area of 181.40 hectares in 2018 in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant's occupation of the land was illegal because it is an area within an Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), owned and of interest to the Federal Government, managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractive communities. This ACP is part of a set of 22 actions filed by the MPF as a result of the investigation carried out in civil inquiry no. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, for illegal deforestation carried out within the Antimary Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), but against different defendants. The argument for the action is based, among other points, on Brazilian Environmental Law, regarding the constitutional protection of the environment, the accusation of deforestation, civil liability propter rem for environmental damages, including climate damages, and collective moral damages. It also mentions, as an environmental liability, the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) caused by the illegal deforestation of the area, calculated at 107,470.09 tons of carbon dioxide, which are directly related to the Brazilian State's departure from its climate goals, out of step with national and international commitments assumed by Brazil in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). Among other requests, the following is sought: (i) reparation for the damages caused by the illegal deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation corresponding to intermediate and residual environmental material damages; (iv) payment of compensation corresponding to climate damages; and (v) payment of compensation corresponding to collective moral damages.

Subsequently, INCRA was included in the active party as a co-litigant assistant to the plaintiff.

In his defense, the defendant argued his lack of standing due to an alleged lack of proof that he owns the area and is therefore responsible for the deforestation. On the merits, he argued for the complete dismissal of the action. Among other issues, he maintained the need for an environmental assessment to verify the alleged damages and their extent. He stated that the public civil inquiry that underpins the action violated the principle of due process and that there was no demonstration of a causal link to give rise to civil liability. Furthermore, he argued that the request for compensation for material damages plus the recovery of the degraded area is improper and that, by claiming compensation for environmental damages, climatic damages – by definition – are already included, and therefore their cumulation is also improper.

A decision was issued granting the request of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office to consolidate the public civil actions no. 1008097-09.2020.4.01.3200 and no. 1007382-64.2020.4.01.3200 into the present Public Civil Action. The request of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office is based on the relationship of contiguity, since there is partial identity of object because the present lawsuit contains the polygons that are the object of those actions, and additionally, includes a polygon that is located within the same CAR (Rural Environmental Registry).

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against Josafá de Moura Cunha due to the deforestation of an area of 37.51 hectares, between 2017 and 2019, in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant's occupation of the land was illegal because it is an area included in an Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), owned and of interest to the Federal Government, managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractive communities. This class action lawsuit is part of a set of 22 actions filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) as a result of the investigation carried out in civil inquiry no. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, concerning illegal deforestation within the Antimary Agrarian-Extractive Settlement Project (PAE), but against different defendants. The lawsuit's arguments are based, among other points, on Brazilian Environmental Law, regarding the constitutional protection of the environment, the accusation of deforestation, civil liability propter rem for environmental damages, including climate damages, and collective moral damages. It also mentions, as an environmental liability, the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) resulting from the illegal deforestation of the area, calculated at 6,497.48 tons of carbon dioxide, which are directly related to the Brazilian State's departure from its climate goals, out of step with national and international commitments assumed by Brazil in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). Among other requests, the following are made: (i) reparation for the damages caused by the illegal deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation corresponding to intermediate and residual environmental material damages; (iv) payment of compensation corresponding to climate damages; and (v) payment of compensation corresponding to collective moral damages.

Subsequently, INCRA was included in the active party as a co-litigant assistant to the plaintiff.

A judgment was issued recognizing the relationship between deforestation and climate change, presenting extensive arguments on climate change and civil liability for climate damage, acknowledging said damage in the case. The requests were partially granted, condemning the defendant: a) to fulfill the obligation to restore the degraded area according to the Degraded Area Recovery Plan (PRAD); b) to the obligation not to act, consisting of a prohibition on the use of the area by the defendant, in order to allow natural regeneration; c) to pay compensation for material damages related to interim and residual environmental damages, the value of which will be subject to settlement of judgment; d) to pay compensation for climate damages caused by deforestation, in the amount of R$ 623,566.62, using as a basis for calculating the amount of carbon emitted the Technical Note prepared by the Amazon Research Institute (IPAM) and, for pricing purposes, the value of 5 dollars per ton, according to the Amazon Fund; (ee) to the payment of compensation for collective moral damages, in the amount of 5% of the total material damages determined in the settlement of the judgment. Finally, it declared the respective CAR null and void and allocated all the resources obtained to the Fund for Diffuse Rights.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Instituto Preservar, Associação Gaúcha de Proteção ao Ambiente Natural - AGAPAN, and Núcleo Amigos da Terra - Brasil against the Federal Government, the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources - IBAMA, the National Agency of Electric Energy - ANEEL, the Southern Brazil Electric Energy Generation and Transmission Company - Eletrobras CGT Eletrosul (SE & UTE Cantiota III), the State of Rio Grande do Sul, the Henrique Luís Roessler State Environmental Protection Foundation - FEPAM, and the Rio Grande Mining Company - CRM. The action aims to compel the defendants to adopt effective measures to comply with the guidelines, deadlines, and targets set forth in Brazilian and Rio Grande do Sul national climate law. It is argued that, in the period from 2009 to 2023, the Union, and from 2010 to 2023, the State of Rio Grande do Sul, through action or omission, failed to comply with legal guidelines and did not meet the deadlines and targets set out in the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC), the Paris Agreement, and the Rio Grande do Sul Policy on Climate Change (PGMC). This is because there was no effective implementation of instruments such as Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), a balanced and transparent composition of the Rio Grande do Sul Forum on Climate Change (FGMC) and the Brazilian Forum on Climate Change, and no measures were taken to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from coal-fired power plants in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, with a Just Energy Transition Plan (JET), resulting in the ineffectiveness of the aforementioned climate standards. It is pointed out that the climate crisis has generated water scarcity for the municipality of Candiota, a fact recognized by municipal decree. Furthermore, the various coal-fired power plants in the region use local water for cooling, causing damage to the water system, the biome, and the climate. It is argued that the defendants have neglected national and international climate standards by failing to consider the climate component in the licensing and renewal of licenses for highly greenhouse gas-emitting projects in the state. At the same time, the Federal Government has encouraged coal-fired power plant projects through energy auctions authorized by ANEEL (Brazilian Electricity Regulatory Agency). CRM, responsible for the Candiota coal mine, and CGT Eletrosul, responsible for the Candiota III Thermal Power Plant – the most polluting and least efficient plant in the country – have operated in disregard of environmental and climate laws. It is argued that it is the responsibility of the Judiciary, based on the principle of non-regression and protective duties, to guarantee the effective enforcement of the regulations in question and to prevent the worsening of the climate scenario. It is argued that the entire alleged situation of illegality warrants a claim for compensation for collective moral damages. The plaintiffs make several requests for urgent relief against the different defendants, so that the defendants' conduct complies with the provisions of the environmental and climate regulations. On the merits, it is requested that (i) the requests made in the preliminary injunction be confirmed; (ii) that it be declared that, in the period from 2009 to 2023, the Union, and from 2010 to 2023, the state of Rio Grande do Sul, through action or omission, failed to comply with climate standards and did not meet the deadlines and targets set out in the PNMC, the Paris Agreement and the PGMC, by not having given effect to the regulations and not having acted to reduce GHG emissions from coal-fired thermal power plants in the state, with special attention to the environmental licensing process; (iii) that it be declared that Rio Grande do Sul failed to meet targets and deadlines set out in international, national and state standards; (iv) the determination of the suspension of public incentives for coal mining in the state, the implementation of a TEJ plan for the challenged plants; the publication of calls for proposals for funding educational and research projects with universities and federal institutes that encourage environmental awareness and the guidelines of the PNMC and the PGM; the creation of a Working Group for the decommissioning and energy transition of coal-fired plants; the suspension and non-renewal of energy trading contracts for the challenged plants; (v) the condemnation of the defendants to pay compensation for climate damages; (vi) the condemnation of the Federal Union and the state of Rio Grande do Sul to bear the costs of the requested claims; (vii) the condemnation of all defendants to pay the amount of ten million reais as collective moral damages in environmental and climate matters.

The request for urgent relief was denied by the court, which understood that the analysis of the requests would require a more in-depth adversarial process. It argued that the plaintiffs' claims were excessively broad and had significant economic, political, and social impacts. Furthermore, it argued that the effects of climate change are recognized by the international community, that the adaptation process in countries is slower than desirable, and that this could cause irreversible damage to the environment and future generations.

CRM filed a response, arguing that the claims against the defendant should be dismissed, claiming they are incompatible with each other. It defended that all its activities comply with environmental legislation and that, according to current regulations, it already has a mine closure plan in place. It requests that the action be dismissed. In a partial decision, the court dismissed the claims related to job security and the socioeconomic rights of workers, considering it a labor matter outside its jurisdiction.

In its defense, ANEEL (Brazilian Electricity Regulatory Agency) alleged its lack of standing to be sued. It highlighted the agency's internal initiatives on innovation and energy transition. It emphasized that the participation of non-renewable sources in energy auctions is not a discretionary choice by ANEEL, but rather a compliance with guidelines established by the Ministry of Mines and Energy, and that the agency does not act as a licensing body. It argued that 80% of Rio Grande do Sul's energy matrix is composed of renewable energies and that the projected expansion of energy supply in the state does not include an increase in fossil fuel sources. It requested that the claims be dismissed.

The state of Rio Grande do Sul also filed a response. Initially, it requested the dismissal of the case without prejudice due to the inadequacy of the chosen legal avenue. On the merits, it argued for the dismissal of the action, since the state observes current federal and state regulations, that the causes of climate change are global, and that there is no causal link between the conduct of the state entity and the damage alleged in the initial complaint.

In its defense, IBAMA argued for the dismissal of the lawsuit. It alleged that its actions comply with all legal norms; that there is a lack of regulations addressing the mitigation and reduction of GHG emissions; that decisions regarding the reduction of GHG emissions and the need to replace the national energy matrix are made by technical bodies, and that the Judiciary should not intervene; that the causes of air pollution are diffuse; and that there is no evidence of damage caused by IBAMA.

In its defense, the Union requested the dismissal of the case without prejudice due to lack of standing and inadequacy of the initial pleading. On the merits, it argued that it lacks jurisdiction to oversee mining activities and activities related to the production, transmission, distribution, and commercialization of electricity. Among other arguments, it defended the inadmissibility of judicial review of administrative merit, the absence in Brazilian legislation of sectoral subnational targets for reducing GHG emissions, and the lack of a causal link connecting the Union to the environmental damages mentioned in the initial pleading, whether through action or omission.

In its defense, Eletrobras CGT Eletrosul argued that the licensing of the Candiota III thermoelectric plant was carried out regularly, with climatic factors being considered in the procedure; that its operation observes GHG emission parameters established in the licensing; and that the plant is not the most polluting in the country. It argued that the Paris Agreement, the National Climate Change Policy (PNMC), and the Rio Grande do Sul State Policy on Climate Change are general and programmatic norms that do not generate obligations; and that there is no specific legal provision that substantiates climate-related environmental licensing. It pointed out that the country has a scenario of reduced GHG emissions originating from thermoelectric plants. It argued that the damages allegedly caused by the plant's operation were not proven in the initial complaint. As a preliminary matter, it requested the dismissal of the case without prejudice. On the merits, it requested that the denial of the preliminary injunctions be upheld and that the claims be dismissed as unfounded.

In August 2025, the ruling partially granted the requests, recognizing the lack of standing of ANEEL (Brazilian Electricity Regulatory Agency) and classifying the claim as a structural climate case. The decision carried out a conventionality control based on Advisory Opinion OC 32/2025 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), also using pronouncements from the Federal Justice Council (CJF) and Precedent 618 of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) to reverse the burden of proof. It highlighted scientific and legal bases for the decision, such as: reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, studies from the World Meteorological Organization, and reports from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). In evaluating these sources, it recognized that the IPCC considers coal to be the fossil fuel with the highest CO2 emissions. It analyzed the consequences of climate change in Rio Grande do Sul based on studies of the impacts of rainfall that hit the state. Regarding the licensing of the Candiota III Mine and Thermal Power Plant, the court understood that, at the time of the licenses (2011 and 2016), "there was a prevailing understanding that Brazilian emission reduction targets had a voluntary character," granting discretion to the licensing authority. Thus, it dismissed the initial illegality of the operations. However, it considered that currently, in a "third phase" of the climate legal regime, "substantial limitations are emerging and consolidating" that impose the assessment of climate impact in the licensing process. This understanding was based on the provisions of the PGMC (State Policy on Climate Change) and Decree 56.347/2022, foreign cases, and advisory opinions from international courts. Therefore, it ordered the immediate suspension of the licenses until these conditions are included, extending this to other similar projects in Rio Grande do Sul. The court also understood that IBAMA and FEPAM should take measures to deepen the climate impact analysis of other coal-fired projects in the state, recognizing that climate assessment during licensing is already mandatory for future coal-fired thermoelectric and coal-fired power plants. Regarding the Energy Transition Plan, the decision stated that "postponing the definition of the mitigation trajectory" for such a polluting sector "is unconstitutional and currently incompatible with advisory opinions," requiring the State to develop it. Concerning social participation in licensing, it decided that, under Brazilian environmental law, IBAMA must ensure due access to information on thermoelectric licensing procedures and that Rio Grande do Sul should increase the participation of members of civil society and the scientific community in the Rio Grande do Sul Forum on Climate Change (FGMC). Regarding requests for civil liability for damages, it considered that the occurrence of environmental damage had not been demonstrated. Concerning climate damage, it considered that emissions were formally authorized until the present decision. The court based its decision on the National Council of Justice's (CNJ) Protocol for Judgment on Environmental Actions, which requires the illegality of GHG emissions for damages be granted by the judiciary. Therefore, it found that neither the claim for civil liability for climate damage nor the claim for collective moral damages was admissible. However, it stated that, based on the sentence, there is no permission for the continued emissions by the enterprises. Furthermore, it considered that the declaration of a "State of Climate Emergency" does not fall within the purview of the Judiciary. The decision partially granted the requests, ordering IBAMA and FEPAM to (i) suspend the operating licenses of the Candiota III Plant and the Candiota Mine, respectively, for non-compliance with the guidelines of the PNMC, PGMC, and State Decree 56.347/2022; (ii) include climate conditions in the operating licenses of the plant and the mine, respectively, including scope 3 emissions; and (iii) to include in the Terms of Reference for licensing thermal power plants and coal mines in RS the assessment of the climate component, including scope 3 emissions. It ordered the Union and Rio Grande do Sul to present, by January 31, 2026, a Just Energy Transition Plan for the state's mineral sector; it ordered RS to promote the adjustment of the composition of the members of the FGMC, increasing the participation of civil society and the scientific community. It scheduled hearings to monitor the measures determined in the judgment and set fines in case of non-compliance.

Ambar Sul Energia SA, the state of Rio Grande do Sul, and FEPAM requested the Court to grant a stay of execution of the appeal. The TRF4, granting the request, suspended all orders for immediate or time-limited compliance with the judgment or the motions for clarification, as well as for compliance through inspection hearings and compliance with court orders and auxiliary judicial expertise.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against Érico Batista de Souza due to the deforestation of an area of 809.56 hectares, between 2014 and 2020, in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant's occupation of the land was illegal because it is an area included in an Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), owned and of interest to the Federal Government, managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractive communities. This class action lawsuit is part of a set of 22 actions filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) as a result of the investigation carried out in civil inquiry no. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, concerning illegal deforestation within the Antimary Agrarian-Extractive Settlement Project (PAE), but against different defendants. The lawsuit's arguments are based, among other points, on Brazilian Environmental Law, regarding the constitutional protection of the environment, the accusation of deforestation, civil liability propter rem for environmental damages, including climate damages, and collective moral damages. It also mentions, as an environmental liability, the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) resulting from the illegal deforestation of the area, calculated at 510,046.20 tons of carbon dioxide, which are directly related to the Brazilian State's departure from its climate goals, out of step with national and international commitments assumed by Brazil in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). Among other requests, the following are made: (i) reparation for the damages caused by the illegal deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation corresponding to intermediate and residual environmental material damages; (iv) payment of compensation corresponding to climate damages; and (v) payment of compensation corresponding to collective moral damages.

INCRA joined the lawsuit as a co-litigant assistant to the plaintiff.

In his defense, the defendant argued that he did not commit deforestation in the area and that there was no collective moral damage, requesting that the action be dismissed.

A decision was issued granting the request of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office to amend the initial complaint to include Robison da Silva Ganon, Alice Lins de Oliveira, and Geillane Lins De Oliveira as defendants in case no. 1025294-69.2023.4.01.3200, which deals with liability for the same environmental damages in the same area registered in the same Rural Environmental Registry (CAR). The defendant did not respond, therefore their silence was interpreted as tacit agreement with the amendment.

The defendants Geillane Lins De Oliveira and Alice Lins de Oliveira, respectively wife and mother-in-law of Erico Batista de Souza, filed a defense alleging the absence of any environmental offense because they had no management over the area, justifying their inclusion in the lawsuit due to the practice of "probative fishing" during a judicial search and seizure, on which occasion private contracts signed between them and the first defendant were found with the mere intention of demonstrating internal family trust. They requested their removal from the lawsuit and, in case of an adverse understanding, that the legal action be dismissed on its merits, or that the preliminary objections of inadequacy of the initial pleading, lack of standing of the Public Prosecutor's Office, and statute of limitations be upheld.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Arayara International Institute of Education and Culture - Arayara Institute of Education for Sustainability against Âmbar Sul Energia SA, the National Electric Energy Agency (ANEEL), and the Federal Government due to alleged irregularities in the operation of the Candiota III Thermoelectric Power Plant (UTE), located in Candiota, Rio Grande do Sul, and owned by Âmbar Sul Energia SA. The objective is to suspend the UTE's activities and impose specific obligations on the operator and the public entities responsible for overseeing and granting the operating license. The plaintiff highlights that, among other irregularities in the plant's environmental licensing process, there is repeated non-compliance with environmental conditions; and the current Operating License (LO) does not establish specific time limits for atmospheric emissions. The UTE also allegedly has several outstanding infraction notices issued against it that remain unpaid. Furthermore, it argues that the plant operates by burning low-quality coal, which aggravates greenhouse gas emissions and makes it one of the largest emitters of GHGs in the Brazilian electrical system, contributing to acid rain, air quality degradation, and the worsening of the climate crisis. It recalls the occurrence of extreme weather events in the country, especially the 2024 floods in Rio Grande do Sul, which tend to worsen, arguing that mitigating GHG emissions is urgent to lessen the effects of climate change. It argues that ANEEL (Brazilian Electricity Regulatory Agency) has been negligent in monitoring and controlling the irregularities of the project. It asserts that it is necessary to halt the activities of the power plant due to repeated non-compliance with environmental obligations and also to reduce GHG emissions. In a preliminary injunction, it requests: (i) the suspension of the plant's operating license until full compliance with all environmental conditions already established by the environmental agency and compliance with legal GHG emission standards; (ii) the imposition of an obligation not to act on ANEEL and the Federal Government so that they do not issue a commercial operating permit for the undertaking until the legal requirements are met; (iii) the imposition of an obligation not to act on Âmbar so that it does not operate the undertaking without a valid environmental license as well as all necessary regulatory authorizations; (iv) the determination to record the existence of the action in the property registration where the undertaking operates. In the final stage, confirmation of the same requests presented in the urgent relief is requested.

The Federal Union filed a response, arguing its lack of standing and the inadequacy of the initial petition. It argued that environmental oversight, energy regulation, and mining oversight are the responsibility of distinct federal agencies, not the Union directly. The defense also argued for the mandatory joinder of IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources), questioned the validity of the class action lawsuit due to lack of assembly authorization, and refuted the automatic reversal of the burden of proof and the granting of urgent relief against the Union. On the merits, it requested that the claims against it be dismissed.

In its defense, Âmbar Sul Energia SA raised preliminary issues, such as lack of procedural interest, lack of standing to sue, lack of standing to be sued, and the need to include IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) as a defendant. On the merits, it argued that the alleged extensive history of infractions and misleading reports refers to the former operator and to projects that have already been discontinued, and that it does not violate environmental conditions, stating that the Candiota III Thermal Power Plant operates with a valid Operating License until 2026 and follows the regular environmental licensing procedure. It defended the role of thermal power plants in providing a stable supply to the national energy system and the central role of the Candiota III Thermal Power Plant in the state and national economy, and especially in the Municipality of Candiota and the Pampa Gaúcho region. It argued that the power plant has a continuous atmospheric emissions monitoring system (CEMS) and that there are technical studies proving that emissions and air quality between 2021 and 2024 are in compliance with regulatory standards and the operating license. It requested the dismissal of the case without prejudice or that the claims be dismissed as unfounded.

In its defense, ANEEL argued its lack of standing as a defendant, reiterating that the authorization for the power plant was issued by the Ministry of Mines and Energy and that the energy trading contracts, which would fall under its jurisdiction, ended in 2024. It maintained that environmental licensing and oversight are the exclusive responsibilities of environmental agencies, such as IBAMA, and that its role is limited to regulating the electricity sector and verifying whether the developer possesses valid environmental licenses, which would be the case for the Candiota III power plant. ANEEL also pointed to Arayara's lack of standing as a plaintiff due to the absence of the specific shareholders' meeting minutes authorizing the filing of the lawsuit, as legally required. It requested the dismissal of the case without prejudice or a judgment of total dismissal of the claims.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the IEA against the Federal Government, IBAMA, and ICMBio. It seeks to prevent the continuation of illegal deforestation in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve (RESEx), recover deforested areas, and hold the defendants accountable for their omission in protecting the environment. It is argued that deforestation causes irreparable damage to the Amazon Rainforest and affects the rights and way of life of the traditional extractive community, which is based on the sustainable exploitation of natural resources. The plaintiff emphasizes that the RESEx is an instrument of social justice and a vehicle for protecting the forest. It alleges that the increase in deforestation is due to the weakening of public policies, land invasions, road construction, high density of access roads, fires in the region, among other factors. According to the plaintiff, there has been a drastic increase in deforestation since 2019. According to the RESEx Utilization Plan, which is part of the Conservation Unit's Management Plan, deforestation in areas where rubber plantations are located cannot exceed 10% of the area, with a maximum limit of 30 hectares. However, this percentage of deforestation has been exceeded in approximately half of the rubber plantations. The IEA (Institute for the Environment) highlights that the unit plays a strategic role in providing environmental services to the population of the Acre River basin, due to its water supply. The author emphasizes the deforestation reduction targets in the Legal Amazon, as per the Amazon Deforestation Prevention and Control Plan (PPCDAm) foreseen in Federal Law 12.187/2009 (National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC), which, according to the IEA, are not being met. It stresses that, since the Federal Government, IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources), and ICMBio (Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation) are not fulfilling their management and control duties, they are contributing to the damage to the RESEX and the community. It highlights the vital role of the forest in the carbon cycle and that approximately 3,067,326 tons of carbon were released into the atmosphere due to illegal deforestation in the RESEx (Extractive Reserve). It affirms the need for full environmental remediation, in addition to the obligation to restore the standing forest. It understands that a future expert assessment should be carried out to calculate compensation for associated damages, such as climate damage. It emphasizes the vulnerability of the community, which justifies the payment of compensation for collective moral damages. It argues that there is a need to develop a Forest Restoration and Deforestation Control Plan for the territory. Finally, among the requests, it requests that the Public Civil Action be granted for: (i) payment of compensation for material damages caused to the environment in at least R$ 183,817,104.00; (ii) payment of compensation for collective moral damages in the minimum amount of R$ 100,000,000.00; and (iii) immediate reforestation of the entire deforested area above the established limit, to be carried out in accordance with the Forest Restoration and Deforestation Control Plan. Furthermore, it requests the presentation of documents in the case file proving the actions that the defendants have taken to prevent and mitigate the damage resulting from deforestation. The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF), which would act as custos legis, requested (i) its migration to the active side of this lawsuit, to act in active joint litigation with the plaintiffs; (ii) the publication of a call for interested associations to intervene in the process as joint litigants; (iii) that a public hearing be held in the Chico Mendes RESEX during the proceedings to hear from the communities involved and to assess the socio-environmental damages described; and (iv) the full granting of the requests made by the plaintiffs.

The court then granted the request for the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office to join the proceedings, upheld the decision denying the summons of the other associations mentioned, and postponed the analysis of the request for public hearings to the evidentiary phase of the proceedings.

IBAMA and ICMBio filed respective objections defending their lack of standing as defendants, arguing that the situation in question does not constitute a case of liability for omission. They claim that promoting forest restoration and paying compensation for moral or material damages are not within their competence. They argue that the level of deforestation in the Conservation Unit has not yet reached the maximum limit allowed in its Utilization Plan, despite an increase in deforestation. IBAMA reported that it occasionally supports ICMBio in enforcement actions in the RESEX, but suffers from insufficient personnel to carry out these actions. ICMBio highlighted that 13 enforcement actions were carried out in the RESEX between 2021 and 2022, resulting in 116 infraction notices, and informed that in 2024 all actions will be aligned with the PPCDAm (Action Plan for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Amazon). The agencies argued that violations of environmental legislation are being observed by some of the RESEX residents themselves. They emphasized that state action is guided by the theory of the reserve of the possible, including in this case. Both requested the dismissal of the action without prejudice or that the claims be dismissed as unfounded.

The Union filed a response arguing its lack of standing as a defendant. It maintains that ICMBio is an autonomous agency with its own legal personality and, therefore, the claim pertains to the competence of that agency. It asserts that it is not within its competence to promote forest restoration or to pay compensation for moral or material damages, and that the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change is a body that formulates public policies and guidelines. It alleged that since January 2023 it has had a secretariat dedicated to mitigating and preventing deforestation in the Amazon and implementing the PPCDAm (Amazon Deforestation Prevention and Control Plan). It reported that violations of environmental legislation have been committed by some of the RESEX (Extractive Reserve) residents themselves. It mentions the principle of the reserve of the possible and that it is the responsibility of the Executive and Legislative branches to formulate public policies and define budgetary priorities. It requests that its lack of standing as a defendant be recognized and that the claims be dismissed.

A ruling was issued in which the judge accepted the preliminary objections of lack of standing raised by the Federal Government, IBAMA, and ICMBio, and consequently dismissed the case without prejudice. The judge highlighted that the management of the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve is the responsibility of ICMBio, that the defendants demonstrated adequate oversight actions, and that there was no state omission. The decision stated that civil liability cannot be converted into a mechanism for the indiscriminate transfer of financial burdens from the offending individual to the State.

An appeal was filed by the IEA, in which it requests the complete reversal of the judgment to re-recognize the passive legitimacy of the defendants and the objective and joint responsibility of the public entities for the omission in the environmental and climatic protection of the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve.

This is a Claim of Non-Compliance with a Fundamental Precept (ADPF), with a request for preliminary injunction, filed by the Workers' Party (PT) due to the omission of the Federal Executive Branch regarding its duties of protection, prevention, precaution, inspection, conservation, surveillance, and sustainability of the environment and, in particular, regarding its actions against fires that affected the Pantanal and the Amazon Rainforest, highlighting that this scenario affects climate change. It emphasizes the economic and social impacts generated, especially for the native communities of the Pantanal, as well as the impacts of the fires on the health of animals and the population, further aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic. It affirms that there are risks for future generations, considering that the environmental effects, especially on the climate, are gradual. Furthermore, it points to violations of human dignity and the rights to health, life, and an ecologically balanced environment, in addition to a lack of commitment to addressing the climate issue. It highlights that quilombola, riverside, and indigenous populations are the most directly affected. Therefore, it alleges a structural failure in the environmental protection system. In preliminary proceedings, it requests (i) the adoption of operational efforts to combat wildfires in the Pantanal and the Amazon Rainforest, especially to restructure the National System for the Prevention and Combat of Forest Fires (PREVFOGO) and to implement an Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon (PPCDAm), in addition to the creation of similar action plans for other Brazilian biomes, (ii) the establishment of an integrated public health and veterinary medical treatment project, (iv) the creation of a multidisciplinary commission to serve as an observatory of these measures, and (v) an explanation from the Ministry of the Environment regarding the budgetary execution of environmental protection programs in 2019 and 2020. On the merits, it requests recognition of the unconstitutionality of part of the current Federal Executive Branch's environmental policy, due to omissions in the face of incidents of biome devastation, confirming the preliminary requests.

The Reporting Justice, Marco Aurélio, issued a decision in which, due to the relevance of the cause of action and the risk, he submitted the request for precautionary measures to the Full Court for analysis. In April 2024, the requests of ADPF 743, 746, and 857 were partially granted. The Court did not declare the state of affairs unconstitutional, but recognized the existence of structural flaws in the policy for protecting the Legal Amazon, imposing a series of measures to combat deforestation so that the Federal Government presents a plan for the prevention and combat of fires in the Pantanal and the Amazon, with the recovery of the operational capacity of the National System for the Prevention and Combat of Forest Fires – PREVFOGO; discloses data related to the budget and budgetary execution of actions related to environmental protection by the States and the Union during the fiscal years 2019 and 2020; and informs, as do the state governments, the authorizations for vegetation suppression.

Afterwards, the ruling was published. It highlights that the Federal Government is resuming environmental protection measures. It emphasizes the importance of the Amazon and the Pantanal for maintaining climate balance. In his vote, Minister Edson Fachin dissented, recognizing the still unconstitutional state of affairs, joined by Luiz Fux and Cármen Lúcia. Fachin stressed that climate jurisprudence exists internationally due to foreign cases. He argued that admitting the repeated violation of the right to an ecologically balanced environment without allowing the Supreme Court to act promptly to "prevent climate chaos and the compromise of Amazonian biodiversity is not consistent with international agreements and with the democratic commitment expressed in the Constitutional Charter".

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against Daniel Ferreira Matias for the deforestation of an area of 117.0 hectares between 2011 and 2018 in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant's occupation of the land was illegal because it is an area within an Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), owned and of interest to the Federal Government, managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractive communities. This ACP represents a set of 22 actions filed by the MPF as a result of the investigation carried out in civil inquiry no. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, for illegal deforestation carried out within the Antimary Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), but against different defendants. The argument for the action is based, among other points, on Brazilian Environmental Law, regarding the constitutional protection of the environment, the accusation of deforestation, civil liability propter rem for environmental damages, including climate damages, and collective moral damages. It also mentions, as an environmental liability, the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) caused by the illegal deforestation of the area, calculated at 77,296.03 tons of carbon dioxide, which are directly related to the Brazilian State's departure from its climate goals, out of step with national and international commitments assumed by Brazil in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). Among other requests, the following is sought: (i) reparation for the damages caused by the illegal deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation corresponding to intermediate and residual environmental material damages; (iii) payment of compensation corresponding to climate damages; and (iv) payment of compensation corresponding to collective moral damages.

INCRA joined the lawsuit as a co-litigant assistant to the plaintiff, and the defendant was declared in default.

In its judgment, the court ordered the defendant to (i) restore the degraded area; (ii) pay compensation for material damages related to interim and residual environmental damages, in an amount to be determined in the sentence enforcement phase; (iii) pay compensation for climate damages caused by deforestation, in the amount of R$ 2,127,960.22; and (iv) pay compensation for collective moral damages in the amount of R$ 409,500.00. The funds obtained from this action shall be allocated to the Fund for Diffuse Rights. The judgment recognized the existence of climate damage, unlawful conduct, and causal link due to the ownership of the CAR (Rural Environmental Registry) of the area in question, the analysis of remote sensing images, and the lack of proof of obtaining authorization from the environmental agency for the vegetation suppression. For the calculation of the value of climate damage, the price of US$ 5.00 per ton of CO2e was adopted, according to Ordinance No. 176/2023.

The process is currently in the sentence enforcement phase.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against Loacir Maria da Conceição due to the deforestation of an area of 110.66 hectares between 2013 and 2018 in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant's occupation of the land was illegal because it is an area within an Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), owned and of interest to the Federal Government, managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractive communities. This ACP is part of a set of 22 actions filed by the MPF as a result of the investigation carried out in civil inquiry no. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, regarding illegal deforestation. The defendant filed a response. The defendant stated that the total area of 180.7140 hectares has not belonged to her since 2014, following a verbal agreement with a third party identified as Áureo Miguel, without any formal documents regarding the transaction. She alleged that she was unaware of the deforestation until she was summoned to the lawsuit and that her socioeconomic condition does not allow her to bear the financial consequences of the lawsuit. She argued that the initial complaint was flawed due to the lack of evidence linking the defendant to the damages, and argued that the Public Prosecutor's Office, with greater technical and financial capacity, should produce the necessary evidence, making the reversal of the burden of proof inadmissible. She requested that the action be dismissed due to the lack of proven damages and the disproportionality of the amounts claimed as collective moral damages. [The text then abruptly shifts to a different topic:] ...within the Antimary Agrarian-Extractive Settlement Project (PAE), but against different defendants. The argument for the action is based, among other points, on Brazilian Environmental Law, regarding the constitutional protection of the environment, the accusation of deforestation, civil liability propter rem for environmental damages, including climate damages, and collective moral damages. It also mentions, as an environmental liability, the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) caused by the illegal deforestation of the area, calculated at 59,509.13 tons of carbon dioxide, which are directly related to the Brazilian State's departure from its climate goals, out of step with national and international commitments assumed by Brazil in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). Among other requests, the following is sought: (i) reparation for the damages caused by the illegal deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation corresponding to intermediate and residual environmental material damages; (iv) payment of compensation corresponding to climate damages; and (v) payment of compensation corresponding to collective moral damages.

The defendant filed a response. She stated that the total area of 180.7140 hectares has not belonged to her since 2014, following a verbal agreement with a third party identified as Áureo Miguel, without any formal documentation of the transaction. She alleged that she was unaware of the deforestation until she was summoned to the lawsuit and that her socioeconomic condition does not allow her to bear the financial consequences of the lawsuit. She argued that the initial complaint was flawed due to the lack of evidence linking her to the damages, and argued that the Public Prosecutor's Office, with greater technical and financial capacity, should produce the necessary evidence, making the reversal of the burden of proof inadmissible. She requested that the action be dismissed due to the lack of proven damages and the disproportionality of the amounts claimed as collective moral damages.

Subsequently, INCRA was included in the active party as a co-litigant assistant to the plaintiff.

In a ruling issued in August 2025, the court recognized the "climate litigation" nature of the lawsuit and the importance of the Amazon in climate regulation, stating that illegal deforestation generates illegitimate greenhouse gas emissions and compromises environmental public policies. The judge concluded that the defendant was objectively liable, based on the theory of integral risk and the propter rem nature of environmental obligations, and ordered it to (i) restore the degraded area through a PRAD (Environmental Recovery Plan), refrain from further interventions, (ii) pay compensation for material damages related to interim and residual environmental damages; (iii) pay compensation for climate damages in the amount of R$ 1,475,826.52, adopting the price of US$ 5.00 per ton of CO2e, according to the Amazon Fund; and (iv) pay collective moral damages (5% of the total value of material damages), in addition to declaring the CAR (Rural Environmental Registry) linked to the area null and void. The funds obtained from this action should be allocated to the Fund for Diffuse Rights.

The Federal Public Defender's Office filed an appeal with the TRF1 (Regional Federal Court of the 1st Region), arguing the absence of evidence of authorship and causal link, the impossibility of reversing the burden of proof, the disproportionality of the sentence, and double jeopardy due to the accumulation of in-kind reparation and monetary compensation, requesting the complete reversal of the sentence.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against Paulo de Lima Paulo for the deforestation of an area of 146.75 hectares between 2011 and 2018 in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant's occupation of the land was illegal because it is an area within an Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), owned and of interest to the Federal Government, managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractive communities. This ACP is part of a set of 22 actions filed by the MPF as a result of the investigation carried out in civil inquiry no. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, for illegal deforestation carried out within the Antimary Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), but against different defendants. The argument for the action is based, among other points, on Brazilian Environmental Law, regarding the constitutional protection of the environment, the accusation of deforestation, civil liability propter rem for environmental damages, including climate damages, and collective moral damages. It also mentions, as an environmental liability, the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) caused by the illegal deforestation of the area, calculated at 78,938.61 tons of carbon dioxide, which are directly related to the Brazilian State's departure from its climate goals, out of step with national and international commitments assumed by Brazil in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). Among other requests, the following is sought: (i) reparation for the damages caused by the illegal deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation corresponding to intermediate and residual environmental material damages; (iv) payment of compensation corresponding to climate damages; and (v) payment of compensation corresponding to collective moral damages.

Subsequently, INCRA was included in the active party as a co-litigant assistant to the plaintiff.

A judgment was issued recognizing the relationship between deforestation and climate change, presenting extensive arguments on climate change and civil liability for climate damage, acknowledging said damage in the case. The requests were partially granted, condemning the defendant: a) to fulfill the obligation to restore the degraded area according to the Degraded Area Recovery Plan (PRAD); b) to the obligation not to act, consisting of a prohibition on the use of the area by the defendant, in order to allow natural regeneration; c) to pay compensation for material damages related to interim and residual environmental damages, the value of which will be subject to settlement of judgment; d) to pay compensation for climate damages caused by deforestation, in the amount of R$ 1,957,677.57, using as a basis for calculating the amount of carbon emitted the Technical Note prepared by the Amazon Research Institute (IPAM) and, for pricing purposes, the value of 5 dollars per ton, according to the Amazon Fund; e) to the payment of compensation for collective moral damages, in the amount of 5% of the total material damages determined in the settlement of the judgment. Finally, it declared the respective CAR null and void and allocated all the resources obtained to the Fund for Diffuse Rights.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against Tauane Camurça do Vale due to the deforestation of an area of 94.28 hectares between 2017 and 2019 in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant's occupation of the land was illegal because it is an area included in an Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), owned and of interest to the Federal Government, managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractive communities. This class action lawsuit is part of a set of 22 actions filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) as a result of the investigation carried out in civil inquiry no. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, concerning illegal deforestation within the Antimary Agrarian-Extractive Settlement Project (PAE), but against different defendants. The lawsuit's arguments are based, among other points, on Brazilian Environmental Law, regarding the constitutional protection of the environment, the accusation of deforestation, civil liability propter rem for environmental damages, including climate damages, and collective moral damages. It also mentions, as an environmental liability, the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) resulting from the illegal deforestation of the area, calculated at 50,700.49 tons of carbon dioxide, which are directly related to the Brazilian State's departure from its climate goals, out of step with national and international commitments assumed by Brazil in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). Among other requests, the following are made: (i) reparation for the damages caused by the illegal deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation corresponding to intermediate and residual environmental material damages; (iv) payment of compensation corresponding to climate damages; and (v) payment of compensation corresponding to collective moral damages.

Subsequently, INCRA was included in the active party as a co-litigant assistant to the plaintiff.

The defendant filed a response, alleging that she did not commit the damages described in the lawsuit and that there was no evidence to support her liability. She requested that the lawsuit be dismissed.

In August 2025, a judgment was issued dismissing the claims due to a lack of proof of a causal link between the alleged damage and the defendant, Tauane Camurça do Vale. The court argued that the relationship between the defendant's conduct and the deforestation, or the defendant's connection to the area, had not been proven. It concluded that the evidence in the case pointed to the concrete possibility that the deforestation was carried out by a third party, without the defendant's participation or knowledge. However, despite not granting the claims, it considered the materiality of the environmental damage to be uncontroversial, emphasizing the need for reparation of the climatic damages resulting from the deforestation.

This is a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) with a request for a precautionary measure filed by the Communist Party of Brazil, Rede Sustentabilidade, the Green Party, and the Socialism and Liberty Party (PSOL), aiming to declare unconstitutional articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Law 12.709/2024 of the state of Mato Grosso. The law came into effect on January 1, 2025, and seeks to end the sectoral agreement known as the "Soy Moratorium," one of the most successful programs for reconciling the development of large-scale agricultural production with environmental sustainability. This agreement regulates the granting of tax incentives, as well as the granting of public lands, to companies in the agro-industrial sector that have internal purchasing policies that seek to avoid acquiring agricultural goods (soybeans, corn, cattle, etc.) produced in recently deforested areas. The petitioners argue that, regarding formal unconstitutionality, this is a matter of exclusive initiative of the head of the Executive Branch. As for substantive unconstitutionality, they assert that the new law, by revoking these incentives, punishes legal entities that adopt sustainable purchasing policies and do not promote the destruction of the Amazon Rainforest. They argue that such a measure would violate the principles of equality and free enterprise enshrined in the Federal Constitution. They also highlight that this law violates acquired rights, legally perfected acts, the defense of the environment as a fundamental principle of the national tax system, the right to an ecologically balanced environment, the duty to protect the environment, and the principle of non-regression in environmental protection. It is emphasized that the law represents a setback in the fight against climate change, considering the commitments made in the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement. In the preliminary stage, the granting of the requested precautionary measure is sought in order to suspend the effects of the aforementioned articles of Law 12.709/2024 of the State of Mato Grosso. In the final stage, a judgment in favor of the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality is requested, with a declaration of unconstitutionality of State Law 12.709/2024.

In a preliminary decision, the Reporting Justice considered the legal plausibility of the request for urgent relief to be demonstrated and granted the precautionary measure to suspend the effectiveness of State Law 12.709/2024.

The Governor of the State of Mato Grosso, the Legislative Assembly of the State of Mato Grosso, and the Confederation of Agriculture and Livestock of Brazil - CNA have filed requests for reconsideration of the preliminary injunction granted and for the complete dismissal of the action, based, among other things, on the protection of the state economy, federal autonomy, and national sovereignty.

The Reporting Justice partially reconsidered the preliminary decision to reinstate the effects of Article 2 of Law 12.709/2024 of the State of Mato Grosso as of January 1, 2026, maintained the suspension of the other legal provisions previously challenged, and referred the case to the full court.

This is a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality by Omission (ADO), with a request for a precautionary measure, filed by the political parties PSB, PSOL, PT, and Rede, which questions the unconstitutional omission of the Federal Government in paralyzing the Amazon Fund. The Fund was authorized by Decree 6,527/2008 and aims to promote projects to combat deforestation and conserve the natural resources of the Legal Amazon. It is argued that the Fund represents the main economic instrument for the protection of the Amazon Rainforest, having been created as an initiative to finance actions for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+), within the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – UNFCCC (promulgated by Decree 2,652/1998), aiming at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from this sector. It is alleged that the Fund's operations were paralyzed from 2019 onwards due to changes in its governance and transparency mechanisms, through the extinction of the Technical Committee and the Steering Committee, as determined in Decrees 10.144/2019 and 10.223/2020, respectively. This restructuring resulted in the refusal of new deposits by the Fund's main donors, the governments of Norway and Germany. The applicants, however, point to the existence of approximately R$ 1.5 billion available for new projects and question the non-application of these resources. They believe this constitutes an unconstitutional omission in the protection of the forest, especially considering the scenario of increased deforestation and fires in the Amazon. They argue that this scenario is contrary to the Fund's objectives of financing actions to combat deforestation and preserve forests as a way to mitigate climate change. Thus, they request that the Federal Government (i) take the necessary administrative measures to reactivate the Amazon Fund, (ii) transfer financial resources to projects already approved, (iii) evaluate projects in the consultation or analysis phases, and (iv) conduct regular evaluations of new projects that may be submitted, in accordance with the federal pact and fundamental rights related to an ecologically balanced environment.

There was a unilateral decision by the Reporting Justice Rosa Weber, who convened a public hearing to gather information regarding the factual context behind the constitutional issue raised and to allow for the comparison of argumentative approaches and the data included in the case file. The public hearing was held, raising discussions about planning and oversight actions in the Legal Amazon and official data, with the participation of ministries and federal environmental agencies, representatives of the states that comprise the Legal Amazon, and academics.

The court, by majority vote, following the opinion of the Reporting Justice Rosa Weber, partially upheld the action, ordering the Federal Government to take measures to reactivate the Amazon Fund within sixty days and to refrain from taking any omissions that paralyze the Fund's operation. The court declared the decrees that altered the Fund's governance and prevented the financing of new projects unconstitutional, ordering the resumption of the previous model. The paralysis of the Amazon Fund was considered an unconstitutional omission by the federal government and an offense against the principle of non-regression. The ruling highlighted that environmental preservation, especially of the Amazon, is an obligation imposed by the Federal Constitution and various international regulations – particularly protection against deforestation and climate change – to which the Public Power is bound, reducing the scope for discretion. It argued that there is an unconstitutional state of affairs in the Legal Amazon and a disruptive and unstructured normative state regarding environmental matters in the region.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for urgent preliminary injunction, filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of São Paulo (MPSP) against the municipality of São Paulo and Sebastião Côrtes Incorporadora Spe LTDA., aiming to prevent the imminent risk of tree cutting and/or pruning due to the company's real estate development. It is reported that this lawsuit concerns a wooded area, whose clearing began in January 2025, existing since the 1950s, with approximately one hundred large, adult trees, home to various bird species and with a possible water source within the property located on private land in the Perdizes neighborhood of São Paulo. This wooded area is protected by containing a Permanent Preservation Area (APP) and Permanent Preservation Vegetation (VPP), in addition to being situated on land geomorphologically classified as a drainage headwater, which presents high susceptibility to landslides, erosion, and flooding. It is noteworthy that in the context of climate change, the occurrence of flooding becomes much more likely, which further reflects the importance of preserving the area. Urban planning regulations that address adaptation in cities in light of climate change are mentioned. It is requested that preliminary injunctive relief be granted in advance, in order to (i) impose on the developer the immediate cessation of the removal of trees, the continuation of any work on the site in question, earthmoving, the deposition of construction materials, or others, intended for the construction of sales stands or similar structures, under penalty of a daily fine; (ii) suspend the permit granted by the Municipality, as well as the TCA (Term of Commitment Adjustment) signed for the intervention on the site; and (iii) impose on the Municipality the obligation to reassess the authorization taking into account the discrepancies pointed out by the technical opinion of CAEX-MPSP regarding the level of protection of the area.

In a preliminary ruling, the request for urgent preliminary injunction was granted.

In its defense, Sebastião Cortes Incorporada Spe LTDA. initially argued that all necessary licenses and authorizations for the project had been duly obtained from the competent environmental agencies. Therefore, it argued that the preliminary injunction ordering the cessation of activities lacked technical and legal basis and should be revoked. It categorically refuted the existence of fragments of Atlantic Forest or centuries-old trees in the area, stating that the site has been intensely altered since the 1950s, with no trace of dense rainforest, and no native vegetation protected by law was found. Regarding hydrological impacts, it stated that there are no apparent water bodies in the area, as the tributaries of the Sumaré stream are channeled underground. Finally, it requested that the action be dismissed.

In its defense, the Municipality of São Paulo argued that an inspection of the site found no native vegetation or Atlantic Forest. It stated that the property is located in a consolidated urban area, already surrounded by settlements, and that there is no change in land use, as it is an undeveloped urban lot with sparse vegetation. It emphasized that the intended construction respects the urban and environmental parameters of current municipal legislation. Finally, it requested the revocation of the decision granting the preliminary injunction and the dismissal of the claims made in the initial complaint.

A judgment was rendered in Appeal No. 2046286-31.2025.8.26.0000, filed by Sebastião Cortes Incorporadora SPE LTDA, which partially granted the appeal, upholding the preliminary injunction of the first instance to prevent irreversible interventions, but authorizing the developer to intervene on the land to mitigate landslide risks, with strictly necessary measures and a competent technical project.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for preliminary injunction, filed by the Arayara International Institute of Education and Culture against Hotel Cop 30, Hotel Danúbio, Hotel Santa Clara, Cop 30 Hospedagem, Galeria Sempre Com Deus, Panorama Hotel, Pousada Da Didi, Marujus Cotijuba, Airbnb Plataforma Digital Ltda, and Booking.com Brasil Serviços de Reserva de Hotéis Ltda, due to the abusive and disproportionate increase in accommodation prices in Belém/PA during the period of the 30th UN Conference on Climate Change (COP-30), scheduled to take place in November 2025. The plaintiff argues that there was an increase of over 500% in the daily rates offered on digital platforms and local establishments, constituting an abusive practice contrary to the economic and social purpose of property. The plaintiff alleges that the exorbitant prices threaten to exclude delegations from developing countries, highly vulnerable consumers, traditional peoples, social movements, and civil society organizations, all of which are fundamental actors in discussions on climate justice and energy transition. This, they argue, would lead to the event's elitization and risk the transfer of COP-30 to another city or country, thereby affecting Brazil's international image and the conference's credibility. In an urgent injunction, the plaintiff requests the immediate suspension of offers and reservations for accommodations with prices exceeding the average price of the last 12 months and the establishment of a provisional price ceiling based on 2024 values adjusted for inflation. On the merits, the plaintiff seeks confirmation of the price limitation; double reimbursement of amounts paid above the established parameter; and the joint and several liability of the defendants to pay R$ 1 million for collective moral damages (to be allocated to the Fund for the Defense of Diffuse Rights); an order for the defendant hotel and accommodation companies to reverse the increases applied and maintain the price applied in 2024 for the same period, adjusted by the official inflation index, or IPCA or IGP-M or another official adjustment index; and the condemnation of the Airbnb and Booking.com platforms to establish a ceiling on the price of accommodation, considering the average charged by advertisers and the historical average price.

A decision was issued denying the preliminary injunction request, based on the genericity, imprecision, and unenforceability of the proposed criterion of "average of the last 12 months" to serve as the basis for an immediate enforcement court order. It was highlighted that judicial price limits, without concrete and uniform data, could generate legal uncertainty and a "reverse periculum in mora," with a reduction in the supply of accommodation and an artificial shortage of beds during the event, exacerbating the problem instead of solving it.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief filed by the Arayara International Institute of Education and Culture against the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), the Federal Government, the State Institute of Environment (INEA) of the State of Rio de Janeiro, and the companies EDF Norte Fluminense SA - Usina Termelétrica Norte Fluminense SA, Global Participações em Energia SA, Usina Termelétrica Nossa Senhora de Fátima and Litos Energia Ltda. The aim is to annul the prior environmental licenses issued by IBAMA for thermoelectric projects located in the municipality of Macaé, in the state of Rio de Janeiro. It also seeks the annulment of (i) water use rights grants and (ii) Water Availability Reserve Certificates relating to the Macaé and Ostras River Hydrographic Basin; granted by INEA for the same projects. The authoring institution argues that the installation of a thermoelectric complex in the region, consisting of eighteen projects, is contrary to the need for investment in a clean energy matrix and the fight against climate change. It argues that licensing bodies should be required, prior to issuing licenses: (i) to conduct a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) to analyze the synergistic and cumulative impacts of projects to be installed in the same hydrographic basin, as stipulated by law in the state of Rio de Janeiro; (ii) to update the plan for the Macaé and Ostras River Hydrographic Basin and the study of water availability in the basin; and (iii) to present a Climate Diagnosis, with an inventory of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions from the projects. It argues that the failure to conduct the SEA prior to issuing the licenses invalidates the administrative procedures already carried out, as it was not possible to ascertain the various cumulative impacts of the activities to be licensed. Furthermore, it is argued that there is already a decrease in the volume of water in the hydroelectric basin, which will worsen with the installation of the power plants. It is emphasized that pollutant emissions from thermal power plants contribute to air pollution, damage to human health, and loss of agricultural productivity. From a climate perspective, it is argued that, in order to maintain the limit of planetary temperature increase at 1.5°C and fulfill the commitments made in the Paris Agreement, COP 26, and NDCs, the installation of new projects that use fossil fuels cannot be permitted. The author highlights the consolidation of jurisprudence favorable to environmental and climate issues in the Supreme Federal Court, as evidenced in the judgment of ADPF 708 (Climate Fund), which recognizes that Brazilian measures to address climate change are inconsistent with its international commitments. The plaintiff requests, as a preliminary measure: (i) the suspension of the environmental licensing processes for the plants until the flaws in the Environmental Impact Studies (EIA/RIMAs) and the flaws related to atmospheric dispersion are remedied; (ii) a determination that IBAMA present the merit analysis study of the EIA/RIMAs prior to granting licenses; (iii) a determination that INEA present technical studies of water availability in the Macaé and Ostras River Basin that formed the basis for the administrative acts granted; (iv) recognition of omissions in the EIA/RIMAs; (v) the suspension of all licensing procedures for the projects until the basin plan and water availability study are updated and the SEA is carried out, determining that they be considered in the licensing processes; (vi) a determination to present the Climate Diagnosis and that it be considered for the analysis of the environmental licensing processes; (vii) that IBAMA and the Ministry of Health promote the assessment of air quality and adverse effects on public health in the municipality; (viii) the determination that IBAMA include in the terms of reference for the licensing processes of the plants the guidelines foreseen in the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC), the guidelines of the Rio de Janeiro State Policy on Climate Change and the carrying out of SEA; (ix) the determination of an expert assessment to analyze any environmental damage that has already occurred; (x) the determination that the developers not carry out works and activities in the thermoelectric complex until SEA is carried out, the basin plan is updated, a water availability study is conducted and other studies required in the action are carried out. In a final stage, confirmation of the urgent relief is requested, reiterating the requests, with the inclusion of requests for annulment of environmental licensing processes, licenses and certificates already granted by environmental agencies.

In its defense, IBAMA argued that the eventual annulment of an environmental license does not imply the annulment of the entire licensing procedure, that all projects challenged by the Public Civil Action only have a preliminary license, with no request for an installation license, and that they have not yet won an auction to be held by the National Electric Energy Agency (ANEEL). It highlighted that the terms of reference used by IBAMA for the licensing of the project included the need for a synergistic assessment of atmospheric gas emissions from existing and future projects. It informed that, regarding future licenses, restrictions on water availability may be applied and that, by legal provision, it is the responsibility of INEA to study water availability and decide on the granting of permits, in addition to carrying out a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Regarding the Assessment, it emphasized that the EIA also analyzes the cumulative and synergistic impacts of activities. He asserted that CONAMA Resolution 237/1997 and the PNMC do not foresee the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), but that IBAMA will evaluate the environmental impacts of projects on micro and macroclimate, thus precluding judicial intervention in the technical discretion of the environmental agency. He requested the denial of the preliminary injunction and that the claims be dismissed.

The Federal Union filed a response arguing its lack of standing, emphasizing that it is the responsibility of IBAMA and the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio) to implement environmental policy and exercise police power over the environment. It argued that the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is not a requirement for environmental licensing, as there is no regulation requiring it, and that imposing such a judicial order would constitute an innovation in the legal system. The same would apply to judicial orders for updating the water resources plan, presenting a Climate Diagnosis, or assessing air quality, as requested in the initial petition. It highlighted that the analysis of cumulative and synergistic impacts of activities is carried out in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and that the plaintiff failed to prove any flaws in the environmental licensing of the challenged projects. It requested the dismissal of the case without prejudice and, subsidiarily, the dismissal of the claim.

In its defense, Litos Energia Ltda. argued that the action was unfounded due to lack of standing, emphasizing the regularity of the questioned administrative procedures. It argued that the plaintiff's request to suspend the environmental licensing of the power plants is unrelated to water use procedures, as these are governed by different regulations with distinct objectives. It further argued that the initial petition contained confusion regarding the relationship between EIA/RIMA (Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report) and AAE (Strategic Environmental Assessment), maintaining that they are instruments with distinct objectives. The AAE refers to the optional assessment by the Administration of the impacts of policies, plans, and programs to support the development of public and governmental policies; and the EIA/RIMA of the projects is intended to analyze the cumulative and synergistic impacts of the activities, including climate impacts. It alleged that the initial demands represent undue interference by the Judiciary in the competencies of the Public Administration. The company stated that there are no defined sectoral targets for reducing GHG emissions and that the licensing of fossil fuel-powered projects does not necessarily negatively impact Brazil's achievement of international commitments. Litos argued that its thermoelectric projects are relevant to the Brazilian energy sector, adopting technical alternatives for mitigating and compensating for socio-environmental impacts that are compatible with existing plans and programs. Therefore, it requests the dismissal of the action without prejudice. Alternatively, it requests that (i) the claims be dismissed and the preliminary injunction denied; or (ii) the proceedings be suspended until the civil investigations initiated by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office regarding the projects are concluded.

The North Fluminense Thermal Power Plant SA filed a response, arguing that the action was unwarranted due to lack of standing. It argued that there is no legal provision for conducting a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) prior to environmental licensing processes. It stated that, although the projects possess preliminary licenses, there is no certainty that they will be implemented, as they have not yet participated in an energy contracting auction with ANEEL (Brazilian Electricity Regulatory Agency). In this sense, there is no possibility that all the questioned projects will win the auctions and be actually implemented, nor that they will all operate simultaneously at their maximum capacities. It was argued that the power plants would not impact the water supply of Macaé, as they are located downstream from the water intake area of the water utility. It was stated that the cumulative impacts and atmospheric gas emissions from the projects are analyzed in their respective licensing processes. He argued that natural gas is a necessary fuel for decarbonizing the energy matrix and that the doctrinal suggestion of conducting a Climate Diagnosis did not exist at the time the preliminary license for the power plant was issued. Finally, he argued that judicial intervention in the case represents a violation of the Principle of Separation of Powers. Thus, he requests the dismissal of the case without prejudice. On the merits, he requests the rejection of the request for urgent relief and the dismissal of the claims.

The State of Rio de Janeiro and INEA filed objections, arguing that the State lacked standing to be sued and that the administrative act was legal. Both requested that the initial claims be dismissed.

In its defense, Global Participações em Energia SA argued that all requirements stipulated by applicable legislation had been met and that the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is not regulated as a study that forms part of the environmental license. It also emphasizes that the simultaneous activation of all planned thermal power plants in the region will not occur, as this is an impossible scenario. It opposes the plaintiff's argument regarding water unavailability and affirms that INEA (State Institute for the Environment) conducted a thorough study of water availability before issuing Certificates of Water Availability Reserves (CRDH). Finally, it requested the dismissal of the provisional injunction, given the potential for exhausting the very object of the action, and that the class action lawsuit be dismissed in its entirety.

The Nossa Senhora de Fátima Thermal Power Plant filed a response arguing that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue and defended the dismissal of all claims, including denying the requested preliminary injunction, because it was not based on any normative act that binds the actions of the defendant and public entities during the environmental licensing process. The court decided to analyze the preliminary injunction request after the responses were heard, as it considered that there was no risk of irreparable harm given the claim presented.

An interlocutory appeal was filed by the plaintiff against the decision of the lower court that denied the preliminary injunction requested by the appellant and upheld the preliminary objection of lack of standing of the Union and the State of Rio de Janeiro. The appeal argued for the need to grant suspensive effect to the appeal in order to guarantee an ecologically balanced environment, essential to the healthy quality of life of the region's population, considering the socio-environmental impacts that the projects will cause. Among the arguments mentioned, the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and a climate diagnosis, in accordance with the methods developed by ABRAMPA – Brazilian Association of Members of the Public Prosecutor's Office for the Environment – to verify the emission of greenhouse gases and air pollution by the projects, was highlighted. Among other issues, the following was requested: (i) the granting of suspensive effect to this appeal in order to immediately suspend the environmental licensing processes of the plants that are the subject of this action until the judgment on the merits of this interlocutory appeal; and (ii) the fully justified judgment of this Appeal on Points of Law in order to overturn the challenged decision, as well as the recognition of the passive legitimacy of the State of Rio de Janeiro and the Union.

The appeal was unanimously denied, as it was considered that the appeal did not fall within the grounds for reforming the decision.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for preliminary injunction of the effects of the intended jurisdictional protections, filed jointly by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) and the Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of Paraná (MPPR), against IBAMA and the Water and Land Institute (IAT). They argue that Dispatch 4,410/2020, issued by the Minister of the Environment, altered a previous understanding regarding the specialty of the Atlantic Forest Law (Federal Law 11,428/2006) in relation to the Forest Code (Federal Law 12,651/2012). They emphasize the need to apply the Atlantic Forest Law, to the detriment of the Forest Code, due to the specialty and greater protection of the biome provided by the former law. They highlight the importance of the biome and the contribution of its deforestation to the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG), arguing that the National Policy on Climate Change - PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) foresees the need to preserve biomes considered National Heritage, such as the Atlantic Forest. In preliminary proceedings, they request: (i) that the defendants refrain from canceling environmental infraction notices, embargo and interdiction orders, and seizure orders issued in the state of Paraná in cases of unauthorized suppression, cutting, and/or use of remaining Atlantic Forest vegetation; (ii) that the IAT promote the analysis of Rural Environmental Registrations (CARs) that intend to consolidate the occupation of Permanent Preservation Areas (APPs), with agro-silvopastoral, ecotourism and rural tourism activities, or of Legal Reserve, with alternative land use, in order to verify whether the consolidation is the result of deforestation or unauthorized intervention from September 26, 1990; and (iii) that the state agency refrain from approving CARs that consolidate occupation in APPs and in Legal Reserve areas on properties in the Atlantic Forest with vegetation suppressed from the aforementioned date under the terms specified. In a final decision, among the requests, they request the confirmation of the preliminary injunctions, also requesting that the IAT refrain from granting environmental licenses in favor of activities in APPs in the Atlantic Forest in disagreement with the special legislation.

Initially, the court did not grant the preliminary injunction. While acknowledging that the Judiciary can exercise control over discretionary acts that infringe upon protected legal interests, it concluded that the criteria of convenience and opportunity had not been met. Furthermore, it understood that the revocation of MMA Order 4.4.10/2020, which had been highlighted by IAT, does not exhaust the dispute, as the object of the Public Civil Action is broader. Subsequently, the court granted the preliminary injunction requested by the plaintiffs. It considered the specific nature of the Atlantic Forest Law, which seeks more rigorous legal protection for the biome. Thus, based on the principles of prevention and precaution, it understood that the application of the provisions of the Forest Code to the Atlantic Forest biome could cause serious environmental damage.

Appeals were filed by IAT (AI 5044712-40.2020.4.04.0000) and IBAMA (AI 5046453-18.2020.4.04.0000) against the decision. Both appeals were dismissed, ratifying the decision. In the context of IAT's appeal, the 4th Panel of the Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region (TRF-4) understood that the requirements for granting urgent relief were present and that there would be a risk to nature if the injunction were revoked, based on the principles of prevention and precaution. Therefore, IAT filed a Request for Suspension of Preliminary Injunction (SLS 2950/PR) against the decision upheld by the TRF-4, taking the discussion to the Superior Court of Justice (STJ). The Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) understood that the challenged decision would harm the public economy and could cause irreversible damage to public funds, since it would not be possible to perceive any illegal action by the Public Administration. Therefore, he suspended the effects of the decision.

In its defense, the IAT argued that there was no conflict between the Atlantic Forest Law and the 2012 Forest Code, claiming that the Forest Code created an exceptional regime to govern areas consolidated over time in a less rigorous manner, which is applicable to any biome, and that there is a complementary relationship between the norms. It reiterated that the Supreme Federal Court (STF) had already declared the constitutionality of the debated provisions and that the regulatory decree of the Atlantic Forest Law stipulates that areas within the biome already consolidated are not within its scope. It requested that the initial claims be dismissed.

IBAMA filed a response, arguing, among other procedural issues of prevention and connection with other actions, that the Atlantic Forest Law and its regulations establish a framework for the protection of the biome, excepting its application to areas of anthropic occupation prior to its enactment, which implies the application of the Forest Code in these locations. Furthermore, the Forest Code provision would be a transitional rule foreseen in the law. It affirmed the legality of this understanding, based on decisions of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) and the Supreme Federal Court (STF). It requested recognition of the jurisdiction of another court, which it claims is already analyzing a similar action, recognition of the connection of this action with Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) 6446, and the suspension of the proceedings due to this action. Finally, it requested the dismissal of all initial claims.

The judgment found the case to be well-founded and partially granted the requests, ordering: (i) IAT and IBAMA to refrain from canceling environmental infraction notices, embargo and interdiction orders, and seizure orders in the State of Paraná related to the Atlantic Forest biome; (ii) IAT not to approve CARs (Rural Environmental Registry) that aim to consolidate the improper occupation of APPs (Permanent Preservation Areas) and legal reserves on properties within the Atlantic Forest biome; and (iii) IAT not to grant environmental licenses for projects in APPs located in the Atlantic Forest biome without due regard to specific protective legislation. It was determined that the measures should be implemented immediately without requiring a guarantee and subject to a fine for each act of non-compliance, based on the principles of prevention, precaution, and in dubio pro natura (when in doubt, favor nature). The decision highlighted important points such as: (i) the significant size of the Atlantic Forest biome and that forests play the role of climate regulators, contributing to the stabilization and reduction of average temperatures; (ii) the impacts of global warming generated by the irrational use of natural resources combined with deforestation; (iii) the use of market mechanisms, such as the carbon credit market, for the protection of the Atlantic Forest; and (iv) the economic benefits obtained from the ecological services provided by Nature, that is, from maintaining ecological integrity through the conservation of biodiversity, the conservation of water and water services, climate regulation, soil conservation and improvement, among others.

In ruling on the motions for clarification filed against the judgment, the court upheld the judgment's operative part in its entirety, but supplemented the reasoning of the decision already rendered. It argued that the judgment reinforces environmental protection and, among the grounds for the decision, dedicated a subtopic to the issue of climate change, in which it asserted that there is consensus that the degradation of forests can impact the climate due to CO2 emissions and the impairment of their function as thermal regulators.

IAT and IBAMA filed an appeal against the ruling. The Paraná State Agriculture Federation (FAEP) and the Paraná Association of Forest-Based Companies (APRE), acting as legal representatives of affected third parties, also appealed.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for preliminary injunction, filed by the Federal Government and the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) against João Pereira Lisboa, Almiro Liberato de Moura Junior, Heleno Ferreira de Araujo, and Vanderlei Fiau Pimentel, who, according to data from the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR), own an area in the municipality of Lábrea, Amazonas, that was illegally deforested. The action stems from the work of the AGU-Recupera Environmental Strategic Group, an initiative of the Attorney General's Office, which seeks to act in the legal viability of climate and environmental policies. The case is based on administrative process 02005.002218/2007-69, which investigates the deforestation of 2,623.713 hectares of native Amazon rainforest without authorization or prior license from the competent environmental agency. It is noteworthy that the municipality of Lábrea is the first in order of priority in the Amazon for combating deforestation and the propter rem nature of environmental damage reparation. According to remote sensing images, carried out by the National Center for Environmental Monitoring and Information (CENIMA), the plaintiffs allege that the area continues to be exploited, even though it has been embargoed by IBAMA, without any regeneration measures having been adopted. It is alleged that the defendants caused in-kind environmental damage, interim and residual environmental damage, and collective moral damage, in addition to having incurred unjust enrichment as a result of the damage. As a preliminary measure, it is requested (i) a prohibition on exploiting the deforested area in any way during the course of the proceedings; (ii) the suspension of tax incentives or benefits; (iii) the suspension of access to credit lines granted with public funds; (iv) the freezing of the defendants' movable and immovable assets; and (v) the registration of the existence of the Public Civil Action in the margin of the property registration. Ultimately, the plaintiffs request that the defendants be ordered to: (i) perform an obligation to restore an area equivalent to the deforested area; (ii) pay collective moral damages in the amount of R$ 16,344,934.50 (sixteen million, three hundred and forty-four thousand, nine hundred and thirty-four reais and fifty cents); (iii) pay for the temporary and residual damages caused to the ecological heritage, in addition to compensation for the illicitly obtained economic benefit, the value of which will be determined in the settlement of the judgment; and (iv) register the legal reserve of the property. The amounts corresponding to the indemnities must be reverted to the Fund for the Restoration of Damaged Assets.

The preliminary decision mobilized the climate in a more robust way. The court partially granted the requests for urgent relief, ordering: (i) the prohibition of the defendants from exploiting, in any way, the area that is the subject of the action; (ii) the suspension of tax incentives and/or benefits and access to credit lines granted by the Public Authorities; and (iii) the unavailability of movable and immovable property of the defendants, in the amount of R$ 49,034,803.51 (forty-nine million, thirty-four thousand, eight hundred and three reais and fifty-one cents). It acknowledged that this is large-scale deforestation, which entails "severe forest damage, such as loss of flora biodiversity, loss of carbon stocks, illegitimate greenhouse gas emissions, disruption of the Amazon rainforest's hydrological cycles, loss of habitat for various fauna species, among other damages to ecosystem elements and services, in addition to harming public natural assets for carbon credit trading" and damaging the climate and the people of the region. It emphasized that the triple environmental crisis (climate, biodiversity loss, and pollution) makes it essential to preserve the integrity of the Amazon, recalling the commitments made by Brazil under the Paris Agreement.

This is a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality filed by the Attorney General of the State of Rio Grande do Sul against Municipal Law 4.968/2019 of Eldorado do Sul, which deals with urban policy and establishes the Urban and Environmental Development Master Plan of the municipality. The petitioner argues that the approval of the Plan by the City Council occurred without popular participation during the legislative process, violating the constitutional right to participation, which renders it incompatible with the Constitution of the State of Rio Grande do Sul and the Federal Constitution. It argues that the law in question reduces environmental protection in the city, reinforcing the need for popular participation in the legislative process, as well as the need for a technical study analyzing its environmental impacts. It requests, as a preliminary measure, the suspension of the validity of the challenged law. As a final measure, it requests a declaration of unconstitutionality of Municipal Law 4.968/2019.

The Reporting Judge granted the requested preliminary injunction. He understood that the documentary evidence demonstrated the lack of public consultation. He considered that master plans are related to the quality of life of the population, making public discussion indispensable. He highlighted that no Environmental Impact Study or Neighborhood Impact Study had been carried out, considering the National Environmental Policy - PNMA (Federal Law 6.938/1981) and CONAMA Resolution 237/1997.

The Residents and Friends Association of Parque Eldorado (AMAPE) requested to participate as amicus curiae in the case. AMAPE points out, among other issues, the importance of the climate discussion in this case. It emphasized that climate should cease to be a peripheral issue in the action, as, alongside health protection, it is part of the core of the right to a balanced environment, integrating the minimum environmental standard of living. It argued that the legislative provision for the installation of an industrial park in the Parque Eldorado area (a district of the municipality), related to the opening of the Guaíba coal mine, goes against the need to expand renewable energy sources to preserve the planet's climate. It highlighted that coal mining should cease in order to protect the climate, the environment, and health, as foreseen in the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). Furthermore, it was stated that the indigenous community living near the region was not consulted about the approved law, as required by Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO). Subsequently, the request for admission as amicus curiae by AMAPE and other organizations was granted.

The special body of the Court of Justice of Rio Grande do Sul ruled in favor of the request to declare Municipal Law 4.968/2022 unconstitutional, on the grounds that the requirements of reasonable community participation in the drafting of the law and the carrying out of prior environmental studies on its impacts were not observed, considering the climate issue when mentioning the statement from AMAPE.

Subsequently, the Municipal Law in question was repealed, which is why the claim became moot. Therefore, it was definitively dismissed.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Institute of Amazonian Studies (IEA) against the Federal Government, seeking the protection of forests, especially in the Amazon region, with the aim of reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and thus respecting the goals set out in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009). The plaintiff organization seeks recognition of the fundamental right to climate stability as part of the right to an ecologically balanced environment, expressly provided for in the Federal Constitution. It alleges that there has been a sharp increase in the rate of illegal deforestation in the Legal Amazon. In view of actions by the Federal Government that hinder the monitoring and implementation of climate policies in the country, it is understood that obligations for mitigation and adaptation to the effects of climate change, as set out in the National Climate Change Policy (PNMC), and the duties established in the Action Plan for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon (PPCDAm) to reduce annual deforestation rates in the Legal Amazon by 80% in 2020, compared to the average recorded between 1996 and 2005, have been breached. It argues that these measures violate several rights and guarantees enshrined in the Constitution, such as the fundamental right to climate stability. Finally, it requests that the obligation to reduce the rate of deforestation in the Legal Amazon by the year 2020 be determined, as foreseen in the PPCDAm, linked to the PNMC, so that it does not exceed 3,925 km², and that forest restoration be carried out in areas deforested in excess of the annual legal limit.

A decision was issued declining jurisdiction in favor of the 7th Federal Environmental and Agrarian Court of the Judicial Section of Amazonas due to its connection with Public Civil Action No. 1007104-63.2020.4.01.3200, which deals with combating deforestation in Amazonian hotspots. After the IEA filed an interlocutory appeal challenging this decision, a single-judge decision was issued in the second instance suspending the effects of the decision declining jurisdiction. The Federal Government then filed an internal appeal. A judgment was issued by the Third Panel of the Regional Federal Court of the 4th Region (TRF-4) confirming the single-judge decision, granting the interlocutory appeal and dismissing the internal appeal as moot. The panel understood that the present lawsuit and the action concerning the hotspots have different typologies and structures, specialized tools, and distinct political-legal approaches. The ruling considered the difference between environmental and climate disputes, as well as highlighting the supralegal status of international environmental treaties. The Federal Government filed a Special Appeal (REsp) against the ruling, which was not admitted by the Vice-Presidency of the court. Consequently, the Federal Government filed an Appeal against the REsp (AREsp 2165562/PR), which was denied.

In its defense, the Federal Union highlighted several preliminary issues. It requested the suspension of the present lawsuit until a final judgment is reached in ADPF 760. It stated that there are similar requests presented in ADPFs 760, 743 and 746, and ADOs 54 and 60, re-filed as ADPF 708. On the merits, regarding budgetary matters, it reported that there was a doubling of resources allocated to governmental environmental entities, such as IBAMA and ICMBio, concurrently with progress in hiring personnel. It pointed out that the Federal Union adopted active measures for the formulation, implementation, and management of public policies for environmental protection. It emphasized the need to preserve the discretion conferred on the Public Administration in accordance with the principle of separation of powers. It denied that there is any omission on the part of the Union, MMA, and other federal entities in executing public policies to combat deforestation in the Amazon and to meet internationally agreed climate goals. He emphasized that investment in the protection and monitoring of indigenous lands was increased even during the COVID-19 pandemic. He denied that the country is violating signed international agreements and that there is any omission on the part of the Federal Government regarding the implementation of policies aimed at controlling illegal deforestation in the Amazon rainforest, nor that an unconstitutional environmental state of affairs has been established. He stressed that responsibility for the recovery of deforested areas should be attributed to those responsible for such acts, not to the Federal Government. He argued that there is no causal link connecting the Federal Government to the environmental damages mentioned in the initial complaint. Finally, he requested that the plaintiff's claim be dismissed.

The Institute for Amazonian Studies filed a request for urgent injunctive relief on the grounds that there is a need to urgently compel the Federal Government to take direct and effective actions to initiate forest restoration processes in the Legal Amazon, with the aim of reducing damage to the climate system. It emphasized that the measures adopted so far by the federal government are ineffective in the face of increasing deforestation, noting the continued omission of the federal entity in fulfilling its climate obligations. It requested that the request for preliminary injunctive relief be granted so that the Federal Government be ordered to: (i) carry out forest restoration work in the Legal Amazon; (ii) begin reforestation of the region within one year; (iii) restore areas illegally deforested above the legal limit established in the PNMC (National Policy on Climate Change) and considering the PRODES 2020 and PRODES 2021 data; (iv) maintain forest restoration activities until the deforestation rate reaches 3,925.06 km2. (v) the allocation of budgetary, technical and personnel resources for such purposes; (vi) the payment of a daily fine in case of non-compliance with the measures; (vii) the determination that the measurement of the deforestation rate in the Legal Amazon use the official data indicated by the PRODES system. Following this, the Institute filed a petition requesting an amendment to the request for urgent relief, requesting that the restoration of the area of forest in the Legal Amazon deforested above the maximum legal rate allowed by the PPCDAm be ordered, and presenting new arguments indicating an upward trend in deforestation in the Amazon biome.

In an interlocutory decision, the court denied the request for preliminary injunction. It acknowledged that the plaintiff's arguments are plausible, but stated that procedural issues are still pending and require statements from the parties and the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office before the injunction can be granted. It also recognized that climate change affects humanity as a whole and the important role of the Amazon rainforest in this context. It ordered the reversal of the burden of proof, so that the Union must prove compliance with the PPCDAm (Action Plan for Prevention and Control of Environmental Damage) regarding the reparation of environmental damages. Furthermore, it found partial lis pendens between this action and ADPF 760 and ADO 54 and ordered the suspension of the proceedings for up to one year to await the progress of compliance with the judgments rendered in the aforementioned actions at the Supreme Federal Court.

IEA filed an interlocutory appeal (5002147-85.2025.4.04.0000) against the decision that denied the request for urgent relief and ordered the suspension of the proceedings for a period of one (1) year. The decision, however, was upheld considering the need to await the outcome of the investigations ordered by the STF, in order to avoid overlapping investigations for the same purpose.

This is an action filed as an Ordinary Action, with a request for anticipation of the effects of the injunction, brought by ABRAGET against the State of Rio de Janeiro. The plaintiff challenges State Decree 41.318/2008, which establishes the Energy Compensation Mechanism (MCE) as part of the Greenhouse Gas Emission Abatement Plan, in order to combat global warming and reinforce the energy supply in the State. The aforementioned normative act imposes conditions for obtaining environmental licenses specifically aimed at energy sector projects based on fossil fuels at the state level. The plaintiff argues that the foreseen modifications would demand high financial costs, excessively burdening the associated power plants. It alleges an invasion of the Union's competence to legislate on electricity. It argues that the decree would also be unconstitutional due to the lack of a prior law to be regulated. It further requests the suspension of the effectiveness of the challenged normative act, given the supervening National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009), emphasizing that the national law does not establish any compensation for the energy sector. It clarifies that Brazil has incorporated the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – UNFCCC (promulgated by Decree 2.652/1998), but made an exception regarding Annex I, so that it is outside the internationally established targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the reduction commitment foreseen in the PNMC being voluntary, and not being linked to the environmental licensing process. It requests (i) the granting of the anticipation of the effects of the injunction to suspend the effects of the Decree and (ii), ultimately, a judicial order for the State of Rio de Janeiro to refrain from applying Decree 41.318/2008 to its associates.

In its defense, the defendant State emphasized that the energy compensation mechanism was enacted to mitigate and compensate for the scientifically unequivocal adverse environmental effects of energy production. It stressed the shared competence of federative entities to adopt environmental protection measures, and that the member State acted accordingly, observing the precautionary principle. It argued that, since thermal power plants operating on fossil fuels are more polluting, the discrimination factor adopted by the State is in line with reality, and the measure is proportional. It defended the existence of no incompatibility between the Decree and the PNMC (National Policy on Climate Change). Finally, among other issues, it defended the legality and constitutionality of the Decree and argued for the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim.

A judgment was issued denying the plaintiff's request, emphasizing that the Judiciary, when reviewing public policies, must prioritize the ends of the State, and that the challenged act contributes to the intergenerational maintenance of a healthy environment, without hindering technological advancements.

The author filed an appeal reaffirming the points of the initial petition and requested the annulment of the judgment. In the second instance, a ruling was issued in which, understanding that there were strong indications of unconstitutionality of the challenged act, an incident of unconstitutionality was raised to be resolved before the Special Body.

Within the scope of the Incident of Unconstitutionality Claim, the Special Body decided in favor of the validity of the challenged Decree, highlighting, among other issues, that it concerns an activity inherent to the environmental administrative function aimed at implementing measures to protect the environment. After the decision, the plaintiff stated that the discussion regarding the application of the Legal Diploma to its associates remained, and a judgment was issued stating that the appellant's claim – to determine that Decree 41.318/08 should not be applied to its associates – is generic, and it is not possible to grant the request. Furthermore, it stated that any assessment of the improper application of conditions to existing contracts should be made in a separate action. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed.

Subsequently, ABRAGET filed an Extraordinary Appeal (RE), which was dismissed. Nevertheless, the plaintiff Association filed an Appeal in RE (ARE), bringing the discussion to the Supreme Federal Court (STF). In the context of ARE 1.317.221/RJ, the Reporting Justice, in a monocratic decision, dismissed the appeal, as he understood that the STF has consolidated jurisprudence regarding the concurrent competence between federated entities to legislate on environmental protection. Furthermore, he considered that Precedents 279 and 280 of the court apply, since it would be necessary to re-examine the factual and evidentiary record and interpret local legislation to ascertain that the challenged State Decree concerns environmental protection standards, and not electricity. Afterwards, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed, which was denied by the Second Panel of the Court. Following the rejection of the motions for clarification, the judgment became final. Consequently, the case file was closed and returned to the court of origin, where it was permanently archived.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for urgent relief, filed by the SOS Amazônia Association, the Organization of Indigenous Peoples of the Juruá River (OPIRJ), the Acre Pro-Indian Commission (CPI Acre), the Coordination of Indigenous Organizations of the Brazilian Amazon (COIAB), and the National Council of Extractive Populations (CNS) against the Federal Government, the National Department of Transport Infrastructure (DNIT), and the Brazilian Institute of the Environment (IBAMA). The action seeks a declaration of nullity of the bidding process contained in DNIT Notice 130/2021, which initiated the bidding for the execution of works on the BR-364 highway section connecting the Municipality of Cruzeiro do Sul, in the State of Acre, to the border between Brazil and Peru, crossing the Serra do Divisor National Park (PNSD). From a climate perspective, it is argued that deforestation due to the project degrades the Amazon rainforest, which is the Earth's main carbon sink and prevents greenhouse gases from accumulating in the atmosphere and excessively warming the planet, the forest being essential to mitigate climate change and reduce its effects. It is highlighted that indigenous peoples, especially those living in isolation, are particularly vulnerable to the consequences of this type of project. A preliminary injunction is requested to suspend the Public Notice, the environmental licensing, and the works. As final requests, it is requested that (i) Public Notice 130/2021 be declared null and void; (ii) the Union and DNIT be ordered to refrain from carrying out any other bidding procedure for the construction of the BR-364 section until: (a) the Technical and Environmental Feasibility Studies (EVTEA) are carried out; (b) prior, formal, free and informed consultation is not carried out, in accordance with the provisions of ILO Convention 169, with the indigenous peoples and traditional communities that will be impacted by the project; (c) FUNAI develops the necessary actions to confirm the presence of isolated indigenous peoples in the area of influence of the BR-364 project; (iii) IBAMA does not promote the licensing of the BR-364 section; and (iv) Article 3 of Presidential Decree 97,839/1989, which created the Serra do Divisor National Park, is suspended.

An injunction was granted ordering DNIT to refrain from proceeding with the signing of the contract that is the subject of Public Notice DNIT 130/2021, until a decision is reached fully analyzing the urgent claim presented in the initial petition. In response to this decision, DNIT filed an interlocutory appeal, which prevented its effects, arguing that the undertaking of studies and projects aimed at executing the implementation, paving, and capacity adaptation works does not appear to have the potential to cause harm to the parties.

The court determined that FUNAI and the Unica-Iguatemi Consortium, with whom the contract resulting from DNIT Tender 130/2021 was signed, should be included as defendants. The inclusion of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) as a co-plaintiff was also admitted.

In their defense, the Federal Government, DNIT (National Department of Transport Infrastructure), and IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) argued that there was no correlation between the legal protection sought and the institutional purposes of the plaintiffs; that the use of the Public Civil Action to declare Decree 97.839/89 unconstitutional implies a violation of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction; that it is not for the Judiciary to interfere in administrative matters; and that there is no breach of ILO Convention 169, as prior, formal, free, and informed consultation, as stipulated in ILO Convention No. 169, has not yet occurred with the indigenous peoples and traditional communities directly or indirectly affected by the project, given the need to confirm the presence of isolated indigenous peoples in the area of influence of the BR-364 project. They requested that the action be dismissed.

In turn, the Unica-Iguatemi Consortium argued for the recognition of its lack of standing to be sued. Due to the absence of injury or threat of injury to a right caused by an act carried out by the Consortium, it requests that the action be dismissed.

FUNAI argued the preliminary issue of lack of procedural interest, because no negligence or disregard for its institutional duties had been pointed out on its part.

In its ruling, the court recognized the illegitimacy of FUNAI; declared the nullity of DNIT Notice 130/2021; condemned the UNION and DNIT to a non-action obligation, consisting of preventing them from making any administrative or political decision related to the implementation of the BR-364 section, until a prior, formal, free and informed consultation is carried out, as determined by ILO Convention No. 169, with the indigenous peoples and traditional communities directly or indirectly affected by the project, as well as until FUNAI conducts a study to confirm the presence of isolated indigenous peoples in the area of influence of the BR-364 project; condemned IBAMA to a non-action obligation consisting of not promoting the licensing of the BR-364 section that is already under its analysis, until a prior, formal, free and informed consultation is carried out, as determined by ILO Convention No. 169, with the indigenous peoples and traditional communities directly or indirectly affected by the project; and prevented the execution of any act that was the subject of the contract signed between DNIT and the Unica-Iguatemi Consortium.

The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) appealed for the Federal Government and the National Department of Transport Infrastructure (DNIT) to be ordered to pay R$ 6,076,000.00 (the same value as the signed contract) as collective moral damages, to be used for environmental recovery projects in the Serra do Divisor National Park and for educational and informational projects on the environment and indigenous culture in the state of Acre, developed with the direct participation of indigenous peoples, the plaintiff associations, and the MPF. The Unica-Iguatemi Consortium also filed an appeal requesting that the judgment immediately address the payment of compensation to be received from DNIT for the cancellation of the contract, as a direct and immediate consequence of the invalidation of the instrument. The Federal Government, IBAMA, and DNIT appealed for the first-instance judgment to be overturned, finding the initial claims entirely unfounded. The respective counter-arguments were presented, and the case files were sent to the court for appeal, awaiting judgment.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for preliminary injunction, filed by the Climate Observatory Laboratory, Greenpeace Brazil, WWF Brazil, Arayara Institute of Education and Culture, National Commission for the Strengthening of Extractive Reserves and Coastal Marine Extractive Peoples (CONFREM), Coordination of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon (COIAB), National Coordination of Articulation of Rural Quilombola Black Communities of Amapá (CONAQ-AP) and the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB), against IBAMA, Petrobras and the Federal Government. The objective is to suspend and subsequently annul Operating License (LO) 1,684/2025 for the Offshore Oil Well Drilling Activity in Block FZA-M-59, located at the mouth of the Amazon River, due to technical weaknesses and irreparable flaws in the environmental licensing process; The request aims to determine that IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) refrain from issuing environmental licenses for oil projects without a complete assessment of their environmental viability, both in the Amazon River mouth basin and in other basins of the Equatorial Margin. It argues for the need to assess climate impacts and the direct and indirect impacts of the activity, with the provision of complete data on direct and indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from current and already contracted oil production in the country, and verification of the compatibility between Brazilian climate emission reduction targets and the carrying capacity of the climate system for the project's emissions. It is pointed out that Block FZA-M-59 is located in an area of notorious environmental sensitivity and vulnerability to oil spills, near mangroves and coastal dunes and the Great Amazon Reef System, ecosystems whose preservation is fundamental to mitigating the current climate emergency scenario. In addition, an Environmental Assessment of the Sedimentary Area (AAAS) of the region where the block is located has never been carried out to evaluate the socio-environmental attributes of the region and define its suitability for oil exploration. Another argument raised concerns the lack of updated and complete studies on the oceanographic composition of the region, especially its hydrodynamic base, which has strong and unpredictable currents and high levels of sediment brought by the Amazon River – a factor that was ignored in the licensing process and is directly related to oil sinking and reef impact – exacerbating the flaws in the oil dispersion model and making an efficient response to a spill accident impossible. On this point, it is also highlighted, from an adaptation perspective, that the studies ignored the growing vulnerability of the Amazon River mouth to the impacts of climate change, such as extreme events, and the licensing process should assess both how the oil exploration project will exacerbate the climate crisis and how the exacerbation of this crisis itself will increase the operational and environmental risks of the undertaking. It is emphasized that the necessary Indigenous and Quilombola Component Studies were not carried out, nor was there free, prior and informed consultation with the Indigenous peoples, Quilombola and traditional communities affected by the project. It is argued that IBAMA's stance in authorizing the operating license is contrary to socio-environmental interests and the opinions of its own employees and the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, which have repeatedly recommended its rejection. It is alleged that this stance is based on intense and incessant political influence. Furthermore, it highlights the advisory opinions published by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the International Court of Justice on the duties of States in the context of climate change. It is requested, as a preliminary injunction, the suspension of the effects of Operating License 1.684/2025 to prevent and/or halt any and all drilling activity in Block FZA-M-59. On the merits, it is requested: (i) the annulment of the LO due to the flaws and technical deficiencies of the EIA-RIMA and the environmental licensing process; (ii) that IBAMA refrain from issuing environmental licenses for oil projects in the sedimentary basin of the Amazon River mouth and in other basins of the Equatorial Margin without first attesting to the complete environmental viability of the project (including considering direct and indirect climate damage, as well as the relationship of the project with Brazilian climate goals) and without having carried out free, prior, informed and good-faith consultation with the affected populations and traditional communities.

In an interlocutory decision, the court requested, among other things, that the plaintiffs amend the initial complaint to: (i) recalculate or justify the value of the case, considering that the initial value of R$ 100,000 would not be compatible with any potential economic benefit obtained from the success of the claims, namely "preventing oil exploration in the disputed location"; (ii) rule on the relationship between this action and cases 1054900-56.2025.4.01.3400, 1016097-83.2025.4.01.3600, 1016098-68.2025.4.01.3600, 1024508-88.2025.4.01.3900 and 102769252.2025.4.01.3900; (iii) demonstrate the passive legitimacy of the Union and Petrobras as defendants, since the requests contained in the initial petition are obligations to do and not to do directed exclusively to IBAMA.

In an addendum to the initial petition, the plaintiffs stated that there was no identity of claims, causes of action, or parties between the present action and the proceedings highlighted by the court. They emphasized that while the other actions were related exclusively to the initial phase of the project, still during the auction period for exploratory wells, the present action focuses on the annulment of Operating License 1,684/2025 and on preventing IBAMA from issuing new licenses for oil projects in the Amazon River mouth region and other areas of the Equatorial Margin, without duly assessing their environmental viability, evidently considering the parameters and requirements demonstrated in the initial petition. They amended the value of the case to R$ 1,413,777.19, corresponding to the cost of issuing the Operating License, plus the amount of R$ 100,000.00 attributed to the request for abstention from issuing new licenses and estimated according to the usual values for the preparation of socio-environmental studies in licensing processes. Regarding the passive legitimacy of the Union and Petrobras, they argued that Petrobras is the recipient of the operating license whose annulment is the subject of this action, and the Union is the owner of the oil, natural gas, and other fluid hydrocarbon deposits existing in the national territory, and the case concerns possible environmental damage in territorial waters, a matter also within the Union's jurisdiction.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for preliminary injunction, filed by the Arayara Association for Education and Culture and the Poty Guarani Indigenous Association. Subsequently, CAPG and the Guarani Guajayvi Village Community joined the action. The action was filed against FUNAI, Copelmi Mineração Ltda., and FEPAM. The objective is to suspend and annul the environmental licensing process for the Guaíba Mine Project, a Copelmi undertaking considered the largest open-pit coal mining project in the country. The plaintiffs claim non-compliance with legal norms and omissions in the Environmental Impact Study (EIA), as well as the absence of prior, free, and informed consultation with the indigenous people of the Poty Guarani Indigenous Association, especially the Guajayvi Village (TeKoá) of the MByá Guarani people, located in Charqueadas/RS, less than 3 kilometers from the project site. At the time the lawsuit was filed, the project was in the preliminary licensing phase with FEPAM (State Foundation for Environmental Protection). According to the Public Consultation Notices related to the Environmental Impact Study and its respective Environmental Impact Report (EIA/RIMA), four public hearings were held, and after the first two, the period for submitting comments and opinions regarding the project was closed. The plaintiffs allege that the Guajayvi Village requested to comment on the project but was not heard. The purpose of this Public Civil Action is to prevent the advancement of the environmental licensing procedure until a proper assessment of the technical and locational viability of the project has been carried out, also considering the Rio Grande do Sul State Policy on Climate Change (State Law 13.594/2010). The plaintiff associations assert that coal mining generates significant social and environmental impacts on nearby communities, potentially causing irreparable environmental damage to these populations, particularly due to atmospheric methane gas emissions, spills and leaks of Greenhouse Gases (GHG), effluents and contamination of surface and groundwater, acid mine drainage, among others. They believe there has been a violation of national and international norms concerning the rights of indigenous peoples, especially Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO). In this sense, they argue that the lack of consultation with the indigenous community renders the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) null and void, necessitating the suspension and subsequent annulment of the licensing process, so that specific consultation protocols can be established for the indigenous people inhabiting the region of the project. They allege that the installation of the Guaíba Mine will directly and permanently affect the indigenous community, violating their rights established by the Federal Constitution and international norms, generating various impacts. The authors claim that the defendants, within their respective competencies, failed to adopt measures aimed at allowing the reproduction of the indigenous community's way of life in the face of the Guaíba Mine project. They allege that FUNAI (National Indian Foundation) was negligent in the face of the presented facts, as it did not adopt preventive measures to safeguard the proper fulfillment of the licensing procedure, nor did it assist or aid the indigenous people in defending their interests. As a preliminary measure, they request the immediate suspension of the licensing process for the Guaíba Mine Project, which is being processed by FEPAM (State Foundation for Environmental Protection), until the final judgment of the action. On the merits, they request the annulment of the licensing process.

A preliminary injunction was issued granting the request for urgent relief, suspending the environmental licensing process until FUNAI analyzes the Indigenous Component Study (ECI) to be included in the EIA/RIMA, prior to the issuance of any LP by FEPAM, based on the following main grounds: (i) the continuation of the project licensing procedure without the inclusion of the ECI in the EIA/RIMA and the lack of consultation with the affected indigenous communities will cause irreparable harm, this obligation arising from ILO Convention 169; (ii) FEPAM should have requested FUNAI's opinion on the licensing process before issuing the LP, as there was no analysis of the ECI and no prior consultation with the affected indigenous communities; (iii) FEPAM, before issuing the LP, must await the preparation and analysis of the ECI, as well as prior, free and informed consultation with the affected indigenous communities. Subsequently, in a ruling, the court granted the inclusion of CAPG and the Guarani Guajayvi Village Community in the action as optional active co-litigants.

Copelmi filed a defense arguing, preliminarily, (i) that the request does not logically follow from the cause of action, which would lead to the dismissal of the case, and (ii) that the plaintiffs lack standing to sue. The defendant company alleged that FEPAM has not yet issued a statement regarding the environmental viability of the project and that, therefore, the agency has not yet decided on the eventual granting of a Preliminary License. It argued that the Public Civil Action seeks to interrupt FEPAM's evaluation and transfer the analysis of the administrative merits of the environmental licensing process to the Judiciary. The company argued that the damages presented by the plaintiffs do not exist and that part of them were contemplated and incorporated into the licensing, and FUNAI issued Terms of Reference (TR) for conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). On the merits, it highlighted that it had conducted the EIA before filing the Public Civil Action, but was awaiting the issuance of Specific Terms of Reference (STR) by FUNAI. Furthermore, it emphasized that the only Indigenous Land surrounding the project was more than 8 km away, making FUNAI's participation in the licensing process conducted by FEPAM unnecessary, as was the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Nevertheless, after FUNAI confirmed the need for its participation and the preparation of an EIA, the company proceeded with the procedure. Therefore, it observed the prior consultation foreseen in ILO Convention 169. In addition, it stated that the process is still in the preliminary licensing phase, and therefore there is no basis for claiming the licensing is null and void based on the plaintiffs' arguments. Finally, it requested: (i) the dismissal of the case without prejudice, due to the initial petition being defective and lack of procedural interest; and (ii) a judgment of dismissal of the claim.

FEPAM contested the Public Civil Action and stated that there was no reason for it to be included as a defendant in the lawsuit, since it does not oppose the intervention of FUNAI or indigenous communities in the licensing process. It alleged that it held two public hearings, which were widely publicized, clearly guaranteeing the participation of interested parties in the licensing process. It highlighted that it has not yet concluded its analysis of the EIA/RIMA presented by Copelmi. It defended the regularity of the environmental licensing process for the project and the absence of environmental damage resulting from the project's installation. It reiterated that it has no opposition to the participation of indigenous associations or the preparation of the ECI. Finally, it requested the dismissal of the case without prejudice in relation to FEPAM and that the lawsuit against the licensing body be dismissed. FUNAI, in its defense, alleged a preliminary objection of lack of standing in the lawsuit, since, upon becoming aware of the situation, it intervened in the licensing process to protect the interests of indigenous peoples, making it impossible to attribute the alleged omission to it. He emphasized that, in April 2020, the TRE for the preparation of the ECI was forwarded to FEPAM. He alleged that, due to COVID-19, entry into indigenous lands is suspended. He requested (i) the recognition of his lack of standing to be sued, with the dismissal of the case without prejudice, and (ii), on the merits, the recognition that there was no omission on the part of FUNAI in monitoring the licensing process.

A judgment was issued in the context of the Public Civil Action (ACP), which, although not mentioning the climate issue, ruled in favor of the requests of the Arayara Association for Education and Culture and the Poty Guarani Indigenous Association to declare the licensing process for the Guaíba Mine Project null and void, ratifying the preliminary injunction. It confirmed the rejection of the preliminary allegations of lack of jurisdiction of the Federal Court, lack of procedural interest of the plaintiffs, and lack of standing of FUNAI (National Indian Foundation). On the merits, the Court recognized the right of traditional communities to participate in decisions that may affect their way of life and culture. It concluded that the licensing process for the project is already at an advanced stage, with an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) having been carried out that disregards the existence of the indigenous community and that there was no participation of the indigenous community in the discussions. It understood that the mere formal statement of FUNAI does not fulfill the need to hear the indigenous community potentially affected by the activity to be licensed. Thus, it granted the requests of the ACP in order to declare the licensing process for the Guaíba Mine Project null and void.

The company Copelmi filed an appeal, requesting the reversal of the judgment so that the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. Furthermore, Copelmi filed a Request for a Stay of Execution of the Appeal (creating a new action, number 5012469-72.2022.4.04.0000), due to the likelihood of the appeal being successful and the risk of irreparable harm. It argued that the immediate effects of the judgment are already causing harm to the company, given that it has been notified of the archiving of the environmental licensing procedure for the Guaíba Mine project.

In the proceedings concerning the request for a stay of execution, a decision was issued confirming, in a preliminary assessment, the irregularities regarding the lack of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and prior consultation with the interested indigenous peoples. The judge determined that the absence of prior consultation with the affected indigenous peoples, it seems, can no longer be remedied. Thus, the requested stay of execution was denied. Following this, the request for a stay of execution was definitively closed. Civil Appeal 5069057-47.2019.4.04.7100 was assigned to the case due to prior involvement. Furthermore, Arayara filed an appeal against the decision.

In June 2025, the Fourth Panel of the Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region upheld the sentence based on its own merits, thus denying the appeal and the cross-appeal. It reaffirmed the need to suspend the environmental licensing of the Guaíba Mine Project due to the existing illegalities. It recognized that the indigenous communities were excluded from the decision-making process regarding the project, which directly affects them. It affirmed that the prior, free, and informed participation of the communities, as well as the carrying out of the Indigenous Component Study (ECI) alongside the Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report (EIA/RIMA) in respect of the principles of precaution and democratic participation, are indispensable requirements for environmental licensing, the absence of which compromises the validity of the process from its inception. Therefore, the suspension of the environmental licensing was reaffirmed as a necessary measure to guarantee the integrity of the violated indigenous rights and compliance with applicable environmental regulations.

This is a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI), with a request for a precautionary measure, filed by the PSB, PSOL, Rede, PT, PDT, and PCdoB parties regarding Federal Law 14.182/2021, which deals with the privatization of Eletrobras and promotes changes in the regime of the Brazilian electricity sector. The challenged law is the result of the conversion of Provisional Measure (MP) 1.031/2021, presented by the President of the Republic with the intention of enabling the privatization of Eletrobras. The petitioners argue that the MP lacked the requirement of urgency, circumventing the regular legislative process. They allege that, when considering the conversion of the MP, the National Congress approved amendments that resulted in substantial modifications to Brazilian energy planning and that the final wording of the provisions reveals an undue attempt to obstruct a possible veto by the President of the Republic. The law, as approved, mandates the compulsory contracting of energy from small hydroelectric plants and natural gas-fired thermoelectric plants. They argue that this requirement makes the necessary decarbonization of the Brazilian energy matrix more distant and will lead to an increase in annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, violating Brazilian commitments made under the Paris Agreement and by the President of the Republic at the 2021 Climate Summit. The petitioners point out that the enactment of the law violates the legal and constitutional order due to its action contrary to the duty to act in favor of protecting healthy and stable climatic conditions. The law also authorizes the Federal Government to begin construction of the Tucuruí transmission line, disregarding the administrative processes for environmental licensing and consultation with the affected indigenous population, both of which are already underway. The applicants request (i) that an interim measure be granted to determine the immediate suspension of the effectiveness of Law 14.182/2021 or, subsidiarily, the suspension of specific articles and, (ii) on the merits, that the aforementioned law be declared unconstitutional in its entirety or, subsidiarily, the unconstitutionality of specific articles.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Federal Court determined, due to the importance of the matter, that the decision be made definitively by the Court, through the adoption of an expedited procedure.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for provisional urgent protective measures of an incidental nature, filed by the Arayara Association for Education and Culture against Copelmi Mineração Ltda., FEPAM, and the National Water Agency (ANA). It is alleged that the implementation of the Guaíba Mine Project, which aims to be the largest open-pit coal mine in Brazil, will cause harmful impacts to the inhabitants of the Porto Alegre metropolitan region, in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, especially due to hydrological risks. A project of this magnitude has a high potential for water pollution. The plaintiff organization points out flaws in the Environmental Impact Study/Environmental Impact Report (EIA/RIMA) of the project, neglecting the fulfillment of important licensing phases, such as holding public hearings with directly and indirectly affected communities. The author argues that the project poses a pollution risk, especially to the Jacuí River, which contributes 86.3% of the average flow of Lake Guaíba, responsible for supplying drinking water to several municipalities, such as Porto Alegre, Canoas, Eldorado do Sul, Guaíba, and Barra do Ribeiro. She highlights the need to analyze the extent of the potential environmental damage resulting from the project and its synergies with other infrastructure planned for the region. She further argues that the Guaíba Mine Project will impact the balance of water resources, which is inextricably linked to climate change, thus triggering the National Climate Change Policy – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009). This is because actions such as the pollution of water sources, diversion of watercourses, lowering of groundwater levels, drainage of aquifers, among other harmful measures related to the Project, are directly or indirectly linked to climate change. Among other points, the preliminary injunction requests the suspension of the licensing process for the Guaíba Mine Project until the merits of the Public Civil Action are judged, so that the installation of the mine is prohibited and, on the merits, (i) the prohibition of the installation of the project in the originally planned location, due to the irreversible environmental damage it will cause to the region, (ii) the declaration of nullity of the environmental licensing procedure with the initiation of a new procedure that considers all risks and (iii) the preparation of an emergency action plan, with a view to mitigating the consequences of any environmental damage.

Following the preliminary statements from the defendants, a decision was issued recognizing the lack of standing of ANA (National Water Agency) and, consequently, the lack of jurisdiction of the Federal Court to process and judge the action. Therefore, the action was redistributed to the Court of Justice of the State of Rio Grande do Sul (TJRS) under number 5002559-45.2021.8.21.0001, and is now being processed before the 1st Court of the 10th Public Treasury Court of the Central Forum of the Porto Alegre District. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the present action was initially filed in the Federal Court of Rio Grande do Sul (JFRS), but was subsequently transferred to the State Court of Justice due to the lack of standing of ANA.

Due to the licensing procedure for the Mina Guaíba project having been declared null and void within the scope of Public Civil Action 5069057-47.2019.4.04.7100 (Arayara Association of Education and Culture and others vs. FUNAI, Copelmi Mineração Ltda. and FEPAM), the court in this action decided to suspend this process for six months, in order to await the exhaustion of the appeal phase and the confirmation or not of the decision in the aforementioned Public Civil Action.

Subsequently, a judgment was issued dismissing the case without prejudice, due to the supervening loss of the object of the proceedings, given Copelmi's withdrawal from the Guaíba Mine Project and the consequent archiving of the environmental licensing process. The judgment became final and the case was archived.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against Ana Paula Moura de Souza due to the deforestation of an area of 354.37 hectares, between 2012 and 2020, in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant's occupation of the land was illegal because it is an area included in an Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), owned and of interest to the Federal Government, managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractive communities. This class action lawsuit is part of a set of 22 actions filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) as a result of the investigation carried out in civil inquiry no. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, concerning illegal deforestation within the Antimary Agrarian-Extractive Settlement Project (PAE), but against different defendants. The lawsuit's arguments are based, among other points, on Brazilian Environmental Law, regarding the constitutional protection of the environment, the accusation of deforestation, civil liability propter rem for environmental damages, including climate damages, and collective moral damages. It also mentions, as an environmental liability, the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) resulting from the illegal deforestation of the area, calculated at 251,107.86 tons of carbon dioxide, which are directly related to the Brazilian State's departure from its climate goals, out of step with national and international commitments assumed by Brazil in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). Among other requests, the following are made: (i) reparation for the damages caused by the illegal deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation corresponding to intermediate and residual environmental material damages; (iv) payment of compensation corresponding to climate damages; and (v) payment of compensation corresponding to collective moral damages.

The defendant was served with a summons by publication and declared in default, with the Federal Public Defender's Office appointed as special curator. In its defense, it argued that the expert report attached to the initial petition does not demonstrate authorship of the alleged damage, so there is no proof of causality – fundamental for civil liability. It maintained that it is possible that the degraded area has already regenerated given the time elapsed between the deforestation itself and the filing of the lawsuit, defended the disproportionate amount of compensation for material damages, and the need to exclude the application of collective moral damages to the environment. On the merits, it requested that the action be dismissed.

Subsequently, INCRA was included as a co-litigant assistant to the plaintiff.

A judgment was issued in August 2025, in which the requests were partially granted, ordering the defendant to (i) restore the degraded area (354.37 hectares), (ii) refrain from using the area, in order to allow natural regeneration, (iii) pay compensation for material damages related to intermediate and residual environmental damages, (iv) pay compensation for climate damages caused by deforestation, in the amount of R$ 6,566,470.48, adopting the price of US$ 5.00 per ton of CO2e, according to the Amazon Fund, and (v) pay compensation for collective moral damages. It was determined that resources obtained from this action should be allocated to the Fund for Diffuse Rights.

The defendant filed an appeal against the judgment.

This is a Claim of Non-Compliance with a Fundamental Precept (ADPF) with a request for precautionary measures filed by the Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB) with the aim of remedying alleged unconstitutional actions and inactions perpetrated by the federal government that paralyze and prevent the implementation of the policy on the paving of the BR-319 highway, located in the northern region of the country. The party defends the importance of the highway for national integration and the economic and social development of the region. It alleges that the non-paving of the BR-319 is a failure of the State to guarantee minimum infrastructure, which violates the rights of the Amazonian population such as human dignity, access to education and health services, the right to come and go, the exercise of citizenship, the right to movement, and the principles of equality and efficiency. The PSDB argues that it is possible to align economic development with sustainable development, presenting the BR-319 as a viable and environmentally safe alternative to solve the problem of isolation in the Amazon and to guarantee the social and economic rights of its inhabitants. The document highlights that the isolation imposed by the absence of the highway disproportionately affects indigenous, riverside, and traditional communities, which face difficulties accessing essential public services. The party argues that the region depends mainly on river transport for connection with other areas, a situation that worsens during the dry season, when navigation can become impossible. It points out that droughts are worsening due to climate change, placing the population at risk of total isolation and highlighting the need for paving the highway. It argues that the existence of a paved highway would ensure the maintenance of the flow of goods and essential services and would be a strategic route for responding to environmental, health, or climate crises. The plaintiff emphasizes that all concerns should have been overcome after three decades of technical studies presented on the construction and operation of the highway. It argues that one of the reasons obstructing paving is the existence of conflicting decisions in legal proceedings. As an example, it presents Public Civil Action 1001856-77.2024.4.01.3200, which questions Preliminary License 672/2022 issued by IBAMA authorizing the paving of the highway, challenging it based on failures in environmental governance, the absence of a climate impact study, and the lack of prior consultation with communities. In a precautionary measure, it requests that the Supreme Federal Court ensure the effectiveness and production of the effects of Preliminary License No. 672/2022 issued by IBAMA. On the merits, it requests recognition of the injury and threat to fundamental precepts of the Federal Constitution, in order to promote sustainable regional development and the integration of the Amazon region; and a declaration that it is the duty of the Public Power to guarantee the regular, swift, and constitutional continuation of all stages of environmental licensing and the implementation of state public policies that guarantee the complete paving of Highway BR-319.

The reporting judge, Luiz Fux, dismissed the action due to the inadequacy of the chosen legal avenue. His reasoning emphasized that an ADPF (Action for Declaration of Unconstitutionality by Omission) is not admissible for the analysis of the specific situation, and that it could be challenged through ordinary legal channels. An appeal was filed against the decision, which was not granted. The final decision became res judicata.

* The case was classified as unfavorable to climate protection. It is recognized that the case's argument addresses, among other things, the adverse effects of climate change and the need for climate resilience measures. However, based on an analysis of the legal arguments of the action as a whole, it is understood that the overall objective of the claim is not aligned with climate protection.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief filed by the Arayara International Institute of Education and Culture against the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP), the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), and the Federal Government. This action is part of a set of 6 ACPs filed against the 4th Cycle of Permanent Offers for oil exploration blocks. The aim is to challenge the auction of oil exploration blocks conducted through the 4th Cycle of Permanent Offers. It is argued that the inclusion of blocks AM-T-82, AM-T-64, AM-T-107, AM-T-132, AM-T-133, AM-T-146, AM-T-153, AM-T-169, AM-T-114, and AM-T-38, located in the Amazon Basin, in the auction is illegal because they overlap with Conservation Units, buffer zones, environmental protection areas, and areas where endangered species occur. It is argued that the climate crisis scenario demands an energy transition to clean energy and a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, which is incompatible with the expansion of oil exploration over protected areas. The administrative act issued jointly by the Ministry of Mines and Energy and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change authorizing the offering of these blocks is also challenged. In preliminary proceedings, the following is requested: (i) an order requiring the defendants to publish the existence of the judicial process online; (ii) the suspension of the offer for Block AM-T-82; (iii) the suspension of Joint Statements 31/12/2018 and 08/2020 with respect to the other contested exploration blocks and the suspension of their offers in the 4th Permanent Offer Cycle until new Joint Statements are issued that comply with the necessary legislation. In final proceedings, the following is requested: (i) recognition of the nullity of the Joint Statements with respect to the exploration blocks; (ii) exclusion of the offer for Block AM-T-82; (iii) an order to exclude the other contested blocks from the Offer Cycle until a new Joint Statement is issued that observes the protection of environmentally protected areas.

The court partially granted the preliminary injunction request, ordering the defendants to publish online the existence of the lawsuit and that blocks AM-T-64, AM-T-107, and AM-T-133 partially overlap with protected areas. It argued that the publication of such environmental data is a measure imposed by Brazilian legislation, the Rio-92 Declaration, and the Escazú Agreement. It dismissed the case without prejudice regarding the requests related to the other blocks, which were not auctioned. It ordered the inclusion of the company Atem Participações S/A as a defendant in the lawsuit, as it was the winning bidder for the areas. The ANP (National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels) filed an interlocutory appeal against the decision (AI 1000012-89.2024.4.01.0000 - TRF1), requesting the reversal of the decision to deny the request for urgent relief, which was granted to suspend the requirement to publish information about the blocks online.

IBAMA and ANP filed objections. They stated that the alleged overlap of an exploration block with a conservation unit does not imply its exclusion from the bidding phase, according to current regulations, but that sensitive areas were observed in the procedure. They emphasized the economic benefits of oil exploration for Brazilian society and that the action is based on an abusive use of the precautionary principle, since the risks of the activity will already be analyzed in the environmental licensing phase, which is not possible in a judicial process. ANP clarified that it promotes social participation before holding bidding processes for granting rights to explore oil and natural gas. They highlighted that in the NetZero 2050 scenario of the International Energy Agency, the energy matrix will still include oil and natural gas as primary energy sources and that the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from the projects can be assessed in the environmental licensing phase under the financial burden of the entrepreneur and, therefore, that the mere holding of a bidding process does not pose a risk to the environment. They requested the recognition of the plaintiff's lack of standing to sue; the consolidation of the proceedings with the action already pending in the 4th Federal Civil Court of the Judicial Section of the State of Rio Grande do Norte; the recognition of the plaintiff's lack of standing to sue; and that the claims be dismissed.

In its defense, the Union, in addition to addressing the licensing issues already covered by other federal agencies, argued that the offer of the contested blocks is technically supported by the regulations issued by the competent bodies and that the Federal Court of Accounts approved the ANP's Permanent Offer. It requested recognition of the plaintiff's lack of standing, connection to the proceedings of the 4th Federal Civil Court of the SJRN, and that the claims be dismissed.

Atem Participações SA filed a counterclaim arguing that, during the area granting phase by the ANP (National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels), the alleged overlap of block AM-T-82 with a conservation unit does not imply actual or potential harm to the environment, which should be evaluated during the environmental licensing phase. It requested that jurisdiction be transferred to the 4th Federal Civil Court of the SJRN (Federal Court of Rio Grande do Norte) and that the claims be dismissed.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), filed by AMOREMA and AMORETGRAP, against Sustainable Carbon - Projetos Ambientais Ltda., Ecomapuá Conservação Ltda., Eccaplan Consultoria em Sustentabilidade, Bio Assets Ativos Ambientais Ltda., Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Consultores Ltda., Barilla G. and RFlli SPA, Banco Santander SA, ISA CTEEP - Companhia de Transmissão de Energia Elétrica Paulista, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Auditores Independentes, BB MAPFRE Participações SA, IATA International Air Transport Association, Swire Pacific Offshore Operations (PTE.) Ltd., Inter-American Development Bank, Companhia de Locação das Américas, Groupe Air France, 17er Oberlandenergie GMBH, Wienerberger GMBH, Brockhaus Stahl GMBH and other companies that acquired carbon credits from the Ecomapuá Project that could not be identified by the plaintiffs. It is alleged that the defendant companies are illegally trading carbon credits generated within or around the Mapuá Extractive Reserve (RESEX Mapuá) and the Terra Grande-Pracuúba Extractive Reserve (RESEX Terra Grande-Pracuúba), located in the Amazon and more specifically in the state of Pará, on the voluntary market, which constitutes a kind of "land grabbing" of these assets. This is because the defendant companies obtain economic advantage due to the improper appropriation of credits, based on the environmental preservation promoted by the traditional extractive population, without them receiving fair remuneration or compensation. According to specific legislation, the Extractive Reserves are public lands of the Federal Union, whose real right of use is granted to the traditional populations that inhabit them. This discussion concerns the generation and sale of carbon credits from 2015 onwards from the “Ecomapuá Project” in the Amazon, developed and/or marketed by the companies Ecomapuá, Sustainable Carbon, Bio Assets, and Evento Neutro. This project involves the sale of assets originating from REDD+ projects (credits generated by avoided deforestation, sustainable management, and increased forest carbon stocks). The other defendant companies are being sued for acquiring the assets without due diligence, thus entering into contracts that are null and void due to illicit purposes, or for supporting the project. It is argued that areas of the Project, specifically the Brasileiro, Lago do Jacaré, and São Domingos farms, overlap with the territories of the Mapuá and Terra Grande-Pracuúba Extractive Reserves, where hundreds of families reside. Therefore, the certified credits from these areas should belong to the extractive communities that inhabit them. It is argued that the preservation of forests in the project areas stems from the activities of the region's extractive communities and that the sale of assets from the Ecomapuá Project included "social carbon" certification, claiming that there would be benefits for the communities, which did not occur. Therefore, the plaintiffs allege that the companies improperly used the name, image, and cultural heritage of the communities and distorted the facts by advertising the project's socio-environmental responsibility. The associations argue that the companies caused collective material and moral damages to the extractive families and profited from the intervention. The following is requested: (i) that the defendant companies selling carbon credits present detailed reports on said assets; (ii) that the defendant companies present contracts and other documents regarding the transactions carried out within the scope of the Ecomapuá Project; (iii) the joint and several liability of the defendant companies to pay the plaintiffs compensation for material damages, restitution of benefits obtained by the defendant companies, and compensation for collective moral damages. and (iv) a determination, under penalty of fine, that the defendants cease buying or selling carbon credits from within or around the Mapuá and Terra Grande-Pracuúba Extractive Reserves and cease using the name and image of the extractive populations, their associations and the respective Extractive Reserves.

Initially, the lawsuit was assigned to a court in the Federal Justice system of Pará specializing in environmental and agrarian matters, which issued a decision declaring its absolute lack of jurisdiction to analyze the matter. It recognized that the lawsuit dealt with the allegedly improper commercialization of carbon credits by the defendant companies and not with discussions of state intervention in private property, expropriation of real estate for agrarian reform purposes, or environmental issues—matters over which the aforementioned court could be considered competent. Subsequently, jurisdiction to hear the lawsuit was transferred to the Breves District Court of the Court of Justice of the State of Pará (TJPA), as the court understood that the parties are private legal entities, not justifying the jurisdiction of the Federal Justice system. At the TJPA, the class action lawsuit was identified as case number 0801546-94.2022.8.14.0010.

Subsequently, the first instance court of the TJPA (Court of Justice of Pará) raised a negative conflict of jurisdiction before the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) with the intention that the Court declare the Federal Court competent to process and judge the case, given that the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) – an international organization – was one of the defendants. The STJ ruled that the Federal Court of the 9th Environmental and Agrarian Court of Belém was competent.

Upon the return of the case files, the judge of the 9th Environmental and Agrarian Court of the Judicial Section of Pará issued a ruling declaring the case dismissed without prejudice, due to the inadequacy of the chosen legal avenue. The court determined that the claim concerned private property rights and, therefore, a class action lawsuit could not have been used.

AMOREMA and AMORETGRAP appealed the decision, arguing that a class action lawsuit was appropriate due to the collective, transindividual, and indivisible nature of the rights debated in the action, or subsidiarily, because it deals with homogeneous individual rights. They also raised procedural issues, stating that the judgment was given without prior hearing of the parties. They requested a reconsideration of the judgment and, subsidiarily, the reversal of the sentence so that the process can be analyzed regularly by the first instance court, or a declaration of its nullity. The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) also filed an appeal. It argued that the action seeks to protect the fundamental rights of traditional peoples and communities to the exclusive enjoyment of their territories, dealing with practices of "carbon land grabbing" or "carbon credit land grabbing," which are matters of public interest and related to environmental protection. He pointed out that the sentence was handed down without prior consultation with the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, in violation of the Public Civil Action Law. He requested the annulment of the sentence so that the process can be analyzed in a regular manner by the first instance court. The defendant companies filed counter-arguments to the appeal, which has not yet been judged.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against Roges Pereira Sales for the deforestation of an area of 287.96 hectares between 2015 and 2020 in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant's occupation of the land was illegal because it is an area within an Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), owned and of interest to the Federal Government, managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractive communities. This ACP is part of a set of 22 actions filed by the MPF as a result of the investigation carried out in civil inquiry no. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, for illegal deforestation carried out within the Antimary Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), but against different defendants. The argument for the action is based, among other points, on Brazilian Environmental Law, regarding the constitutional protection of the environment, the accusation of deforestation, civil liability propter rem for environmental damages, including climate damages, and collective moral damages. It also mentions, as an environmental liability, the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) caused by the illegal deforestation of the area, calculated at 161,016.06 tons of carbon dioxide, which are directly related to the Brazilian State's departure from its climate goals, out of step with national and international commitments assumed by Brazil in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). Among other requests, the following is sought: (i) reparation for the damages caused by the illegal deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation corresponding to intermediate and residual environmental material damages; (iv) payment of compensation corresponding to climate damages; and (v) payment of compensation corresponding to collective moral damages.

INCRA joined the lawsuit as a co-litigant assistant to the plaintiff, and the defendant was declared in default.

In its defense, the defendant, represented by the Federal Public Defender's Office, argued the absence of a causal link and authorship of the deforestation. It alleged that combining the requests for in-kind reparation and compensation for material damages due to the same event would constitute double jeopardy. It requested that the action be dismissed.

A judgment was issued in August 2025, in which the court recognized the climate litigation nature of the action and stated that the deforestation of 287.96 hectares in the Antimary PAE constitutes environmental and climate damage, as it generates illegitimate greenhouse gas emissions and compromises Brazilian public policies and international commitments. Based on objective civil liability and the theory of integral risk, the court ordered the defendant to (i) restore the degraded area, refraining from further interventions; (ii) compensate for interim and residual environmental material damages; (iii) compensate for climate damages in the amount of R$ 4,210,569.96, adopting the price of US$ 5.00 per ton of CO2e, according to the Amazon Fund; and (iv) pay collective moral damages (5% of the material damages); in addition to declaring the CAR (Rural Environmental Registry) linked to the area null and void. It ruled that the resources obtained from this action should be allocated to the Fund for Diffuse Rights.

The Federal Public Defender's Office filed an appeal with the TRF1 (Regional Federal Court of the 1st Region), requesting a complete reversal of the sentence.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against J Filgueiras Empreendimentos e Negócios LTDA, the Municipality of Paraty, the National Institute of Historical and Artistic Heritage (IPHAN), and the State of Rio de Janeiro due to alleged irregularities in the licensing of the Hotel Spa Emiliano Paraty. The hotel, to be built on the Itatinga Farm, would be located within the Cairuçu Environmental Protection Area (APA) in Paraty, Rio de Janeiro, on property owned by the company J Filgueiras Empreendimentos e Negócios LTDA. The objective is to compel the licensing bodies to require an Environmental Impact Study and Environmental Impact Report (EIA-RIMA) including the climate variable in the licensing process for the project, to annul the Installation License (LI) issued by the municipal entity, and to condemn the defendants to conduct a prior, free and informed consultation (CPLI) in accordance with ILO Convention 169 and to pay for collective moral damages. The author highlights that traditional coastal communities (Caiçaras), indigenous communities, and quilombola communities are within the direct and indirect influence of the project area, which is also located within a UNESCO Mixed World Heritage site, a federal conservation unit, and is close to archaeological sites and ruins recognized by IPHAN (National Institute of Historic and Artistic Heritage). Due to the scope of the impacts, the non-compliance with the zoning of the Environmental Protection Area (APA), and the disregard for the conditions imposed by ICMBio (Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation), the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) argues for the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA-RIMA) and the transfer of jurisdiction to the state entity. The author alleges that climate impact assessments should be incorporated into environmental licensing, based on the observation that, to date, there are no concrete requirements from environmental agencies in the State of Rio de Janeiro and the Municipality of Paraty to enforce the duties already imposed by current legislation, in order to guide the monitoring and evaluation of the climate impacts of activities and projects in environmental licensing processes. It is stated that the climate variable in licensing must ensure (a) assessment   of the impacts caused by the implementation, operation, and decommissioning of activities and projects on the climate – whether due to GHG emissions or the impact on local ecosystem services important for climate regulation – as well as the potential impacts of climate change on projects – from an adaptation perspective; (b) the analysis of locational and technological alternatives; and (c) the adoption of mitigation and compensation measures in all phases of the project. Among the measures addressed, the plaintiff points out that forms of solid waste and sewage treatment, water reuse, and solar energy generation should be considered, including as potential conditions for providing the same mechanisms to surrounding communities. For all these reasons, the Public Prosecutor's Office identifies a patently illicit state of affairs, which is why it requests that the action be treated as a structural process, since it intends to restructure the defendants' activities. In preliminary proceedings, it requests: (i) the immediate suspension of the effects of Installation License No. 001/25, issued by the Municipality of Paraty, and that the company refrain from initiating works or interventions with the objective of constructing the project; (ii) that all defendants refrain from granting licenses, authorizations, or other acts that allow the execution of the project until the technical documents of ICMBio are analyzed, there is a reassessment by IPHAN, and the CPLI is carried out; (iii) that the court constitute a Judicial Monitoring Committee for the adoption of the necessary structural measures and the preparation of a definitive restructuring plan; (iv) that the EIA-RIMA be presented and the relevant bodies express their opinions on the licensing process and that the conditions presented be met. In the final stage, among others, it is requested: (i) the confirmation of the requests presented in the urgent relief and that (ii) it be determined that the environmental licensing be carried out by the State of Rio de Janeiro or, subsidiarily, the Municipality of Paraty; (iii) that the licensing entity be required to carry out the CPLI observing the consultation protocols of the affected communities, paid for by the developer and (iv) to include the climate variable in the environmental licensing process, and finally, (v) that the defendants be ordered to pay collective moral damages.

A preliminary injunction was issued partially granting the urgent requests to suspend the effects of the Installation License issued by the municipality of Paraty and to refrain from granting licenses, authorizations, or other acts that would allow the execution of the "Hotel Spa Emiliano" project until the necessary prior, free, and informed consultation is carried out in accordance with ILO Convention No. 169 or until a new court order is issued, and, specifically, to prohibit J Filgueiras Empreendimentos e Negócios LTDA from initiating works or interventions on the Itatinga Farm with the aim of constructing the "Hotel Spa Emiliano" project.

This is an independent action for the early production of evidence filed by the Arayara International Institute of Education and Culture against the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP) and the Federal Government, seeking clarification on the climate impact of their offers of blocks for oil and gas exploration. It is argued that the main reason for climate change is the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) generated by human activities, primarily the combustion of fossil fuels (oil, coal, and natural gas). Therefore, the aim is to verify whether the Brazilian government and the ANP are fulfilling their obligations to estimate and mitigate GHG emissions from their exploration block offers. It is alleged that these emissions could compromise Brazil's compliance with the targets assumed under the Paris Agreement, which have been incorporated into Brazilian law with supralegal status. In light of the global climate crisis, it is argued that oil and gas exploration contradicts the objectives of national energy policy, which includes environmental protection and the mitigation of GHG emissions. The author states that, despite the seriousness of the situation, there is no transparency regarding the calculations or estimates of emissions associated with the offerings of oil and gas exploration blocks made by the ANP (National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels), nor regarding mitigation plans. Therefore, the aim is to obtain the necessary information to assess these impacts and, potentially, avoid the need for subsequent legal action to correct the country's energy policies. Specifically, the goal is to clarify whether the Federal Government (i) estimates the GHG emissions potentially generated by the offering of oil and gas exploration blocks in ANP auctions at the time of or prior to the publication of the offer notice; (ii) calculates how the emissions resulting from the oil and gas exploration of the offered blocks, if acquired, may affect compliance with Brazil's NDC (National Consumer Price Index) and the Paris Agreement. (iii) has some type of calculation or analysis on how emissions resulting from the burning of Brazilian oil exported to other countries affect the climate balance; (iv) has a plan to mitigate emissions from oil and gas exploration in the blocks offered by the ANP; and (v) takes these emissions into account when establishing the country's energy policy. It is requested that the early production of evidence be granted so that the defendants may present the required documents and information.

A single-judge decision was issued recognizing the declination of jurisdiction and ordering the redistribution of the case to the 4th Federal Court of the Judicial Section of Rio Grande do Norte. The Arayara Institute filed a Motion for Clarification against this decision, and the request for reconsideration was granted, rendering the declination of jurisdiction ineffective.

In its defense, the ANP argued that Future energy sources will still include oil and natural gas. He stated that the ANP (National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels) only executes public policies in the energy sector, not being responsible for their creation, and therefore, the requests in the lawsuit should be directed to the policy-making body, the National Council for Energy Policy (CNPE). Finally, he argued that the offering of blocks for oil and natural gas exploration and production, in itself, does not have the effect of emitting greenhouse gases, since there is no guarantee of the occurrence of deposits in these regions and, therefore, it would not be possible to estimate in advance the emissions from any production in the auctioned block.

In its response, the Union indicated, for the presentation of information, Information Note No. 34/2024/DEPG/SNPGB, from the National Secretariat of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (SNPGB), of the Ministry of Mines and Energy. In summary, the following responses were formulated: (i) GHG emissions are calculated indirectly, based on existing activities and historical data, and the evaluation of an oil or natural gas discovery only takes place in an area under an exploration and production contract; (ii) the official means of verifying the national target is the National Inventory of GHG Emissions and Removals, which is periodically submitted to the UNFCCC; (iii) the calculations on national GHG emissions from the energy sector, prepared by both ANP and EPE, do not account for emissions from the future use of exported oil, as these emissions are accounted for by the countries that import the oil; (iv) Brazil has established projects, activities, programs, and policy measures to monitor and mitigate its emissions, monitor impacts, and adapt to climate change; (v) the deliberations of the CNPE, the body for the formulation of energy policies and guidelines, are carried out based on studies, assessments, and technical documents from government bodies and entities in the energy sector, and these documents do not include data on potential emissions. The dismissal of the action without prejudice was requested due to the failure to attach an essential document, lack of standing, and lack of procedural interest, and, subsidiarily, should the Court not agree with this understanding, that the exhaustion of the procedure be recognized, in view of the information presented through the Information Note.

In the ruling, after the presentation of information provided by the defendants and the plaintiff's request for dismissal of the case, the judge approved the withdrawal request and dismissed the case without prejudice. The parties were notified, and the case was archived, with no further appeal possible.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for urgent relief, filed by the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) against the Estate of Celestino Alécio Fuchina Facco, Tereza Stefanello Facco, Tiago Stefanello Facco, Lucas Stefanello Facco, and Natascha Maria Pedroso Facco, seeking reparation for environmental damage caused by the deforestation of 913.35 hectares of native vegetation in the municipality of Ulianópolis, Pará. IBAMA cites a series of damages resulting from the deforestation, including global warming and climate impacts, without elaborating on the issue. It is argued that objective environmental civil liability and the obligation to repair, of a propter rem nature, justify filing the lawsuit against those who would be the current owners of the area. In preliminary proceedings, the plaintiffs request a ban on the economic use of the area during the course of the proceedings, the suspension of financing and tax incentives and access to credit lines, and the freezing of the defendants' assets to guarantee the remediation of the damage. In final proceedings, the plaintiffs request the environmental restoration of 913,356 hectares of the Amazon Rainforest and the payment of compensation for the interim and residual damages caused to the ecological heritage, in addition to compensation for moral damages and reimbursement for the illicitly obtained economic benefit.

In a preliminary decision, the court partially granted the provisional injunction, ordering (i) the prohibition of exploitation of the deforested area during the course of the case, (ii) the suspension of financing and tax incentives and access to credit lines, and (iii) the freezing of the defendant's assets relating to the properties where environmental degradation occurred.

In light of the aforementioned decision, Lucas Stefanello Facco and Tiago Stefanello Facco filed an interlocutory appeal, which is currently awaiting judgment.

In their defense, the defendants alleged lis pendens, lack of standing of IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources), lack of standing of the defendants because the area is currently in the name of third parties, inadequacy of the initial pleading, and lack of procedural interest in bringing the lawsuit. On the merits, they requested the complete dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims. They argued that the area indicated by the environmental agency is suitable for economic exploitation, as environmental licenses for the development of productive activity in the location had been regularized. They asserted that the areas were maintained in natural regeneration, without worsening of the situation, and that the claim for damages claimed against the defendants was excessive.

The Climate Observatory and the Arayara Institute submitted a request to join the case as amicus curiae, which was granted by the court.

The Climate Observatory submitted a statement to support the decision on the merits regarding the need for explicit recognition of climate damage. They argue that international commitments and national legislation guarantee the right to climate stability, an integral part of the fundamental right to an ecologically balanced environment. According to the amicus curiae, the plaintiff's request for compensation for interim and residual damages includes climate damage, with global warming and climate impacts being expressly mentioned in the initial petition as damages resulting from deforestation. However, they alleged that, at the time the case was filed, there was no methodology that allowed for its immediate quantification, leading IBAMA to request its assessment during the sentence enforcement phase. The Climate Observatory then submitted, along with its statement, a Technical Note with a methodology for quantifying and pricing the carbon dioxide (CO2) released into the atmosphere due to the deforestation of the area indicated in the initial petition. Starting from the standard price of US$5.00/tCO2e, practiced by the Amazon Fund to raise resources for forest preservation, the climate damage in this specific case was calculated at R$23,159,018.18. It was argued that the climate damage resulting from illegal deforestation is a type of environmental damage that cannot be ignored, especially considering the principle of full reparation for environmental damage.

In August 2025, a judgment was issued that partially granted the requests. The defendants were ordered to regenerate the deforested area, and the determinations made in the preliminary injunction were upheld. The requests for compensation for collective moral damages, compensatory material damages, and climate damage were denied due to a lack of evidence of current harmful conduct or a direct causal link attributable to the successors. In justifying the denial of these requests, the court acknowledged that the area had been degraded in the past but was undergoing a process of regeneration, as the defendants presented technical reports, images, notarial deeds, and documents from the PRA (Environmental Regularization Program) that corroborated their claims and justified the lack of a judgment ordering payment. Specifically regarding the request for consideration of climate damage caused by degradation, requested by the Climate Observatory in its capacity as amicus curiae, it was argued that, despite being a tool of notable value and importance and whose technical and regulatory advancement would be undeniable, it would not be possible to assess this damage in the present case, since the request was presented in an accessory capacity, without full adversarial proceedings from the parties and without expert technical evidence, which makes it impossible to directly determine a value based on external parameters or generic estimates, such as pricing per ton of CO2 emitted. The judgment granted preliminary injunction ex officio for the immediate prohibition of planting, trading of agricultural products, timber or livestock, including cattle, in the respective area.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Health and Sustainability Institute, with a request for urgent relief, against the Federal Government, IBAMA, Toyota do Brasil Ltda., Nissan do Brasil Automóveis Ltda., and Renault do Brasil SA, with the objective of declaring the nullity of Normative Instruction (IN) 23/2021, issued by IBAMA, which extends the validity of Licenses for the Use of Vehicle or Engine Configuration for models that do not meet the new pollutant emission limits of the PROCONVE L-7 phase, provided for in CONAMA Resolution 491/2018, relating to light road vehicles. The Resolution deals with the Air Pollution Program for Motor Vehicles (PROCONVE), which, among its objectives, seeks to reduce pollutant emission levels from motor vehicles to meet Air Quality Standards. The plaintiff organization emphasizes that the extension established in the IN was the result of a request made by the defendant companies. The argument is that the IN (Normative Instruction) extends the permission for the production and sale of vehicles that emit more greenhouse gases (GHG) and goes against the emission reduction commitments assumed by Brazil under the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). Furthermore, it contradicts the duty of the Public Authorities to protect the environment, as stipulated in Article 225 of the Federal Constitution, and the principles of prevention, precaution, and prohibition of environmental regression. It also states that the regulatory change generates environmental damage, harm to human health, and damage to the climate system, insofar as it authorizes the unrestricted growth of the automotive fleet, characterized by the burning of fossil fuels, demonstrably responsible for exacerbating the greenhouse effect. It argues that the effects of the climate crisis disproportionately affect the most socioeconomically vulnerable populations. For these reasons, it requests, among other measures, in advance, (i) the suspension of the effects of IN 23/2021 and, on the merits, (ii) the declaration of nullity of said IN, (iii) the condemnation of the defendants for material damages to the environment and (iv) the condemnation of the defendants to pay compensation for collective damages.

In its ruling, the court noted the participation of the Institute of Collective Law (IDC) as an interested third party and informed that it will consider the amicus curiae request in due course.

The court granted the request for urgent relief and ordered the defendants to submit reports detailing the number of vehicles produced between December 31, 2021, and March 31, 2022, that did not meet the emission limits of the PROCONVE L-7 phase, and suspended the effects of IN 23/2021. Furthermore, it granted the admission of amicus curiae and the admission of the Federal Public Defender's Office as a co-litigant assistant to the plaintiff.

IBAMA filed an interlocutory appeal against the decision granting preliminary injunction, arguing primarily that the annulment of IN 23/2021 would not bring any benefit to the environment, considering that its validity has already expired, but would only render illegal the vehicles completed and marketed under its validity. In this sense, it requested the reversal of the appealed decision so that the consolidated situations are maintained. Subsequently, the appeal was partially granted by the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region (TRF-3) to revoke the appealed decision regarding the suspension of the effects of IN 23/2021 and regarding the order for the defendants to present documents. The argument that the non-renewal of the licenses would generate significant environmental damage was accepted, since it would interrupt the production of these automobiles, transforming them into environmental waste.

In its defense, Toyota do Brasil argued that, although it had requested temporary authorization from IBAMA and CONAMA to finalize the manufacture of vehicles according to the specifications of phase L-6 of PROCONVE, it did not use the extension granted by IN 23/2021, as all vehicles related to that phase were completed in 2021. It argued for the recognition of the inadequacy of the chosen legal avenue for filing the lawsuit and for the company's lack of standing to be sued. It defended the legality of IN 23/2021, as it was a measure widely discussed and issued by a competent body. It clarified that the IN only covered vehicles whose engines were already authorized for the PROCONVE L-6 phase, but which had not been completed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, thus negating any claim of regression or environmental damage. It requested, preliminarily, the dismissal of the case without prejudice. In his final statement, he requested that the initial claims be dismissed.

In its defense, Nissan argued that it was not a legitimate party to be named as a defendant in the lawsuit because it did not fall under the scope of IN 23/2021. It alleged that it did not extend the production of PROCONVE vehicles from phase L-6 beyond the date established in the IN and that all vehicles produced by the defendant from 2022 onwards already complied with the requirements of phase L-7 of the program. It argued that the IN is valid and maintained that the company's liability for the alleged damages had not been proven. Furthermore, it clarified that its production activities are compatible with national and international climate goals and commitments. It requested recognition of the company's lack of standing as a defendant and, subsidiarily, that the claims be dismissed.

IBAMA also filed a rebuttal. It raised preliminary objections regarding the inadequacy of the chosen legal avenue for the requested judicial protection. It argued for the legality and constitutionality of IN 23/2021, since the administrative act only extended the validity of some Licenses for Use of Vehicle or Engine Configuration (LCVM) issued in phase L-6 of PROCONVE, totaling 5,398 vehicles manufactured during its period of coverage. It clarifies that the IN (Normative Instruction) stipulated that vehicle manufacturers and importers with vehicles whose production was incomplete due to a lack of electronic components caused by the COVID-19 pandemic should inform IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) of the affected quantities by January 31, 2022, in order to complete their production by March 31, 2022, and conclude their commercialization by June 30, 2022. The normative act stipulated that if the vehicles could not have their final assembly completed by the beginning of 2022, they could not be used and would be discarded. Therefore, the IN established a "carry-over stock" of vehicles to allow the entry into the market of those already in the manufacturing process, whose engines did not represent an increase in emissions beyond what was already foreseen for phase L-6 of PROCONVE (Brazilian Vehicle Emissions Control Program) and, thus, would not constitute environmental damage. IBAMA requested the dismissal of the action without prejudice and, alternatively, a judgment of dismissal of the claims, with the revocation of the provisional injunction granted.

In its defense, the Federal Union argued, preliminarily, that it lacked standing to be sued and that the chosen legal avenue for filing the claim was inappropriate. It defended the validity and effectiveness of IN 23/2021, which was issued due to force majeure caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, aiming to prevent a greater financial crisis. It argued that the Union had no civil liability, that there were no material damages to the environment or collective moral damages, and challenged the amount of compensation requested in the initial claim. It requested that the preliminary objections be upheld in order to dismiss the action without prejudice and, subsidiarily, that the claims be dismissed.

Renault do Brasil SA, in its defense, argued that, of the 5,398 vehicle units whose manufacture was completed in 2022 based on IN 23/2021, only 125 belong to the brand. It stated that, also during 2021, Renault had produced other vehicles ahead of schedule that already met phase L-7 of PROCONVE. It clarified that the IN did not imply an increase in the circulating vehicle fleet beyond what was foreseen for phase L-6 of the program. It reiterated arguments used by the other defendant automotive companies regarding the legality, validity, and proportionality of the IN. It defended that the completion of the production of 125 vehicles in accordance with phase L-6 of PROCONVE by the company did not cause environmental damage. It requested a judgment dismissing the claims made in the initial complaint. Alternatively, it requested that the fact that Renault produced and marketed 125 vehicles based on IN 23/2021 (2.31% of existing vehicles covered by the IN) be considered, so that any liability of Renault for environmental damage or collective moral damage should be limited to that proportion.

The parties were called upon to state what evidence they intended to produce. On this occasion, the Institute of Collective Law (IDC), amicus curiae, filed a petition requesting that the documents and studies submitted by the plaintiff be analyzed, also determining the reversal of the burden of proof requested, and that all requests made in the initial complaint be deemed admissible, considering that IN 23/2021 is inconsistent with Brazilian efforts to reduce the impact on the climate crisis and should be clearly informed and justified.

The court issued a judgment dismissing the claims made in the initial petition, highlighting the self-restraint of the judiciary and the deference shown towards the examinations carried out by IBAMA, considering the technical discretion and expertise of the agency in environmental matters and the non-disregard for the presumptions of truthfulness and legitimacy of the administrative act. In view of the opinions presented, it is noted that the extension of the licenses and, consequently, of the stock transfer period, by only three months, would not have significantly worsened the environmental condition. It was considered that there is no increase in the number of vehicles in phase 6, but only the late completion of a small number of vehicles (5,398), duly cataloged, whose production had already begun in 2021 and could not be finalized due to a lack of essential components. Thus, it considers that there is no illegality or violation of constitutional provisions and emphasizes that the publication of IN 23/2021 in the last days of 2021 is due to the actual impossibility of meeting the deadline for completing the manufacturing of vehicles already licensed in that year. Finally, the court understands that the negative environmental impact that would result from the implementation of IN 23/2021 would not exceed the values already considered in the CONAMA Resolutions.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief proposed by the Arayara Institute of Education and Culture for Sustainability, Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB) and Rio dos Pardos Aldeia Kupli Indigenous Land against the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP), Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) and the Federal Union. This action is part of a set of 6 ACPs proposed against the 4th Cycle of Permanent Offer of Concession of oil exploration blocks. The aim is to challenge the bidding auction for oil exploration blocks carried out through the 4th Cycle of Permanent Offers. It is argued that the inclusion of blocks AM-T-38, AM-T-83, AM-T-107, AM-T-113, AM-T-114, AM-T-131, AM-T-132, AM-T-133, AM-T-148, AM-T-149, AM-T-150, AM-T-152, PAR-T-335 and PAR-T-344, located in the Paraná and Amazon Basins, in the auction is illegal, as they overlap with areas of influence or restriction of 23 indigenous lands, and there was no prior, free and informed consultation process. The blocks also overlap areas of direct influence of indigenous lands where isolated peoples live. It is understood as a configuration of environmental racism, given that the proximity of exploratory blocks to indigenous lands presents risks to health, the environment and the use of the territory by the people who live there. It is argued that the climate crisis scenario requires an energy transition to clean energy and the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, which is incompatible with the expansion of oil exploration. Furthermore, it clarifies that indigenous lands are essential to combat this crisis, as they are barriers against deforestation and forest degradation and their inhabitants are the main guardians of the environment. The administrative act issued jointly by the Ministry of Mines, Energy and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change that authorized the offer of the aforementioned blocks is also contested. It is requested, as a preliminary measure, the suspension of Joint Manifestations 17/2020, 12/31/2018 and 08/2020 and the suspension of the offer of the contested exploration blocks in the 4th Permanent Offer Cycle, until a new Joint Manifestation is held that observes the protection of indigenous rights. In the final instance, it is requested (i) the recognition of the nullity of the Joint Manifestations with regard to the exploratory blocks; (ii) the determination of the exclusion of the contested blocks from the Bidding Cycle until a new Joint Statement is issued that observes the protection of the affected indigenous rights.

The court denied the preliminary request, arguing that a more in-depth analysis of the issues was necessary. Partially rejected the initial petition with regard to blocks PAR-T-335 and PAR-T-344 located in the Paraná Basin, as it was understood that this was not within the functional jurisdiction of the judicial section. It was stated that there was no longer any procedural interest in challenging some exploratory blocks since, with the auction, only blocks AM-T-107 and AM-T-133 were sold, and the process should continue only with regard to these. It included the company Atem Participações SA as a necessary passive joint party, as it was the successful bidder for exploratory blocks. He ordered FUNAI to be summoned to respond.

IBAMA and ANP filed a response, in which they stated that there is no overlap between the blocks offered and the indigenous lands and that the preliminary procedure for Environmental Assessment of Sedimentary Areas (AAAS) should not be confused with the subsequent environmental licensing process, in which the viability, restrictions and control measures for the project will be assessed. They highlighted the economic benefits of oil exploration for Brazilian society and that in the International Energy Agency's NetZero 2050 scenario, the energy matrix will still rely on oil and natural gas as primary energy and that the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from projects can be assessed in the environmental licensing phase under the financial burden of the entrepreneur. The ANP clarified that it promotes shareholder participation before promoting bids for granting oil and natural gas exploration rights. They highlighted that the simple bidding process does not pose a risk to the environment. They requested recognition of the connection with court records from the 4th Federal Civil Court of SJRN; the recognition of IBAMA's passive illegitimacy; the recognition of the active illegitimacy of the authors and that the action be judged inadmissible.

In response, the Union, in addition to addressing the licensing issues already addressed by other federal bodies, alleged that the offer of the contested blocks is technically supported by the rules issued by the competent bodies. IT requested that the claims be declared unfounded.

Atem Participações SA filed a response in which it highlighted that holding a bidding process does not pose any risk to the environment and that all impacts of the projects to be explored will be assessed during the environmental licensing phase. It requested that the claims be ruled inadmissible. 

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for urgent relief, filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the state of Mato Grosso (MPMT) against Joel Rubin, seeking compensation for material and moral damages resulting from the deforestation of 296.2541 hectares in an area of Legal Reserve (RL) on the Silva I Farm, in the municipality of Nova Maringá, in Mato Grosso. The deforestation took place without authorization from the environmental agency between 2015 and 2018. It is mentioned that the damage caused by the emission of greenhouse gases resulting from deforestation violates the provisions of the National Climate Change Policy (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the State Climate Change Policy (State Law 582/2017) and contributes to global climate change. It argues that the Brazilian legal system enshrines the principle of preserving climate integrity and warns of the intensification of the effects of global warming. It is alleged that the environmental civil liability is objective and the obligation of reparation of a propter rem nature justifies the filing of the lawsuit. In the preliminary injunction, it is requested, among other measures, the prohibition of the economic use of the area during the processing of the dispute, the recovery of the degraded or altered area, the suspension of financing and tax incentives and access to credit lines, and the registration of the ACP in the property deed. In a definitive manner, it is requested the payment of compensation for material environmental damages, estimated at R$ 12,169,649.70, and for moral damages, to be arbitrated.

In a preliminary decision, the court partially granted the provisional urgent relief, limiting it to the registration of the filing of the lawsuit in the property's registry.

In his defense, the defendant claimed that the property whose area was deforested was sold in 2017 by him to Milton Paulo Cella and that, therefore, he would not be the author of the deforestation nor a legitimate party to appear as a passive party in the action. On the merits, he requested the total dismissal of the plaintiff's claims. He argued that the recovery of the area should be preferred to the payment of compensation, that it was impossible to cumulate compensation for material and moral damages, and that there was no moral damages.

In response, the MPMT requested an amendment to the initial petition to include Milton Paulo Cella and Diogo Ricardo Bavaresco as passive parties in the action, as they acquired the deforested area, which was accepted by the defendant.

Due to the connection of this lawsuit with others that are being filed against the defendant in the Federal Court of the First Region, the action was forwarded to the Federal court under number 1002350-88.2024.4.01.3604.

This is a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI), with a request for a precautionary measure, filed by the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB), the Socialism and Liberty Party, and the Sustainability Network, aiming to declare unconstitutional provisions of Federal Law 14.701/2023 previously vetoed by the President of the Republic, but reversed by the National Congress. It is argued that the approved law represents a setback to the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples, such as the suppression of the right to free, prior and informed consultation, the original right to their historically occupied territories and their collective possession, the right to life and culture. It is argued that the rights of indigenous peoples have been attacked by parliamentary majorities in opposition to decisions of the Supreme Federal Court in its counter-majoritarian function of guaranteeing fundamental rights. In September 2023, the judgment of Extraordinary Appeal (RE) 1,017,365, with recognized general repercussion (Theme 1,031), was finalized, in which the "time frame" thesis was rejected by a majority of the Supreme Federal Court (STF). On that occasion, the court reinforced the protection of the territorial rights of indigenous peoples and the protection of the environment in the context of the climate emergency. Subsequently, parliamentarians revived, under urgency procedures, draft laws (PLs) contrary to the established jurisprudential understanding, including PL 490/2007, later approved as Federal Law 14,701/2023 and enacted with vetoes to certain articles. It is evident that Indigenous Lands contribute to climate balance, as they are fundamental for the protection of biodiversity, forests, and water. In this sense, the approved law has different forms of unconstitutionality and puts environmental assets at risk, with the potential to exacerbate deforestation and the climate emergency. A preliminary injunction is requested to suspend the effectiveness of the challenged articles of Law 14.701/2023. On the merits, it is requested that the action be heard and that its requests be granted, confirming the preliminary injunction requests, so that the provisions of the challenged law are declared unconstitutional. It is requested that, in accordance with articles 231 and 232 of the Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988, the territorial rights of indigenous peoples be recognized as fundamental rights and entrenched clauses. A request for incidental preliminary injunction was presented, alleging an increase in violence against indigenous peoples in territorial disputes following the enactment of Federal Law 14.701/2023. A scenario of violations of territorial rights and increased environmental degradation is presented. The suspension of the effectiveness of the challenged provisions of the Law was requested. The request for precautionary measures was analyzed in a joint decision on ADC 87, ADI 7583, ADI 7586, and ADO 86. The reporting judge, Gilmar Mendes, understood that there was a conflict between provisions of Law 14.701/2023 and the understanding of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) established in the judgment of RE 1.017.365/SC and pronouncements of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the subject. He ordered the suspension of all judicial proceedings discussing the constitutionality of the challenged law. He ordered the notification of all plaintiffs in the concentrated constitutional review actions considered, as well as the Heads of the Executive and Legislative Branches, the Attorney General's Office, and the Prosecutor General's Office, so that, within 30 days, they may present proposals for the resolution of the disputes through the use of consensual means. It determined the joint processing of ADC 87, ADIs 7582, 7583 and 7586 and ADO 86.

Since August 2024, the present case and related actions have been in conciliation proceedings before the Special Self-Composition Commission established by the Supreme Federal Court.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for preliminary injunction, filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of Rio Grande do Sul (MPRS) against the State of Rio Grande do Sul and FEPAM. The aim is to prevent the implementation of the Petrochemical Hub in the State and the State Policy on Mineral Coal. The MPRS questions the lack of public participation, especially through public hearings, in the legislative process for the enactment of State Law 15.047/2017, which authorized the creation of the Petrochemical Hub and established the State Policy on Mineral Coal. Furthermore, it argues that a prior environmental impact study should have been conducted for the implementation of the Hub, considering the climatic impacts of the activities in the area, which will be located in the Lower Jacuí and Campanha complexes. It alleges the absence of a prior strategic environmental assessment before the establishment of the "Rio Grande do Sul Petrochemical Hub" program and of an environmental impact study for the implementation of said Hub, which would consider the synergistic and global effects of all activities included in the program. The MPRS (Public Prosecutor's Office of Rio Grande do Sul) argues that the regulation promotes a policy that encourages the use of an energy matrix with a high impact on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The MPRS highlights the proximity of the petrochemical complexes to Conservation Units, protected and listed areas, and cities. It alleges that the implementation of the Polo (industrial complex) is being driven solely by the Environmental Impact Study/Environmental Impact Report (EIA/RIMA) specific to the Guaíba Mine, located in the Baixo Jacuí Complex area, but that it does not take the entire complex into account. It argues that the State Law does not address, among other issues, environmental concerns, contradicting federal and state legislation on climate change. The granting of an injunction is requested to prevent, among other actions, (i) the implementation of the State Coal Mining Policy and the establishment of the Petrochemical Hub and (ii) the issuance of an environmental license for a project located within the boundaries of the two complexes, until any creation of a Petrochemical Hub and implementation of the State Coal Mining Policy are preceded by widely convened public hearings and a prior environmental impact study and strategic environmental assessment for the complexes. In a final ruling, confirmation of the preliminary injunctions is requested in order to declare the illegality of the legislative process that led to the enactment of the State Law because it was not preceded by public hearings, a strategic environmental assessment, and an EIA/RIMA (Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report).

Subsequently, it was determined that this action would be joined with ACP 9019860-68.2020.8.21.0001, filed by the Arayara Association of Education and Culture and the Z-5 Fishermen's Colony regarding the Guaíba Mine project, due to the connection between the claims. The case was reassigned to another court, becoming number 5091523-82.2019.8.21.0001.

The Public Prosecutor's Office of Rio Grande do Sul (MPRS), the State Foundation for Environmental Protection (FEPAM), and the state of Rio Grande do Sul filed a joint petition requesting the approval of an agreement to end the lawsuit. They considered that the factual, technical, political, and legal circumstances that led to the filing of this public civil action have undergone significant changes during the course of the proceedings, with changes in the state's energy landscape. They argued that there is no concrete indication that the state will adopt a State Policy on Mineral Coal or the establishment of a Petrochemical Hub. In the agreement, the state assumed the duty to develop, prior to initiatives for the implementation or licensing of a policy that adopts these fossil fuels or projects, a new terms of reference and to contract a comprehensive Strategic Environmental Assessment to support decision-making processes.

The agreement was approved, the merits of the case were resolved, and the process was terminated.

This is an action filed as an Ordinary Action (ProcedCom), with a request for preliminary injunction, by Flexpetro Distribuidora de Derivados de Petróleo Ltda. against the ANP and the Federal Government, aiming to remove the target for acquiring Decarbonization Credits (CBios) for the plaintiff company. CBios were established by the National Biofuels Policy (Federal Law 13.576/2017), known as RenovaBio. Among other objectives, the Policy seeks to contribute to the fulfillment of the commitments assumed by Brazil under the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017), promote the expansion of biofuels in the energy matrix, and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the production, marketing, and use of biofuels. To this end, the law foresees as its main instrument the establishment of annual national decarbonization targets for the fuel sector, which are individualized each year for fuel distributors and met by companies through the acquisition of CBios available on the Stock Exchange (B3), under penalty of sanctions provided for in the Law. The annual reduction targets are set by the National Energy Policy Council (CNPE). The individual targets are indicated by the ANP (National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels). CBios are issued by producers or exporters of biofuels authorized by the ANP, and the issuance of these assets is not mandatory for all of them. The plaintiff company alleges that, in establishing the decarbonization targets in June and July 2019 (referring to the year 2019 and the decade 2020-2029), the ANP acted in violation of the RenovaBio Law, since it published them without any parameter regarding the availability of CBios in the market and without regulation of the certification process for these assets. It emphasizes that, in December 2019, the ANP (National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels) established the procedures for generating the necessary collateral for CBios (Carbon Credits) and that the platform for trading these assets only became operational in April 2020. It argues that, in establishing the CBio acquisition targets that fuel distributors should achieve in 2020, the ANP failed to consider the availability of assets in the market, and there is no certainty regarding sufficient availability for the company to meet its stipulated target. It argues that this situation impacted asset prices, making it impossible to meet the target set by the ANP for 2020. It alleges that the ANP resolutions and orders established to regulate the matter are illegal, as they failed to observe the provisions of the RenovaBio Law, which mandates the establishment of feasible and viable targets. The plaintiff company requests, as a preliminary measure, the immediate suspension of its mandatory target stipulated by several ANP (National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels) rulings from 2019 and 2020 regarding the acquisition of CBios (Carbon Credits), and that the application of fines and sanctions due to the non-acquisition of CBios be prohibited in relation to the plaintiff. On the merits, it requests (i) the recognition of the illegality of the CNPE (National Council for Energy Policy) Resolutions, as well as the ANP rulings, for contradicting the provisions of the RenovaBio Law by establishing the mandatory targets to be met by fuel distributors, or alternatively the annulment of the administrative act, for lacking legal support and, consequently, (ii) that the plaintiff not be compelled to acquire CBios, and that the application of fines, sanctions and penalties by the ANP to the plaintiff company due to the non-acquisition of credits be prohibited. A decision was issued finding that the probability of the right was present, as the existence of obstacles to the regular fulfillment of the established goals was demonstrated, as well as the well-founded fear of irreparable or difficult-to-repair damage due to the concrete possibility of the plaintiff company being penalized with fines or sanctions for non-compliance with the established goals. Therefore, the court granted the preliminary injunction to suspend the mandatory goal stipulated for the plaintiff company regarding the acquisition of CBios, and to prevent the defendants from applying fines and/or sanctions due to non-compliance with this goal, until a further decision. Subsequently, the decision was revoked due to the judgment of the interlocutory appeal 5059210-44.2020.4.04.0000 filed by the ANP. The appeal was granted in accordance with the vote of the Reporting Judge, who based her decision on the following main points: (i) the mandatory annual decarbonization and CBio acquisition targets for the year 2020 were known to fuel distributors since 2018; (ii) in 2020 there was only a determination to reduce the year's target by 50%, which benefited the distributors; (iii) the allegation that the deadline for meeting the individual targets is too short does not merit consideration, since the acts that established them were already in full force and the supply of CBios was already available at reduced prices; (iv) maintaining the challenged decision could lead to unfair competition among distribution companies; (v) no illegality is observed in the CNPE resolutions or ANP orders relating to the mandatory targets; and (vi) it is not for the Judiciary to re-evaluate the criteria adopted by the Public Administration in this case, since no illegality is observed.

In its defense, the Federal Union argues that the object of the lawsuit has been lost, given that the plaintiff was unsuccessful in its request for provisional relief, the targets stipulated for the period remain in effect, and given the expiration of the deadline for proof (until December 31, 2020), the present lawsuit is no longer useful. On the merits, it argues: (i) the CNPE's proactive competence to set annual decarbonization targets; (ii) that the creation of CBios is in line with environmental regulations, constituting an economic instrument aimed at protecting the environment and providing quality of life for present and future generations, especially given the reduction in pollutant emissions; (iii) the absence of delay in the disclosure of annual targets; (iv) the validity, timeliness, and legitimacy of the regulations governing CBios; (v) that there was sufficient time for the acquisition of CBios and their full availability on the market; (vi) that any granting of the initial requests would negatively interfere with compliance with international agreements to reduce carbon emissions; and (vii) that the claim contained in the initial petition constitutes interference by the Judiciary in the actions of the Executive Branch.

A judgment was issued dismissing the claim, based on the following main grounds: (i) CNPE Resolution 15/2019 exceptionally allowed the 2019 target, effective from December 24th, to be proven in 2020, cumulatively with the following year's target and proportionally to the number of days of its validity; (ii) the fact that the CBio trading platform became operational in mid-2020 did not prejudice the acquisition of credits by companies in the sector, as disclosed by ANP, with most companies fully meeting the established target; and (iii) in accordance with jurisprudence, which has considered the mandatory targets set to be legitimate and reasonable, it was understood that it is not up to the Judiciary to reassess the criteria adopted by the Public Administration. After the judgment was issued, Flexpetro filed an appeal.

In July 2025, the Court dismissed the appeal, based on the same arguments and grounds as the appealed judgment, highlighting the validity of the regulatory standards that define the mandatory annual targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the sale of fuels.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for urgent relief, filed by IBAMA against Silmar Gomes Moreira seeking compensation for environmental and climate damages based on an infraction notice for the storage of logs without an environmental license. This ACP is part of a set of 9 actions filed by IBAMA with the same grounds, but against different defendants, to challenge illegal timber storage and climate damage. The plaintiff alleges that the storage of timber without proven origin is associated with illegal deforestation and predatory exploitation in the Amazon biome. Thus, it seeks compensation for associated environmental damages, including (i) damage caused to flora and fauna, (ii) soil erosion, (iii) contribution to global warming. Regarding climate damage, it claims that the illegal conduct not only removed carbon sinks from the forest but also caused the release of carbon into the atmosphere. The author seeks to have determined (i) an obligation to restore vegetation in an area equivalent to that estimated by IBAMA, based on the volume of seized logs, totaling 20.6365 hectares, and (ii) an obligation to pay for climate damage based on the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). Based on the polluter-pays principle, the author argues that the negative climate externality represents an external social cost that was not internalized by the illegal vegetation suppression activity. The author maintains that climate damage can be identified on an individual scale by multiplying the estimated GHG emissions from the activity by the SCC. In this specific case, IBAMA uses the Amazon Fund methodology to estimate emissions based on the area of the Amazon biome considered deforested, totaling 7,573.5955 tons of carbon. The author expressly mentions environmental justice and argues that accountability for climate damage consists of legally affirming the correction of the distortion of environmental burdens and benefits. The author requests, as an urgent measure: (i) suspension of financing, tax incentives, and access to credit lines for the offender, (ii) freezing of assets in the estimated amount for the obligation to restore vegetation and the obligation to pay for climate damage, and (iii) a court order to halt the illegal polluting activity. The author further asserts the need for reversal of the burden of proof and, definitively, requests that the defendant be ordered to restore an area equivalent to the deforested area and to pay the amount corresponding to the social cost of carbon emissions.

The court ruled that the preliminary injunction was denied, finding no urgency in the provision or danger in delay. IBAMA filed an interlocutory appeal against the decision (AI 1012699-74.2019.4.01.0000), which was subsequently dismissed due to loss of object with the supervening judgment on the merits.

The defendant filed a response alleging the initial complaint was flawed regarding the claim for compensation for environmental damages, arguing that the concrete facts of liability had not been indicated. He asserted the insignificance of the deforestation, which he claimed occurred to ensure the family's survival and was irrelevant in extent when compared to the total preserved area. On the merits, he questioned the infraction notice that forms the basis of the initial complaint, stating that a milder penalty of vegetation restoration could have been applied. He alleged that the infraction notice issued by IBAMA was illegal and that his right to due process and a full defense had been violated; in addition to abuse by the inspectors involved. He asserted the absence of the elements necessary to characterize objective liability, alleging the non-existence of specific and consequential environmental damage (to fauna, flora, soil erosion, and global warming). Finally, he asserted that the preliminary injunction requests and the reversal of the burden of proof were inadmissible. IBAMA submitted a rebuttal contesting the points raised in the defense, and attached Technical Information No. 10/2019-COREC/CGBIO/DBFLO, which explains how the calculation is made to arrive at the amount of compensation sought regarding the application of the Social Cost of Carbon (CSC).

There was a procedural decision in which the court denied the reversal of the burden of proof and summoned the plaintiff to, if desired, specify in detail the evidence they intended to produce. IBAMA filed an interlocutory appeal (AI 1012274-13.2020.4.01.0000) against the decision based on the understanding of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) that the precautionary principle attracts the determination of reversal of the burden of proof in actions for liability for environmental damage. The appeal was granted by the Court.

Subsequently, a judgment was issued that partially granted the requests. The defendant's arguments were refuted, and it was affirmed that the infraction notice met the validity requirements. It was understood that both the environmental damage and the causal link necessary for liability were demonstrated in the document. Thus, the defendant was ordered to carry out the in-kind restoration, being required to prepare and implement a reforestation project for the deforested area, under penalty of fine. The court also ordered the freezing of the defendant's assets to ensure compliance with the judgment, and the suspension of credit, incentives, and tax benefits granted by the Public Authorities until full reparation of the damage is proven. However, the request regarding the obligation to pay for climate damage was not granted. The court considered payment based on the CSC (Consumer Safety Code) not to be a feasible obligation, stating a lack of delimitation due to insufficient expert evidence.

IBAMA filed an appeal, reiterating the argument for the need for compensation based on the CSC (Construction Site Safety Code). The appellant states that the initial petition indicated and demonstrated the probable amount of GHG emissions caused by the suppression carried out by the defendant, as well as indicating monetary values for its due compensation. It affirmed that the values presented are reasonably accurate estimates based on scientific data. The judgment, however, despite condemning the defendant for the damage and ordering the restoration of the area, denied the request for payment for climate damage. The appellant argues that, since the damage is certain and proven, it cannot be allowed to go unrepaired, and the judgment should be reformed in this respect. The appellee presented counter-arguments defending the maintenance of the judgment, and the appeal is still awaiting judgment.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for urgent relief, filed by IBAMA against Madelin Madeireira Linhares LTDA seeking compensation for environmental and climate damages based on an infraction notice for the storage of logs without an environmental license. This ACP is part of a set of 9 actions filed by IBAMA with the same grounds, but against different defendants, to challenge illegal timber storage and climate damage. The plaintiff alleges that the storage of timber without proven origin is associated with illegal deforestation and predatory exploitation in the Amazon biome. Thus, it seeks compensation for associated environmental damages, including (i) damage caused to flora and fauna, (ii) soil erosion, (iii) contribution to global warming. Regarding climate damage, it claims that the illegal conduct not only removed carbon sinks from the forest but also caused the release of carbon into the atmosphere. The author seeks to have determined (i) an obligation to restore vegetation in an area equivalent to that estimated by IBAMA, based on the volume of seized logs, totaling 43.2727 hectares, and (ii) an obligation to pay for climate damage based on the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). Based on the polluter-pays principle, the author argues that the negative climate externality represents an external social cost that was not internalized by the illegal vegetation suppression activity. The author maintains that climate damage can be identified on an individual scale by multiplying the estimated GHG emissions from the activity by the SCC. In this specific case, IBAMA uses the Amazon Fund methodology to estimate emissions based on the area of the Amazon biome considered deforested, totaling 15,881.0809 tons of carbon. The author expressly mentions environmental justice and argues that accountability for climate damage consists of legally affirming the correction of the distortion of environmental burdens and benefits. The author requests, as an urgent measure: (i) suspension of financing, tax incentives, and access to credit lines for the offender, (ii) freezing of assets in the estimated amount for the obligation to restore vegetation and the obligation to pay for climate damage, and (iii) a court order to halt the illegal polluting activity. The author further asserts the need for reversal of the burden of proof and, definitively, requests that the defendant be ordered to restore an area equivalent to the deforested area and to pay the amount corresponding to the social cost of carbon emissions.

The defendant filed a response alleging, preliminarily, the court's lack of jurisdiction, IBAMA's lack of standing, and the occurrence of lis pendens. On the merits, it argued the existence of an ongoing administrative process, the lack of proof of causality, and disagreement regarding IBAMA's calculation methods for identifying the volume of seized timber and the collective environmental damage (CSC).

A judgment was issued dismissing the case without prejudice due to IBAMA's lack of standing. According to the decision, based on the principle of the predominance of interests in the distribution of environmental responsibilities, there was no federal interest involved that would justify IBAMA's intervention.

In response to the ruling, IBAMA filed an appeal, arguing its standing to sue based on an express legal provision. In its counter-arguments, the appellee company reiterated its arguments contesting the decision and requested that the appeal be dismissed.

Subsequently, the court overturned the lower court's decision and recognized the standing of IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) to file the class action lawsuit for environmental damages, as well as that of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office. The case was then remanded to the lower court for proper processing.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for preliminary injunction, filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against the Union, the state of Rio Grande do Sul (RS) and nine municipalities in Vale do Taquari (RS) due to climate events that occurred between September and November 2023 and April and May 2024. It was subsequently admitted that the National Association of People Affected by Dams (ANAB) would also be part of the active party in the lawsuit. The aim is to recognize government omission/inefficiency in the disasters that occurred and to determine structural measures for better coordination between the federative entities in the implementation of public policies for climate adaptation and preparation, risk management and response to disasters. It is stated that RS has been victimized by disasters, the frequency and intensity of which have been increasing due to climate change. It is argued that the floods in the municipalities of the Taquari Valley demonstrate the existence of a flawed climate governance whose risk assessment and management systems for emergency response and prevention are inadequate. In contrast, it is argued that effective management of extreme climate events requires coordinated action between the different sectoral policies and the federal, state and municipal levels of government in order to prevent new disasters and recover the affected areas. In addition, it is stated that the predictability of the event and human action are important elements in the potentialization of the disaster, giving rise to the civil liability of the defendants for damages caused, without the possibility of invoking any exclusion of causality. It is mentioned that the action aims to guarantee climate justice, recognizing that extreme climate events have a more severe impact on vulnerable communities, which have contributed less to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and have fewer resources to adapt and recover. Thus, it is stated that mitigation strategies must be implemented simultaneously with climate adaptation measures, an obligation expressly established in art. 4th of the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC). It is argued that only with sustainable urban planning strategies, with the active participation of communities and based on the best techniques, will it be possible to build resilient solutions capable of reducing vulnerability to disasters. To this end, structural and non-structural measures for flood control and urban drainage systems are necessary, as well as the review of Master Plans, the improvement of warning and hydrological control systems, and the training of communities. In the preliminary proceedings, compliance with a series of immediate measures listed in the initial complaint to address the crisis is required. Medium- and long-term measures, which are not exhaustive, are also listed, with the aim of establishing initial parameters for a joint solution to the issue with the other defendants. In the final proceedings, it is required (i) that the defendants be ordered, with the active participation of the affected social groups, to prepare a restructuring plan, through incremental, successive and/or simultaneous measures, for the affected areas, with observance of climate adaptation and resilience; (ii) that the form of participation of the affected groups be established; (iii) that a dynamic be established for monitoring the restructuring plan by a committee with representatives from segments of civil society and the government.

This is a legal challenge filed by the Brazilian Institute for Consumer Protection (IDEC) against the car rental company, Localiza Rent a Car S/A. This action is part of a set of two challenges filed by IDEC alleging greenwashing practices and problems in the use of carbon credits from the voluntary market. In this case, Localiza is questioned for offering rental services with offsetting of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through the "Carbon Neutralization" and "Commitment to Climate" programs. However, IDEC believes that this initiative may constitute greenwashing due to the imprecision regarding the origin of the carbon credits, the apparent lack of information on the real benefits, and the effectiveness of the methods used to achieve the stated objectives. IDEC believes there are indications of greenwashing due to gaps in the information collected through the defendant's website. Furthermore, the offer would not comply with consumer law, as it violates objective good faith (Article 4, III, CDC), as well as the consumer's basic right to freedom of choice (Article 6, II, CDC) and to adequate and clear information (Article 6, III, CDC). The payment of an additional amount in a car rental contract for offsetting GHG emissions requires justification to be considered an offer that fulfills consumer rights; however, the consumer is misled due to a lack of adequate information, and thus believes that the defendant will provide a service that generates less environmental impact. Greenwashing is characterized as unfair practices that downplay the risks and threats to socio-environmental rights; therefore, it is believed that the defendant uses this tactic because GHG emission offset programs have a positive impact on its image. Firstly, because the service provided would be guided by ESG standards, generating a favorable image for the company. Furthermore, it affects a segment of consumers who base their consumption on socio-environmental criteria. It is stated that the purpose of filing the Judicial Interpellation is to allow the company Localiza to provide detailed explanations of its GHG emission compensation practices, as well as to enable the Interpellated party to correct any inconsistencies. The interpellator requests that documents be provided proving the veracity of the benefits of the programs offered in the car rental service, as well as that the questions presented regarding the programs be answered.

In response to the Judicial Interpellation, Localiza Rent a Car S/A presented information about the operation of its sustainability programs, such as the Neutraliza Program, and about how many tons of CO2 it has already offset. It stated that the information provided to consumers is clear, including the factors used to calculate emissions and the amount charged, and that consumers can freely and knowingly contract the programs. The contracted amounts are 100% converted into the purchase of carbon credits, which can be accessed in the company's sustainability report, and after offsetting GHG emissions, consumers receive a certificate informing them of their neutralized emissions. It also presented other information about the REDD+ Jari Amapá and Manoa Projects mentioned in the initial petition, indicating that they follow international standards and certifications, and are audited.

A ruling was issued to close the case, as the formal notification was deemed to be in order. The case was definitively archived.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against Joel de Souza for the deforestation of an area of 172.43 hectares between 2011 and 2020 in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant's occupation of the land was illegal because it is an area within an Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), owned and of interest to the Federal Government, managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractive communities. This ACP is part of a set of 22 actions filed by the MPF as a result of the investigation carried out in civil inquiry no. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, for illegal deforestation carried out within the Antimary Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), but against different defendants. The argument for the action is based, among other points, on Brazilian Environmental Law, regarding the constitutional protection of the environment, the accusation of deforestation, civil liability propter rem for environmental damages, including climate damages, and collective moral damages. It also mentions, as an environmental liability, the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) caused by the illegal deforestation of the area, calculated at 119,944.34 tons of carbon dioxide, which are directly related to the Brazilian State's departure from its climate goals, out of step with national and international commitments assumed by Brazil in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). Among other requests, the following is sought: (i) reparation for the damages caused by the illegal deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation corresponding to intermediate and residual environmental material damages; (iii) payment of compensation corresponding to climate damages; and (iv) payment of compensation corresponding to collective moral damages.

The defendant filed a response alleging the preliminary objection of lack of standing, the inadequacy of the initial pleading regarding the criteria for moral damages, and bringing a third-party claim. He argued that he was not the possessor or owner of the area, having been merely a holder; he denied having caused environmental damage; he stated that, in 2018, he "acquired a cattle herd in the region where the property is located, so that, since he was not the owner or possessor of any property in the area, he needed to rent/lease pastures for the purpose of grazing said cattle herd." Thus, he requested the acceptance of the preliminary objections with the dismissal of the case without prejudice or, subsidiarily, the dismissal of the action.

INCRA joined the lawsuit as a co-litigant assistant to the plaintiff. The court rejected the preliminary objections and denied the request for third-party intervention, thus resolving procedural issues.

In its judgment, the court ordered the defendant to (i) restore the degraded area; (ii) pay compensation for material damages related to interim and residual environmental damages, in an amount to be determined during the judgment enforcement phase; (iii) pay compensation for climate damages caused by deforestation, in the amount of R$ 3,298,469.42; and (iv) pay compensation for collective moral damages in the amount of R$ 603,505.00. The funds obtained from this action shall be allocated to the Fund for Diffuse Rights. The judgment recognized the existence of climate damage, unlawful conduct, and causal link, even though the defendant was not responsible for the deforestation itself, benefiting from the damage caused by a third party. For the calculation of the value of climate damage, the price of US$ 5.00 per ton of CO2e was adopted, according to Ordinance No. 176/2023.

The defendant filed an appeal requesting that the judgment be reversed and the claims dismissed.

This is a Judicial Inquiry filed by the Brazilian Institute for Consumer Protection (IDEC) against Gol Linhas Aéreas S.A. This action is part of a set of two Interpellations filed by IDEC alleging greenwashing and problems with the use of carbon credits from the voluntary market. This case against Gol challenges the airline's voluntary carbon offsetting initiatives through the "Meu Voo Compensa" program. IDEC questions the transparency, effectiveness, and veracity of the company's claims regarding the neutralization of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as the integrity of the carbon credits acquired and advertised as sustainable. According to the initial petition, Gol's greenwashing practice consists of using marketing and communication strategies to mislead consumers into believing that its operations are environmentally responsible, without any concrete, verifiable, and effective measures to substantiate such claims. An example of this behavior is the use of an aircraft labeled "Green Plane" to reinforce its sustainable image, even though the aircraft itself lacked technical or operational advantages that would effectively make it more environmentally friendly. IDEC requires GOL Linhas Aéreas to answer a series of questions related to the transparency, legal nature, calculation and compensation methods of the "Meu Voo Compensa" program, as well as the allocation of consumer payments, and other environmental initiatives publicized by the company.

In response to the Inquiry, Gol Linhas Aéreas filed a statement denying any greenwashing and maintaining that its sustainability actions are transparent, audited, and based on internationally recognized methodologies. The company emphasizes that it uses the GHG Protocol to calculate emissions and acquires carbon credits validated by the international certification body Verra, which are tracked via blockchain. The company also reports that it has published sustainability reports audited by Ernst & Young, reaffirming its commitment to ESG practices and GHG reduction. Gol argues that carbon offsetting is a voluntary and costly measure for passengers, not a donation, and that its actions are unrelated to the Operation Greenwashing investigations. However, as a precaution, it has suspended its partnership with Moss, the climate company previously responsible for the program, and is in the process of hiring a new partner. Finally, it reiterates that its institutional communication seeks to inform, not deceive, consumers, defending the legitimacy of its environmental initiatives and requesting recognition of the regularity of its conduct and the absence of violations of environmental and consumer rights.

The case file was dismissed after the notification/summons was served. The case is permanently archived.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against Nilma Félix due to the deforestation of an area of 135.80 hectares in 2018, in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant's occupation of the land was illegal because it is an area within an Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), owned and of interest to the Federal Government, managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractive communities. This ACP is part of a set of 22 actions filed by the MPF as a result of the investigation carried out in civil inquiry no. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, for illegal deforestation carried out within the Antimary Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), but against different defendants. The argument for the action is based, among other points, on Brazilian Environmental Law, regarding the constitutional protection of the environment, the accusation of deforestation, civil liability propter rem for environmental damages, including climate damages, and collective moral damages. It also mentions, as an environmental liability, the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) caused by the illegal deforestation of the area, calculated at 77,583.75 tons of carbon dioxide, which are directly related to the Brazilian State's departure from its climate goals, out of step with national and international commitments assumed by Brazil in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). Among other requests, the following is sought: (i) reparation for the damages caused by the illegal deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation corresponding to intermediate and residual environmental material damages; (iii) payment of compensation corresponding to climate damages; and (iv) payment of compensation corresponding to collective moral damages.

INCRA joined the lawsuit as a co-litigant assistant to the plaintiff, and the defendant was declared in default.

In its judgment, the court ordered the defendant to (i) restore the degraded area; (ii) pay compensation for material damages related to interim and residual environmental damages, in an amount to be determined during the settlement phase; (iii) pay compensation for climate damages caused by deforestation, in the amount of R$ 2,133,553.12; and (iv) pay compensation for collective moral damages in the amount of R$ 2,000.00 per hectare deforested. The funds obtained from this action shall be allocated to the Fund for Diffuse Rights. The judgment recognized the existence of climate damage, unlawful conduct, and causal link, even though the defendant was not responsible for the deforestation itself, benefiting from the damage caused by a third party. For the calculation of the value of climate damage, the price of US$ 5.00 per ton of CO2e was adopted, according to Ordinance No. 176/2023.

The judgment has become final and the process is currently in the judgement enforcement phase.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against José Francisco Pinheiro da Silva for the deforestation of an area of 170.83 hectares between 2014 and 2018 in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant's occupation of the land was illegal because it is an area within an Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), owned and of interest to the Federal Government, managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractive communities. This ACP represents a set of 20 actions filed by the MPF as a result of the investigation carried out in civil inquiry no. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, for illegal deforestation carried out within the Antimary Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), but against different defendants. The argument for the action is based, among other points, on Brazilian Environmental Law, regarding the constitutional protection of the environment, the accusation of deforestation, civil liability propter rem for environmental damages, including climate damages, and collective moral damages. It also mentions, as an environmental liability, the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) caused by the illegal deforestation of the area, calculated at 98,367.84 tons of carbon dioxide, which are directly related to the Brazilian State's departure from its climate goals, out of step with national and international commitments assumed by Brazil in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). Among other requests, the following is sought: (i) reparation for the damages caused by the illegal deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation corresponding to intermediate and residual environmental material damages; (iii) payment of compensation corresponding to climate damages; and (iv) payment of compensation corresponding to collective moral damages.

INCRA joined the lawsuit as a co-litigant assistant to the plaintiff, and the defendant was declared in default.

In its judgment, the court ordered the defendant to (i) restore the degraded area; (ii) pay compensation for material damages related to interim and residual environmental damages, in an amount to be determined in the sentence enforcement phase; (iii) pay compensation for climate damages caused by deforestation, in the amount of R$ 2,705,155.86; and (iv) pay compensation for collective moral damages in the amount of R$ 597,905.00. The funds obtained from this action shall be allocated to the Fund for Diffuse Rights. The judgment recognized the existence of climate damage, unlawful conduct, and causal link due to the ownership of the CAR (Rural Environmental Registry) of the area in question, the analysis of remote sensing images, and the lack of proof of obtaining authorization from the environmental agency for the vegetation suppression. For the calculation of the value of climate damage, the price of US$ 5.00 per ton of CO2e was adopted, according to Ordinance No. 176/2023.

The process is currently in the judgment enforcement phase.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for urgent relief, filed by the Arayara International Institute of Education and Culture (Instituto Arayara) against the state of Rio Grande do Sul (RS) with the objective of demanding the implementation of a just energy transition in the state. The aim is to create a structured plan that foresees the effective decommissioning of the fossil fuel-fired thermoelectric sector as part of the reconstruction of the state's infrastructure. The grounds for the action include the catastrophic consequences of the climate crisis suffered by the state; the fact that its fossil fuel-fired thermoelectric sector is one of the most inefficient in Brazil and responsible for a large environmental liability and high greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; and that the state's commitment under the Proclima 2050 program falls short of the state's needs in terms of energy transition. It is alleged that the structure of the thermoelectric sector in the state of Rio Grande do Sul contributes to climate change, and the Proclima 2050 program does not provide truly efficient guidelines for a just energy transition, which is fundamental considering the extreme weather events that have become frequent in the region. In this sense, it is argued that urgent action is needed from the states to implement mitigation plans to lessen climate change, as well as adaptation plans, considering its impacts. The plaintiff states that the Proclima 2050 program was launched by the state of Rio Grande do Sul at the end of 2023 and has as its pillars (i) climate resilience, (ii) just energy transition, (iii) reduction of GHG emissions, and (iv) environmental education and awareness. However, it is argued that, in addition to the lack of provisions for decommissioning highly emitting thermoelectric plants, the resources allocated for the execution of Proclima 2050 are insufficient in the face of the state's challenges in addressing the climate crisis. Thus, it is understood that the government of Rio Grande do Sul only used empty rhetoric about combating climate change when drafting the program, with the dismantling of environmental legislation carried out by the current state government being pointed out. On the other hand, the Arayara Institute presents the history of international climate treaties and argues that, based on the Paris Agreement, signatory states, such as Brazil, have a responsibility to adopt effective measures to reduce GHG emissions. It is further stated that the Brazilian legal system has several norms to protect the environment and the climate system, such as articles 225 and 170 of the Federal Constitution, article 251 of the Rio Grande do Sul State Constitution, the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC), in addition to the aforementioned international climate treaties. Therefore, it is argued that Rio Grande do Sul must be compelled to take urgent measures to reduce GHG emissions and implement an energy transition. It is argued that a just transition plan should envision a low-carbon economy in which the benefits and costs of climate impacts and actions against climate change are equitably distributed among the various sectors of society, ensuring that everyone has a voice in decision-making processes. Therefore, in preliminary proceedings, it is requested that (i) the state of Rio Grande do Sul be compelled to establish a participatory committee for the development of a just energy transition plan, with a pluralistic composition; (ii) said committee operate based on scientific data, with the hiring of specialized consultants to assist in its operation; (iii) the plan formulated by the committee be presented within 180 days; and (iv) the state of Rio Grande do Sul be prevented from granting tax breaks, incentives, new licenses, and even infrastructure reconstruction works for the fossil fuel-fired thermoelectric sector. In final proceedings, it is requested that the action be granted with the confirmation of the preliminary injunction.

An injunction was granted ordering the suspension of the contract signed by the state of Rio Grande do Sul for the preparation of the Just Energy Transition Plan, until the technical committee that has been negotiated between the parties is effectively established or until some other measure is consensually adopted. Furthermore, the Union of Workers in the Mineral Extraction and Processing Industry of Candiota – the Candiota Miners' Union – was granted permission to participate as amicus curiae.

A decision was issued in the context of Appeal No. 5002577-79.2025.8.21.7000 (State of Rio Grande do Sul - TJRS) granting the request for preliminary injunction sought by the State of Rio Grande do Sul to overturn the decision that granted the provisional injunction. In this decision, the court ordered the inclusion of the Federal Government as a defendant in the lawsuit, with the case being sent to the Federal Court, based on the following grounds: i) the initial claim is based on an international law treaty and has as its cause of action the Paris Agreement, therefore, it is the function of the Federal Government to represent the country in its international relations; ii) the exceptional nature of judicial control over public management activity, requiring the observance of the separation of powers; iii) the lack of sufficient basis to determine the suspension of an administrative contract, especially since the result of this contract is a study whose outcome will benefit environmental policies and foresees eventual revision. The decision was the subject of an internal appeal and a special appeal filed by the Arayara Institute.

In view of the content of the aforementioned decision, an order/decision was issued determining the registration of the Union as the defendant in the lawsuit, as well as the referral of the case file to the Federal Court. Jurisdiction having been declined, the case was definitively closed and distributed to the Federal Court of the 9th Federal District of Porto Alegre, under number 5054037-06.2025.4.04.7100.

The lawsuit was filed as a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality by Omission (ADO 60), with a request for a precautionary measure, by the political parties PSB, PSOL, PT and Rede; and later converted into an Allegation of Non-Compliance with a Fundamental Precept (ADPF) 708 by the Rapporteur Justice Luís Roberto Barroso. The lawsuit questions the unconstitutional omission of the Federal Government in relation to the application of resources from the Climate Fund, one of the instruments of the National Policy on Climate Change - PNMC (Federal Law 2.187/2009), aimed at directly and indirectly financing actions to combat climate change. The plaintiffs allege that the Climate Fund's management was compromised and operations were paralyzed as of 2019, as the resources authorized in the budget law were not applied and the Annual Plan for Application of Fund Resources was not presented. They argue that the dismantling of environmental policies by the current federal government, in addition to the failure to apply resources from the Climate Fund, contributes to an increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Brazil and, consequently, to the failure to comply with climate goals and existing national policies and international commitments. Finally, they request that the Federal Government take the necessary administrative measures to reactivate the operation of the Climate Fund, in compliance with the federative pact and fundamental rights related to an ecologically balanced environment.

There was a single-judge decision by the Rapporteur Minister Luís Roberto Barroso, who addressed the possible existence of an "unconstitutional state of affairs in environmental matters" and called for a public hearing to produce a "final report" on the subject. The public hearing discussed the functioning of the Climate Fund and public policies in environmental matters with the participation of members of the government, organized civil society, business sectors and academia.

Subsequently, the parties filed a petition requesting provisional relief to suspend financing for the “Lixão Zero” project by the Climate Fund, which received the entire amount earmarked for 2020 in the Fund’s non-reimbursable resources. The parties claimed that the project was not related to the main guidelines of the PNMC and questioned its effectiveness in combating climate change. In a single-judge decision, the Rapporteur Justice denied the preliminary relief requested because he understood that the questioning would deal with a concrete and specific issue, unrelated to the discussion of the case, to be articulated by a separate action.

The case has several amici curiae, such as the Alana Institute. The organization, which aims to guarantee the quality of life of children, brought the discussion on climate justice to the Court in order to highlight that, due to their condition of vulnerability and development, children suffer disproportionately from the negative impacts of the environmental crisis, especially climate change.

The court, by majority vote, following the vote of Rapporteur Justice Luís Roberto Barroso, ruled in favor of the action. It acknowledged the Union's omission, embodied in the non-allocation of resources from the Climate Fund for the year 2019, determining that the entity should not fail to operate the Fund or allocate its resources, and also affirming the impossibility of contingency of its resources. At the time, it established a thesis that mentions the constitutional duty of the Executive Branch to operate the Climate Fund, based on the constitutional duty to protect the environment and international commitments assumed by Brazil. It also equated international environmental treaties, such as the Paris Agreement, to human rights treaties, having supralegal status in the Brazilian legal system. In this line, it highlighted the existence of a constitutional, supralegal and legal duty of the Union and elected representatives to combat climate change, which is therefore binding.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against Jorginei Anjos Batista due to the deforestation of an area of 124.47 hectares between 2015 and 2017 in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant's occupation of the land was illegal because it is an area included in an Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), owned and of interest to the Federal Government, managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractive communities. This class action lawsuit is part of a set of 22 actions filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) as a result of the investigation carried out in civil inquiry no. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, concerning illegal deforestation within the Antimary Agrarian-Extractive Settlement Project (PAE), but against different defendants. The lawsuit's arguments are based, among other points, on Brazilian Environmental Law, regarding the constitutional protection of the environment, the accusation of deforestation, civil liability propter rem for environmental damages, including climate damages, and collective moral damages. It also mentions, as an environmental liability, the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) resulting from the illegal deforestation of the area, calculated at 69,196.81 tons of carbon dioxide, which are directly related to the Brazilian State's departure from its climate goals, out of step with national and international commitments assumed by Brazil in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). Among other requests, the following are made: (i) reparation for the damages caused by the illegal deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation corresponding to intermediate and residual environmental material damages; (iii) payment of compensation corresponding to climate damages; and (iv) payment of compensation corresponding to collective moral damages.

Subsequently, INCRA was included in the active party as a co-litigant assistant to the plaintiff.

The defendant filed a response. He argued that he did not commit any environmental offense, highlighting that the deforestation in question occurred in 2015, when he no longer held possession of the area, which had been ceded to third parties in 2016 through a verbal agreement transferring rights. He emphasized that the data used in the lawsuit, derived from the CAR (Rural Environmental Registry), shows overlapping records, compromising the accuracy of the information and the correct identification of responsibilities. He defended the non-existence of collective moral damages, intermediate and residual environmental material damages, and climate damages. He alleged that the amounts claimed as compensation are disproportionate and based on generic premises. He requested that the lawsuit be dismissed.

A judgment was issued recognizing the relationship between deforestation and climate change, presenting extensive arguments on climate change and civil liability for climate damage, acknowledging said damage in the case. The requests were partially granted, condemning the defendant: a) to fulfill the obligation to restore the degraded area according to the Degraded Area Recovery Plan (PRAD); b) to the obligation not to act, consisting of a prohibition on the defendant's use of the area, in order to allow natural regeneration; c) to pay compensation for material damages related to interim and residual environmental damages, the value of which will be subject to settlement of judgment; d) to pay compensation for climate damages caused by deforestation, in the amount of R$ 1,809,496.47, using as a basis for calculating the amount of carbon emitted the Technical Note prepared by the Amazon Research Institute (IPAM) and, for pricing purposes, the value of 5 dollars per ton, according to the Amazon Fund; e) to the payment of compensation for collective moral damages, in the amount of 5% of the total material damages determined in the settlement of the judgment. Finally, it declared the respective CAR null and void and allocated all the resources obtained to the Fund for Diffuse Rights.

The defendant filed an appeal requesting that the judgment be reversed, that the claims be dismissed, or that the decision be declared null and void.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against the Union, the State of Pará, and the Companhia de Ativos Ambientais e Participações do Pará SA (CAAP) in defense of the interests of traditional peoples and communities, due to the signing of an international Emissions Reduction Purchase Agreement (ERPA). The ERPA agreement was signed in 2024 between the State of Pará, represented by the Companhia de Ativos Ambientais e Participações do Pará SA (CAAP), and the LEAF Coalition, composed of the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Norway, the Republic of Korea, and major global corporations, for the sale of carbon credits or emission reductions verified through the jurisdictional REDD+ system of Pará, which is still under construction. It is alleged that the contract contains illegalities and nullities in its conception, since it has provisions contrary to the provisions of the Brazilian Emissions Trading System Law - SBCE (Federal Law 15.042/2024); it was signed without free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected indigenous and traditional communities; and it interferes with the conduct of the process of building the REDD+ jurisdictional system in Pará, also to the detriment of these communities. In the context of provisional relief, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office requested: (i) the immediate suspension of the effects of the Emissions Reduction Purchase Agreement; (ii) the temporary suspension of the eligibility of the State of Pará to access payments based on results from the REDD+ system until the REDD+ Jurisdictional System is approved and adapted to the SBCE Law; and (iii) that the Union refrain from authorizing the direct participation of the State of Pará before the international certification body ART-TREES, while the Jurisdictional System does not comply with the SBCE Law. As final requests, it is requested (i) confirmation of the urgent injunction; (ii) declaration of nullity of the ERPA contract; (iii) that the Union revoke CONAREDD+ Resolution 10/2022, removing the eligibility of the State of Pará to receive payment for REDD+ results until the system is adapted to the SBCE Law; (iv) that the Union refrain from granting a letter of authorization for the direct participation of Pará before an international certification body if its jurisdictional system does not comply with the SBCE Law; and (v) the condemnation of Pará to pay collective moral damages in the amount of R$200,000,000.00.

The request for urgent relief was denied by the court, on the grounds that the arguments presented by the plaintiff are generic and abstract and do not justify granting the preliminary injunction; furthermore, the interests of traditional peoples and communities would be protected by the provisions of the contract.

In its defense, CAAP argued for the legality of the contested contract. It stated that jurisdictional REDD+ credits are not considered civil proceeds, as they are generated from the environmental performance of state-level public policies and have no legal relationship with specific properties, a situation supported by provisions of Law 15.042/2024. It argued that the ERPA (Environmental Regularization Program) is a preliminary contract, defining commercial conditions and containing suspensive clauses, not a definitive contract for advance sale. It further argued that its implementation is conditional upon verification of the existence of the credits by an independent certifier and that the estimates of deforestation reduction included therein are based on official deforestation and degradation data from PRODES and DETER. According to current REDD+ legislation and Law 14.042/2024, the right of exclusion applies, preventing the double counting of carbon credits. This right grants individuals the power to express their desire to exclude their property from the jurisdictional REDD+ program by notifying CONAREDD+. Other current and potential carbon credit projects in Pará were also considered in the ERPA estimates. The sharing of benefits with interested traditional peoples and communities, as stipulated in the contract and in accordance with Law 15.042/2024, was discussed, and a Consultation Plan with Traditional Peoples and Communities, conducted by the Secretariat of Environment and Sustainability (SEMAS), is necessary for its implementation. It was argued that communities can express their support for private REDD+ projects or their opposition to benefit-sharing, having the right to opt out based on their expressed position. The defendant requested that the action be dismissed.

The State of Pará, in its response, ratified and adhered to the terms presented by CAAP in its defense. It added to its arguments that SEMAS structured a dialogued and transparent process with traditional peoples and communities, and that this process is integrated into the discussion of the benefit-sharing plan and the draft bill that institutionalizes the REDD+ Jurisdictional System in the state. It argued that, according to the Ministry of the Environment's guidelines, the benefit-sharing stage is the point at which consultation should be focused, as this is where decisions directly impact the territorial and cultural rights of communities. It argued that there is no basis for collective moral damages warranting compensation, as this would compromise the space for discretion and innovation in the conduct of subnational climate policies. It requested that the claims be dismissed.

The Union, in its defense, argued that it had not committed any irregularities. It pointed out that its role is to coordinate the National REDD+ Strategy (ENREDD+) and that the States eligible before the National REDD+ Commission (CONAREDD+) have autonomy to implement their jurisdictional REDD+ programs. Due to a statement from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, which emphasized that the disagreement discussed in the action was technical and not legal, it requested conciliation to resolve the conflict. If conciliation is not possible, it requested that the claims be dismissed.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of São Paulo (MPSP) against Filipe Salles Oliveira, with the subsequent inclusion of Alexandre Salles Oliveira as a defendant. The action questions the practice of setting fire to sugarcane fields for soil clearing, preparation, and harvesting of agricultural goods. The plaintiff argues that burning sugarcane fields leads to environmental degradation, given that the high release of carbon monoxide (CO) and ozone (O3) during combustion generates high air toxicity, compromising atmospheric quality. It emphasizes that the problem is a matter of public health and that the population in sugarcane-growing areas is more susceptible to respiratory and pulmonary diseases. It highlights that the society of Catanduva/SP rejects the practice of burning, which occurs near peripheral neighborhoods, especially because the benefits of burning do not outweigh the burdens arising from the activity. The plaintiff argues that this practice causes a loss of biodiversity, especially harming the wildlife that inhabits the burned areas, victimized by the fire. Finally, the plaintiff requests that the defendant be ordered, among other measures, to: (i) refrain from using fire for soil clearing, planting preparation, and sugarcane harvesting in the areas he cultivates in Catanduva, under penalty of a fine; and (ii) pay compensation for environmental damages already caused since the acquisition of possession. Subsequently, the Public Prosecutor's Office of São Paulo (MPSP) issued a statement, upon learning of new scientific studies on the danger of the activity, requesting the granting of a preliminary injunction to prohibit, immediately, the burning of sugarcane during the planting, soil preparation, or harvesting phases, under penalty of a daily fine.

In a preliminary ruling, the Court recognized the environmental damage and harm to public health, granting the requested injunction. The defendant filed an interlocutory appeal (AI 54.087.5/4) against this decision. The 2nd Chamber of Public Law of the Court of Justice of the State of São Paulo (TJSP), when judging the appeal, found that there was no prima facie case and concluded that the preventive measure has a satisfactive nature, and therefore cannot be the subject of an injunction. Thus, it granted the appeal.

With the citation of the passive co-litigant Alexandre Salles Oliveira, the defendants filed a response. They stated that there was no harm to human health or damage to the environment. They argued that federal legislation (Federal Decree 2.661/1998) allows the use of fire for sugarcane harvesting, with only the need for gradual elimination of the practice. They stated that they observe state legislation (State Decree 42.056/1997), which expressly permits the activity, provided that a Burning Elimination Plan (PEQ) is adopted. They argued that there is no definitive scientific work linking sugarcane burning to harmful effects on human health or environmental damage. They pleaded for the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim.

In its ruling, the Court held that, given the existence of any scientific uncertainty, the doubt should be interpreted in favor of society, considering the right to an ecologically balanced environment (Article 225 of the Federal Constitution). It incidentally declared Decree 42.056/1997 unconstitutional. It upheld the initial request, making the preliminary injunction definitive, ordering the defendants to: (i) immediately cease burning the sugarcane fields, under penalty of a daily fine; and (ii) jointly and severally pay compensation for the environmental damage already caused by the burning, since the acquisition of possession.

The defendants filed a Civil Appeal (ApCiv 360.659-5/1-00), arguing that burning crops is permitted by federal and state laws. They argued that the potential inability to use burning would prevent the continuation of their economic activity, and they also challenged the amount of compensation, claiming it was disproportionate. The Sixth Chamber of Public Law of the TJSP (Court of Justice of São Paulo) issued a ruling recognizing that wildfires destroy the natural environment and cause ecological imbalance, and that their incidental effects have repercussions that harm the health of the population, contributing to the occurrence of diseases. It concluded that there is no express rule prohibiting the conduct, but the practice of wildfires violates constitutional guarantees of environmental preservation and protection of people's health. It emphasized that the social function of property should be applied in a way that prioritizes social interests that do not harm the community. Thus, it concluded that rural property must meet the requirement of preserving the environment. It therefore upheld the sentence, denying the appeal.

Following the ruling by the São Paulo Court of Justice (TJSP), the defendants filed a Special Appeal (REsp 1.094.873/SP) with the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), arguing that the practice of controlled burning is legally supported by Article 27 of the 1965 Forest Code (Federal Law 4.771/1965). They emphasized that the law provides for a gradual reduction in the use of fire, but without immediately eliminating the practice. The Reporting Justice issued a decision in which, on the merits, he ruled in favor of prohibiting the practice, as Article 27 of the 1965 Forest Code is explicit in this regard, according to the majority jurisprudential understanding in the Court.

Thus, the defendant filed an interlocutory appeal within the scope of the Special Appeal. In its ruling, the Second Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) understood that there are modern instruments and technologies capable of replacing the practice of burning sugarcane fields, without environmental damage, while maintaining the viability of the economic activity. It highlighted that the exception permitting the use of fire in the 1965 Forest Code does not cover organized agro-industrial or agricultural activities. It concluded that environmental protection prevails over economic interests, especially when there are less harmful ways of exploiting the soil. Therefore, it denied the interlocutory appeal. Subsequently, the defendants filed a motion for clarification (EREsp 1.094.873/SP), which was not admitted. The defendants then filed an Extraordinary Appeal to the Supreme Federal Court (STF), which was rejected by the STJ. Therefore, they filed an Appeal in the Extraordinary Appeal against the inadmissibility decision (ARE 1.296.400), which was denied by the Reporting Justice of the Supreme Federal Court. The defendant challenged the decision through an Internal Appeal, which was acknowledged but not granted by the First Panel of the Supreme Federal Court.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against the Union and the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP) regarding the auction of the 5th Cycle of Permanent Concession Offer (OPC) to be held on June 17, 2025. It is argued that the auction should be suspended, particularly in relation to the sensitive areas concerning the 47 blocks located in the sedimentary basin of the Amazon River mouth. The region is home to important mangrove ecosystems, reefs, and conservation units, and is the territory of various indigenous, quilombola, and traditional peoples. The MPF maintains that the auction cannot take place until the following are carried out prior to the bidding and concessions: Climate Impact Study; Environmental Assessment of Sedimentary Areas (AAAS); and studies of indigenous, quilombola, and traditional peoples and communities. Furthermore, free, prior, and informed consultation with these peoples must be carried out during the planning phase of the projects, which, despite being required by various national and international regulations, has not yet been done. It argues that this consultation should be carried out after the aforementioned studies have been completed. The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) highlights the challenges of environmental licensing in the Amazon River estuary, discussing previous experiences of licenses denied by IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) for activities in the area due to persistent technical environmental problems without solutions presented by the developers. It emphasizes that the same problems will occur in new licensing requests that may arise from the new bidding cycle, which threatens Brazil's commitment to preserving Amazonian socio-biodiversity. The author highlights the increase in global temperatures and stresses that the main cause of the problem is the burning of fossil fuels. The argument is that Brazil's decision to expand oil exploration goes against global decarbonization efforts and affects the country's credibility as a relevant player in the international climate agenda, especially considering that it will host COP 30. Furthermore, the decision contradicts the emission reduction targets assumed by Brazil in its second NDC. In this context, considering the duty of environmental and climate transparency incumbent upon the Public Administration and the importance of considering scope 3 emissions in fossil fuel projects, a climate impact study is necessary for the Amazon River Mouth region; otherwise, there is a violation of Brazilian law and scientific imperatives in the face of the climate crisis. As a provisional measure, the request is for the immediate suspension of the auction or, subsidiarily, the withdrawal of the 47 blocks located in the Amazon River Mouth Sedimentary Basin until (i) a Climate Impact Study and (ii) an Environmental Assessment of Sedimentary Areas (AAAS) are carried out. (iii) studies of indigenous, quilombola, and traditional peoples and communities; (iv) prior, free, and informed consultation with the traditional peoples and communities of the coastal region of the Amazon River mouth after the required studies have been carried out. As final requests, confirmation of the requests made in the context of urgent relief is requested, as well as a declaration of nullity of the auction and concession contracts if they are formalized without the studies and consultations required in the action.

Due to the auction, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a request to amend the initial complaint. It requested the inclusion of IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) as a defendant in the action, which was subsequently granted by the court. The MPF reported that nineteen exploration blocks in the Amazon River mouth were auctioned off and, considering the arguments already presented in the initial complaint, requests, as a provisional measure: (i) the immediate prohibition of the administrative acts of adjudication and homologation of the final result of the bidding process until the studies and consultations already requested are carried out; (ii) the prohibition of initiating any environmental licensing process for the blocks in the Amazon River mouth auctioned off until the final judgment of the case; (iii) the prohibition of including blocks located in the sedimentary basin of the Amazon River mouth in new OPC (Operating Permit for Concessions) auctions until the final judgment of the action. On the merits, it requests a declaration of nullity of the auction and the concession contracts.

A decision was issued denying the request for provisional relief. The court acknowledges the relevance of the Public Prosecutor's Office's concerns regarding environmental and climate impacts, but understands that requiring a Climate Impact Study during the bidding phase would be premature and technically unfeasible, and should only occur during environmental licensing. It is highlighted that the bidding document for the 5th Permanent Concession Offer already includes clauses for emission mitigation and carbon reduction, and that the Environmental Assessment of Sedimentary Areas (AAAS), while desirable, is not mandatory before the auction, with a joint statement from the Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME) and the Ministry of the Environment (MMA) being sufficient, as validated by the Supreme Federal Court (STF) in ADPFs 825 and 887. Regarding the prior consultation foreseen in ILO Convention 169, the Court noted that it did not perceive the presence of indigenous populations and traditional communities in the offered areas, and therefore there is no obligation to consult them.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for urgent relief, filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against the state of Pará and the municipality of Santarém, aiming at the mandatory inclusion of environmental, climate, indigenous, and quilombola impact studies in the licensing process for port and waterway works in the region of the municipality of Santarém/PA. It is stated that the municipality has been progressively incorporated into the Tapajós-Xingu Logistics Corridor, which includes commodity export corridors in the Madeira and Tocantins river basins and involves the implementation of several infrastructure projects with social and environmental risks. The absence of impact studies has caused serious environmental and social damage, such as deforestation, water pollution, loss of biodiversity, destruction of ecosystems, and threats to the way of life of traditional communities, including indigenous people, quilombola communities, artisanal fishermen, riverside dwellers, and extractivists. It is noteworthy that the operation of multiple ports in the same region can generate cumulative and synergistic effects, increasing pressure on the climate. Therefore, it is fundamental to consider, in the environmental licensing of projects and their databases, the assessment of the climatic dimension of potential impacts. In a preliminary injunction, it is requested that the State of Pará and the Municipality of Santarém be ordered to adapt their environmental licensing procedures for port and waterway works in Santarém, with the mandatory completion of a prior environmental impact study (EIA/RIMA), a study of the Quilombola (ECG) and Indigenous (ECI) components, a climate impact study, and free, prior, and informed consultation with potentially impacted traditional peoples and communities. In a final injunction, it is requested that the action be deemed admissible and the urgent relief be confirmed.

An interlocutory decision was issued granting the request for preliminary injunction, ordering the State of Pará and the Municipality of Santarém to adapt their environmental licensing procedures for port and waterway works in Santarém, including: i) the mandatory performance of a prior environmental impact study; ii) in the EIA/RIMA, the performance of a study of the Quilombola (ECG) and Indigenous (ECI) components; iii) in the EIA/RIMA or before the renewal of the operating license of ports already built and/or in operation, the performance/requirement of a climate impact study, in order to establish conditions related to the negative contribution of these projects to climate change, including adaptation, mitigation and sink measures; iv) the performance of free, prior, informed and good-faith consultation with traditional peoples and communities, according to parameters established in the decision.

The state of Pará argued, in its defense, that the environmental licensing of ports and waterways in Santarém/PA followed all legal procedures, without omissions that justify judicial intervention and without the retroactive imposition of new environmental requirements on projects that had already obtained a Preliminary License (LP), respecting the principle of the perfect legal act and legal certainty. Regarding climate impacts, it emphasized that State Law 9.048/2020, amended by Law 9.781/2022, mentions the need to consider climate change in environmental licensing, but there is no specific regulation that mandates the inclusion of an independent climate impact study. At the federal level, IBAMA also does not have regulations that require this analysis in a binding manner. Therefore, the climate impacts would fall within the existing regulatory limitations. It requested that the action be dismissed.

In its defense, the municipality of Santarém argued that the requirement for an Environmental Impact Study (EIA/RIMA) and Prior, Free and Informed Consultation (FPIC) for all port and waterway works, regardless of size and environmental impact, is disproportionate, making projects essential for the riverside population and local water supply economically unviable. Regarding climate impact, it maintained that there is no specific regulation in state and federal legislation that mandates the inclusion of this component in municipal environmental licensing. Therefore, it requested that the action be dismissed.

In an interlocutory decision, the court granted the admission of FUNAI and the Palmares Cultural Foundation as amici curiae and granted the admission of the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) as an assistant to the plaintiff.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) against Dirceu Kruger due to climate damage. The defendant is a cattle rancher and has been repeatedly fined by the plaintiff environmental agency for the illegal deforestation of a total of 5,600 hectares in the state of Amazonas, using fire. It is argued that his illegal activity impacts the biomass of the Amazon, illegally interfering with the forest's carbon stock and emitting greenhouse gases (GHG), intensifying the climate crisis. Resolution 433/2021 of the National Council of Justice (CNJ) is used to establish the Judiciary's role in recognizing and acting upon climate damage. It is argued that climate damage is ongoing and addresses residual environmental damage in climate matters, which corresponds to the set of effects that cannot be remedied. It also addresses intergenerational environmental damage, since damage to the climate propagates indefinitely, causing future harm. The initial petition expressly mentions environmental and climate justice. It argues that the defendant's conduct violated the provisions of the Paris Agreement and that the international obligations incorporated by Brazil bind the Judiciary, implying the determination of reparability for environmental and climate damage. It presents a means of quantifying climate damage based on studies from the CADAF Project (Carbon Dynamics of Amazonian Forest), representing 160.34 tons of carbon emitted per hectare deforested; on a study developed by the Center for Management and Strategic Studies: "REDD in Brazil: an Amazonian approach", establishing 161 tons of carbon per hectare; and on the social cost of carbon (SCC), arguing that there is a direct proportion between the amount of hectares deforested and carbon generation, in line with the parameters established by the Amazon Fund. The defendant argues that climate damage can be identified on an individual scale by multiplying the estimated GHG emissions from the activity (5,600 hectares multiplied by 161 tons emitted per hectare) by the CSC (based on the OECD's calculated cost of 60 euros per ton). Thus, deforestation generated the illegal emission of 901,600 tons of carbon, resulting in an obligation to pay the amount of R$292,118,400.00. The defendant requests the reversal of the burden of proof. As a matter of urgency, the defendant requests that (i) the litigious nature of the property in question be recognized; (ii) official letters be sent to the National Registry of Titles and Documents of Civil Registry of Legal Entities; (iii) the defendant be prohibited from transferring the occupation of the area to third parties; (iv) the defendant be prohibited from accessing or borrowing chainsaws and other deforestation instruments. (v) that the defendant be prohibited from selling or donating cattle or agricultural products; (vi) that the blocking or unavailability of assets in the equivalent value of R$ 292,118,400.00 be ordered; (vii) the suspension or restriction of access to tax benefits and credit lines by the defendant; (viii) that the defendant be ordered to implement carbon sinks. In the final stage, it is requested that the defendant be ordered, in the forms specified in the initial pleading, to (i) repair the climate environmental damage through ecological compensation; (ii) repair the interim climate damage; (iii) promote ecological compensation; (iv) promote financial compensation for illegal greenhouse gas emissions, with the amount of R$ 292,118,400.00 reverting to the National Climate Change Fund; (v) promote financial compensation, to be determined by the court, with the amounts to be reverted to funds for the prevention and response to climate disasters; (vi) compensate for the amount related to disgorgement of profits; and (vii) confirmation of requests made on an urgent basis.

The court ordered an amendment to the initial complaint to better specify the claims, especially regarding the amounts to be compensated and to indicate the georeferenced coordinates of the area in question.

IBAMA presented the amendment. It clarified that its requests aim at the development of projects that repair the ecological attribute (the atmosphere affected by illegally emitted GHGs). It presented an explanatory table of the requests made, which explicitly stated the reparative object and its reference parameterization for settlement, and attached the georeferencing of the area to the records.

A single-judge decision was issued in which the court partially granted the requested urgent relief to: (i) order the freezing of the defendant's assets, up to the limit of R$ 292,118,400.00; (ii) order the defendant to implement carbon sinks, considering for this purpose the emission of 901,600 tons of carbon and, for the purposes of deduction, any recovery/restoration verified in the deforested areas, which must be proven at the time of presentation of the project within 90 days, under penalty of a daily fine; (iii) suspend and prohibit the defendant's access to financing lines in official credit institutions; (iv) suspend and prohibit the granting of tax benefits to the defendant; (v) notify national financial institutions regarding the processing of this public civil action; (vi) to prohibit the defendant from acquiring, selling, renting, or lending chainsaws, tractors, chainsaws, and associated instruments, as well as to prohibit the defendant from acquiring, selling, renting, or lending cattle or agricultural products, under penalty of a fine for each transaction that is carried out; and (vii) to prohibit the defendant from carrying out any transaction involving the properties affected by the deforestation discussed in the case, under penalty of a fine for each transaction that is carried out. The confidentiality assigned to the decision was lifted. In addition, the initial petition was partially dismissed, with only the requests for the implementation of carbon sinks and the adoption of environmental compensation measures related to the climate damage caused, for condemnation to financial compensation for the social cost of carbon, and for condemnation to restitution of illicitly obtained profits being processed.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief filed against the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP) and the Federal Government seeking compliance with the objectives of the National Policy on Climate Change and the duty of environmental transparency in relation to the auction of the 5th Permanent Offer Cycle promoted by the Public Administration. The Arayara Institute presents the climate emergency scenario, its relationship with fossil fuel emissions, and the need to comply with the targets assumed by Brazil in its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). In this scenario, it points out the contradiction of expanding oil and gas exploration in the country. It highlights that, when offering the exploration blocks, it does not publicize the estimated emissions (scopes 1, 2, and 3) of the blocks, nor the extent of the impact of these emissions on the climate and on Brazil's targets. The author estimates that the blocks offered in the 5th Cycle have the potential to emit 0.55 gigatons of greenhouse gases, which represents about 41% of the Brazilian NDC's emissions limit for 2025. In the context of urgent relief, we request (i) the publication of the estimated emissions for scopes 1, 2, and 3 of the blocks offered up to 48 hours before the auction; (ii) transparency and publicity for the general public of the estimated emissions (scopes 1, 2, and 3) of the blocks offered in public offerings in their preparatory phase; (iii) the inclusion in the Dynamic Emissions Panel of oil and gas exploration blocks of scope 3 emissions from blocks that are in the production phase; and (iv) that the calculated emissions and climate impact be considered in the formulation of energy policy, especially in the decision to offer new blocks for oil and gas exploration in the future. As final requests, it requires the same provisions.

This is a lawsuit for specific performance (Common Procedure Action - ProcedCom), with a request for urgent relief, filed by Tuxa Ta Pame (Ka'apor Management Council), a political organization representing the Ka'apor people, against the Federal Government, FUNAI (National Indian Foundation), and Wildlife Works Brasil Projetos para o Meio Ambiente Ltda., due to the implementation of a carbon credit (REDD+) project by the defendant company in the Alto Turiaçu Indigenous Territory (TI), home to the Ka'apor people, in Maranhão. The plaintiff alleges that the project was initiated through a partnership agreement with the Ka'apor Ta Hury Association of the Gurupi River, but that free, prior, and informed consultation (FPIC) was not carried out with all the indigenous people of the tribe, and that the company lacked the legitimacy to conduct FPIC in the territory. The company, of US origin, allegedly operated for a year without proper registration in the national territory, and FUNAI allegedly failed to act to prevent illegalities in the company's activities. Only after a year of operating in the territory did Wildlife Works contact Tuxa Ta Pame, who stated that he did not accept the company's presence and requested the suspension of activities, which was not respected. It is argued that, since it is indigenous land, any agreement for the creation and commercialization of carbon credits could not be formalized without the participation of the Federal Government and FUNAI (National Indian Foundation). The granting of urgent relief is requested to (i) suspend the activities carried out by the defendant company in the Alto Turiaçu Indigenous Land; (ii) that the Federal Government and FUNAI carry out inspection actions in the territory. As final requests, confirmation of the preliminary injunctions is requested.

In its defense, Wildlife Works Brasil Projetos para o Meio Ambiente Ltda. alleged that in 2023, 21 chiefs of the Ka'apor people had expressed interest in learning about and potentially establishing a partnership for the implementation of the REDD+ project in the Alto Turiaçu Indigenous Territory, and that these representatives have not yet been heard by the court. It argued that the Ka'apor Management Council represents an insignificant portion of the inhabitants of the Indigenous Territory, who have refused to participate in the debates promoted by the company, presenting unsubstantiated claims. It raised the point that the National Policy on Climate Change (Federal Law 12.187/2009) establishes guidelines for reducing emissions and includes combating deforestation as one of its main pillars, encouraging conservation initiatives such as REDD+ projects as a mitigation tool. It requested the dismissal of the action without prejudice or that the claims be dismissed as unfounded.

The court considered the possibility that the consultation process conducted so far has weak democratic legitimacy and that there is no clear consensus among the representative groups of the affected indigenous people. It partially granted the request for urgent relief to temporarily suspend the implementation activities of the REDD+ Project in the Alto Turiaçu Indigenous Territory until the legitimacy of the indigenous representatives involved and the regularity of the consultation procedure are clarified judicially.

Funai (National Indian Foundation) filed a rebuttal defending itself, arguing that there was no omission in its actions. It argued that it had prepared a Public Note advising indigenous organizations and leaders not to participate in negotiations and dealings for the commercialization of carbon credits on indigenous lands, suggesting that contracts not be signed until criteria and guidelines for the inclusion of indigenous lands in the voluntary carbon market are defined. Furthermore, the agency claimed it had already developed other initiatives to regulate the issue. It recalled that, despite the guidelines, according to Article 232 of the Federal Constitution, indigenous people possess full civil capacity, and it is not possible to absolutely prevent them from entering into agreements with private institutions. It requested that the claims made against the agency be dismissed.

The Union filed a response arguing that no oversight negligence on its part regarding the carbon credit trade on Indigenous land had been demonstrated. It alleged that the responsibility for protecting and defending Indigenous communities lies with FUNAI (National Indian Foundation) and that the federal entity has only a subsidiary role. It requested that the action be dismissed without prejudice due to its lack of standing, or that the claims against it be dismissed as unfounded.

This is a criminal action (APOrd) brought by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against Rogério, for the alleged commission of the crimes foreseen in articles 50-A (deforesting, exploiting or degrading public forest) and 41 (causing a fire in a forest or woodland) of Federal Law 9.605/98 (Environmental Crimes Law). The indictment states that between September 24, 2010 and October 27, 2010, the defendant allegedly deforested, using fire, 111.0675 hectares of native forest in the Amazon biome in an area under the dominion of the Union without authorization from the competent environmental agency.

The defendant responded to the charges through the Federal Public Defender's Office (DPU), requesting legal aid and reserving the right to discuss the merits of the case after the proceedings. Subsequently, the court dismissed the possibility of acquittal and granted the request for legal aid.

The prosecution witnesses were heard and the defendant was interrogated. On this occasion, the defendant stated that he was a farmer and had carried out the deforestation to establish pasture for dairy cattle farming. The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office presented its final arguments, requesting the conviction of the defendant.

The defendant requested a Non-Prosecution Agreement (ANPP), as provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office presented the terms of the Agreement offered to the defendant, reiterating its request for a hearing date. However, the hearing did not take place because the defendant was not summoned, and it was later learned that he had traveled to the United States on December 18, 2020, without prior notification to the court. Thus, his default was declared.

In its closing arguments, the Public Defender's Office raised a preliminary objection regarding the nullity of the default judgment and, on the merits, requested the acquittal of the defendant, alleging a lack of evidence regarding authorship and materiality.

The court issued a guilty verdict, setting the final sentence at 4 (four) years and 2 (two) months of imprisonment and a fine of 30 (thirty) days. It considered that the crimes foreseen in Article 50-A and Article 41 of the Environmental Crimes Law were committed in material concurrence. On this occasion, the judge did not increase the base sentence for the crime foreseen in Article 41 of the Environmental Crimes Law, understanding that the reasons that would justify an increase had already been considered when assessing the sentence related to Article 50-A of the same law. Tangentially, the guilty verdict refers to the emission of greenhouse gases when mentioning the defendant's use of fire to commit the crime of causing a fire in a forest or woodland.

The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed an appeal seeking a review of the sentencing, arguing for the recognition of judicial circumstances that increase the penalty for the crime of forest fire. It argued that the impact of fire use in the Amazon on climate change should be considered, since the defendant's action was especially serious given the extent of the burned area. It mentioned the impact of wildfires on human health and the subsistence of indigenous peoples. It raised a preliminary question regarding the viability of increasing the penalty in the first phase of sentencing due to the aggravated impact of the crime on climate change. It requested the amendment of the sentence to negatively assess the circumstance of the consequences of the crime under Article 41 of the Environmental Crimes Law. The appeal is pending judgment by the competent court.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of Mato Grosso (MPMT) against Carlos Aparecido da Silva due to the deforestation of an area of 11.31 hectares at the Dois Irmãos site, located in the state of Mato Grosso, as verified in Civil Inquiry 025/2023. The MPMT alleges that the defendant owns the property and that native vegetation was deforested there without authorization from the environmental agency. It argues that the environmental damage demands, in addition to the recovery of the biome itself, the reparation of the incidental factors of the degradation, such as the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and highlights the principle of preserving climate integrity enshrined in the legal system. As an urgent measure, it requests, among other things, that the defendant be prohibited from economically exploiting the deforested areas that are susceptible to use without authorization from the environmental agency. Ultimately, the restoration of the degraded area and the payment of compensation for material and moral damages in the amount of R$ 93,498.53 (ninety-three thousand, four hundred and ninety-eight reais and fifty-three cents) are required.

The action was initially filed before the Court of Justice of Mato Grosso under number 1004977-80.2024.8.11.0006, and the court granted the request for urgent relief.

In response, the defendant argued that the area is part of the Agrarian Reform Settlement Project called Limoeiro Settlement and that it has an occupation link, with the Union being the legitimate owner and therefore liable to respond to the action along with INCRA. It alleges the Federal Court's jurisdiction to process the case and that it has authorization to exploit the area, the infraction notice being generic. Therefore, it requested recognition of its lack of standing to be sued, the suspension of the granted preliminary injunction, a declaration of the court's lack of jurisdiction, and the dismissal of the action with a declaration of nullity of the infraction notice.

The lack of jurisdiction was acknowledged, and the case file was forwarded to the Federal Court, now under number 1003895-08.2024.4.01.3601.

By court order, the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) was included as a defendant in the lawsuit, and the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) was included as a plaintiff.

INCRA (National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform) filed a defense, arguing its lack of standing due to the absence of a causal link between the environmental damage and INCRA's duty of inspection and monitoring. The agency maintained that it fulfilled its legal duty to inform the settler of their legal obligations to respect environmental legislation and that non-compliance would lead to the termination of the contract signed between them, according to Normative Instruction 99/2019, which establishes the administrative procedures for the titling of rural properties in Agrarian Reform Settlement Projects. It emphasized that the illegal deforestation did not occur during the land acquisition phase, but rather after the settlers had already entered the area and had already been informed of their duty to comply with the legislation, and that there was no omission, commission, or concurrence on the part of the agency in relation to the damages caused by the settler. It requested that the preliminary objection of lack of standing to be sued be upheld, allowing him to remain in the action as an unauthorized party and for the action to be dismissed in relation to the Institute.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for preliminary injunction, filed by ISA, ABRAMPA, and Greenpeace Brazil against IBAMA and the Federal Government, seeking a declaration of nullity for IBAMA's Interpretative Ruling 7036900/2020, which eliminated the need for authorization issued by the agency for the export of timber products and byproducts of native species. They state that, under the previous regulations, those interested in obtaining export authorization had to personally present, at the IBAMA unit with jurisdiction over the customs warehouse, a series of documents proving the legality of the goods, submitting them for inspection and release. The plaintiffs, in challenging the ruling, argue that the requirement (only) of the Forest Origin Document (DOF) is insufficient for the proper inspection, monitoring, and control of timber exports. They explain that the DOF (Document of Forest Origin) is composed of data entered by the interested parties themselves, and not by IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources), and that the agency would have no way to intervene before the shipment of cargo abroad. They suggest that this change is part of a broader dismantling of environmental public policy in Brazil, to the detriment of protective legislation. They warn of the risk of increased illegal deforestation, especially in the Amazon, with the new regulation. They explain the relationships between increased deforestation and climate change, particularly the Brazilian scenario of high GHG emissions resulting from changes in land use, and the loss of carbon sinks due to the suppression of native vegetation, in addition to its deleterious effects on tropical forests, with alterations in rainfall patterns and an increased risk of reaching the "point of no return" in the devastation of the Amazon Rainforest. In this regard, the plaintiffs request, as a preliminary measure, that the effects of Interpretative Order 7036900/2020 be suspended, which waived the need for authorization for the export of timber products and by-products of native species, and, definitively, that its nullity be determined, combined with the obligation to adopt all necessary measures to restore the effects of the previous regulation regarding the requirement for authorization for the export of native timber.

Currently, the proceedings are under seal, making it impossible to access attached documents, progress reports, or analyze any potential developments.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief filed by the Public Defender's Office of the State of Pará (DPE-PA) against RMDLT Property Group Ltda, Brazil Property Group Compra, Venda e Locação de Imóvel Ltda, Brazil Agfor LLC, Agfor Empreendimentos Ltda, Michael Edward Greene, and the municipality of Portel, due to projects generating illegal carbon credits sold on the voluntary market. This ACP is part of a set of 4 actions filed by the DPE-PA with the same grounds, but questioning different carbon credit projects. The RMDLT Portel-Pará REDD Project or Rio Mandaquari REDD+ Project (Project 977), the subject of the action, overlaps areas of the State Agro-extractive Settlement Projects (PEAEX) Deus é Fiel and Joana Peres II - Dorothy Stang. These PEAEX (Extractive Environmental Protection Areas) are public lands, whose real right of use is granted to traditional communities located in the municipality of Portel, in the state of Pará, who did not participate in the challenged project. Project 977 generates REDD+ assets (credits generated by avoided deforestation, sustainable management, and increased forest carbon stocks), was certified by an international company, and has been established since 2009 to obtain carbon credits for forty years. The companies and individual are named in the lawsuit as they are responsible for, and developers of, the project and/or alleged owners of rural properties where it is located. The DPE-PA (Public Defender's Office of Pará) alleges irregularities in the property registrations that comprise the undertaking, and that the project does not have authorization from the state of Pará, which constitutes land grabbing of public lands. Furthermore, the mayor of Portel issued a Public Utility Decree authorizing its operation, which the DPE-PA argues is unconstitutional. It should be noted that the undertaking was implemented without prior study. The Public Defender's Office of Pará (DPE-PA) argues that the defendants acted in violation of the right to traditional territory, the right to prior, free and informed consultation of traditional communities, failed to comply with federal legislation on climate change, payments for environmental services and the concession of public forests, and did not benefit the communities directly affected by the project. It argues that the defendants' conduct gives rise to a duty to repair collective moral damages. In the context of provisional relief, it requests (i) recognition of the possession of the affected traditional communities over their overlapping areas; (ii) the suspension of Project 997 and an injunction preventing the defendants from entering the PEAEX (Extractive Environmental Protection Areas). On the merits, the plaintiff requests (i) confirmation of the urgent requests; (ii) recognition of the right to traditional territory; (iii) invalidation of Project 977 and legal transactions derived from it; (iv) an injunction prohibiting the defendants from entering the territories. (v) the declaration of nullity of the Public Utility Decree issued by the Municipality of Portel; (vi) the condemnation to pay collective moral damages in the amount of R$ 5,000,000.00 to be allocated to the Eastern Amazon Fund in favor of the communities of the agro-extractive territories of Portel.

The court granted the request to include the Pará Land Institute (ITERPA) as a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

This is an Environmental Popular Action (APop), with a request for urgent relief, filed by Francisco dos Santos Sampaio, against the State Foundation for the Environment and Water Resources (FEMARH) and Glicério Marcos Fernandes Pereira, at the time president of the environmental agency. The action questions the irregular contracting of a private company to sell carbon credits on the global market generated in public areas of State Conservation Units in the Lower Rio Branco, Roraima. It is alleged that there was no popular participation in the contracting and, especially, a lack of free, prior, informed and good faith consultation with the traditional communities that inhabit the region and promote its preservation. It is also alleged that there was no due sharing of benefits generated by the carbon credits, disregarding the rights of these populations. Other irregularities include disrespect for transparency and bidding processes, constituting environmental and social harm. The action highlights that the acts committed violate administrative morality, the rights of local populations and environmental balance. As a preliminary measure, the immediate suspension of contracts and activities resulting from the public call is requested, to avoid irreversible damage.

A judgment was issued dismissing the action without prejudice, because FEMARH had administratively annulled the contracts due to legal irregularities. The decision became final and the case file was closed.

This is a Claim of Non-Compliance with a Fundamental Precept (ADPF), with a request for preliminary injunction, filed by ABRAMPA, related to Decree 10.143/2019 and MMA Ordinance 575/2020, which altered the composition of the Climate Fund Management Committee and its deliberative process. It is argued that the institutional rearrangement promoted by the Federal Executive Branch excluded the representation of states and municipalities, leading to a disproportionate increase in the Union's decision-making power. It highlights the exclusion of representatives from the scientific community, non-governmental organizations, urban and rural workers, and traditional communities, while, conversely, the participation of business sectors has been increased. It is alleged that the normative acts discussed exceed the scope of administrative discretion and violate the Constitutional Environmental State. It is argued that there is a distortion of the forums for discussion and definition of climate policy. It is also understood that the transparency of the deliberative process of the Management Committee has been reduced, given that the meetings can only be recorded by the Ministry of the Environment and accessed by the members of the collegiate body. It further explains that, under the modified composition, the Management Committee of the Climate Fund approved an inappropriate allocation of funds. This refers to the allocation of all non-reimbursable resources to the Zero Landfill Rondônia Project – totaling R$ 6,207,228.00 – without a prior technical feasibility study. It informs that only 4% of Brazilian Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions resulted from the solid waste sector, which confirms the inadequacy of the selected project for the purposes of the Climate Fund. Therefore, it is requested, on a preliminary basis, that the effects of the challenged regulations be suspended and, definitively, that their unconstitutionality be declared.

There was a single-judge decision, in which the Reporting Justice Gilmar Mendes ruled that the applicant lacked standing, based on the absence of proof of its representativeness and exercise of activities at the national level. Despite being appealed, the panel upheld the decision, thus concluding the process.

This is a petition (PET) for the investigation of a political-administrative infraction constituting a crime of responsibility, denounced by Fabiano Contarato, Randolph Frederich Rodrigues Alves, and Joenia Batista de Carvalho, federal parliamentarians, against Ricardo Salles, then Minister of the Environment. The petitioners argue that the accused's public management at the head of the ministry proved incompatible with the probity and decorum required of those holding the position. They report, among other decisions and omissions deemed unworthy, the violation of international commitments ratified by the Brazilian government to combat climate change, especially the Paris Agreement. They assert that the ministerial policy implemented by the accused was not proactive in achieving Brazil's targets for reducing Greenhouse Gases (GHG). In this context, they point to a lack of commitment to combating illegal deforestation in the Amazon Rainforest, jeopardizing protective public policies. They further emphasize the existence of budget cuts at IBAMA, which compromise enforcement actions. Finally, they request recognition of the crime of malfeasance committed by the then Minister of State for the Environment, imposing the penalty of dismissal from office, as well as disqualification from holding public office for eight years.

The Reporting Justice, in a single-judge decision, determined that the applicants lacked standing and ordered the case to be dismissed.

The requesting party then filed an interlocutory appeal, reiterating the terms of the petition and emphasizing that its standing is based on Article 14 of the Law on Crimes of Responsibility (Law 1.079/1950), which, according to the account, grants any citizen the right to denounce a Minister of State.

In a subsequent single-judge decision, the Reporting Justice pointed to the loss of the object of the Appeal, given the dismissal of Ricardo Salles from the position of Minister, thus ruling the appeal inadmissible and terminating the proceedings. With the judgment becoming final, the action was archived.

This is a Claim of Non-Compliance with a Fundamental Precept (ADPF), with a request for a preliminary injunction, filed by four political parties against the Federal Government and the states of Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul. The claim seeks to require the defendants to present a plan for fire management and prevention in the Pantanal and to take measures to prevent further fires in the region. The plaintiffs allege that the Federal Government has promoted a policy of dismantling environmental protection agencies, which has fueled the spread of fires in the Pantanal, including on Indigenous lands, in addition to failing to present preventive action plans for further fires. They discuss the fires that occurred in the region in 2020. They point out that it is the responsibility of the defendant states, together with the Federal Government, to monitor and monitor fire outbreaks that occur in violation of current legislation. They emphasize the biome's importance, especially for the water cycle in several Brazilian regions, for the communities that depend on it, and for controlling greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as for compliance with the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC) (Federal Law 12.187/2009). Thus, the authors argue that the government's omission violates the duties set forth in articles 225, 231, and 23, caput and items VI and VII, of the Federal Constitution, as well as the principles of legality, morality, and transparency. In a preliminary injunction, they request, under penalty of fine: (i) the presentation by the Federal Government of an action plan, measures, and Integrated Fire Management (IFM) program to prevent fires in the Pantanal in 2021 and the hiring of firefighters; (ii) that the IFM be reviewed and its implementation overseen by the 4th Coordination and Review Chamber of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (Environment and Cultural Heritage); (iii) that the requested entities be ordered to concentrate information and measures regarding the fires in a single public access system; and (v) that they be ordered to submit plans and measures to prevent the recurrence of fires in the Pantanal. In the final instance, confirmation of the precautionary measures is requested.

In April 2024, the ADPF requests 743, 746, and 857 were partially upheld. The Court did not declare the state of affairs unconstitutional, but recognized the existence of structural flaws in the policy to protect the Legal Amazon, imposing a series of measures to combat deforestation so that the Federal Government presents a plan to prevent and combat fires in the Pantanal and the Amazon, recovering the operational capacity of the National System for the Prevention and Combat of Forest Fires (PREVFOGO), discloses data related to the budget and budgetary execution of actions related to environmental protection by the States and the Union during 2019 and 2020, and reports, as do the state governments, on authorizations for vegetation suppression.

The ruling was subsequently published. It highlights that the Federal Government is resuming environmental protection measures and emphasizes the importance of the Amazon and the Pantanal in maintaining climate balance. In his vote, Justice Edson Fachin dissented to recognize the state of affairs as still unconstitutional, joined by Luiz Fux and Cármen Lúcia. Fachin emphasized that climate jurisprudence exists internationally based on foreign cases. He argued that admitting the repeated violation of the right to an ecologically balanced environment without allowing the Supreme Federal Court to act promptly to "prevent climate chaos and the compromise of Amazonian biodiversity is inconsistent with international agreements and the democratic commitment expressed in the Constitution."

This is originally a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for a preliminary injunction filed by the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) against the Municipality of Pitimbu and private individuals due to the irregular construction of eleven properties in a permanent preservation area (APP), located on the banks of the Acaú River and in a mangrove swamp. The plaintiff points to the aggravating factor of the lack of infrastructure in the properties, which release waste and debris into the mangrove and the river, causing pollution and environmental degradation. Furthermore, the initial complaint points to the omission of the Municipality of Pitimbu, which has never effectively attempted to prevent this problem and act in pursuit of the preservation and defense of the environment. It alleges that the Municipality is neglecting its responsibility to monitor and enforce compliance with environmental regulations in urban areas by ignoring the rampant exploitation in the region. Therefore, as a preliminary measure, it is requested that the individual defendants refrain from constructing, renovating, expanding, or carrying out any act that modifies the current state of their properties, and that the Municipality monitor compliance with the injunction. On the merits, it is requested that the 11 properties be demolished and that the defendants be compelled to repair, correct, or compensate for the environmental damage caused.

Initially, a preliminary injunction was granted. Subsequently, a judgment was issued recognizing that the properties are located in an area prohibited by environmental legislation on the banks of the river, encroaching on a protected area. It was also identified that they cause environmental pollution, since several of them discharge sewage directly into the river. However, it concludes that environmental protection is not the only value at stake, indicating that the occupation of the Acaú River is longstanding, consisting mainly of low- to very low-income families, who have been allowed to settle peacefully over the years without the Public Authorities taking action to remove them. It considered that it could not fully grant the request in order to avoid greater social harm – loss of housing – than the continued presence of the people in the region would cause, even if irregularly. However, given the evident responsibility of the residents for the irregular occupation and discharge of sewage into the river, it was deemed appropriate to make the measures granted provisionally permanent, ruling the request partially justified.

IBAMA, dissatisfied with the ruling, filed an appeal, arguing, in summary, that the right to housing cannot be exercised absolutely and must respect environmental regulations that prohibit construction in permanent preservation areas. Therefore, the demolition of the properties described in the initial complaint was imperative because they were located in a mangrove swamp on the banks of the Acaú River. The Fourth Panel of the Federal Regional Court of the 5th Region, unanimously, denied IBAMA's appeal, upholding the first-instance judgment. The ruling acknowledged the irregularity of the houses built on the banks of the Acaú River, as it is a permanent preservation area. However, it emphasized that the area is densely populated and anthropized, so the demolition of the eleven properties would not ensure the recovery of the degraded area. It concluded, therefore, that the demolition of the houses was unreasonable, since less drastic measures could be taken to minimize the risk and environmental damage caused.

IBAMA then filed a Special Appeal against the ruling that upheld the sentence, alleging violation and non-compliance with a precept of federal law, specifically the old and current Forest Code. It requests that the ruling be overturned so that the action is deemed admissible and the defendants are ordered to demolish the houses located in the Permanent Preservation Area (APP).

The Second Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) then issued a ruling on the Special Appeal, unanimously upholding IBAMA's appeal, in accordance with the vote of the Reporting Justice Herman Benjamin. The ruling emphasized that the legislator conferred an absolute presumption of inviolability on permanent preservation areas and pointed out the irrelevance of the region already being devoid of native vegetation or entirely occupied by constructions or other prohibited activities, which does not remove its inherent legal element of being a Permanent Preservation Area (APP). The Reporting Justice highlights how permanent preservation areas constitute the heart of the Brazilian environmental legal regime, and are also of special importance in guaranteeing the health, safety, property, and well-being of people against risks, especially in urban areas. In the case of riparian vegetation, in particular, it plays a fundamental role in protecting against siltation. Furthermore, it was noted that, with the ever-increasing impact of climate change plaguing our planet, water crises are intensifying; therefore, such protections become even more important. The illegal occupation or exploitation of springs and riverbanks, lakes, and lagoons cannot be permitted as if these were necessary sacrifices to solve the housing deficit. On the contrary, it is affirmed that any private or state action, including judicial action, must take into account scientific knowledge about climate change and the risks associated with it, concerning itself with climate integrity, such that the protection of the ecological environment, fundamental to the entire community, cannot be disregarded. In the Social State of Law, housing is a fundamental human right; however, it is not absolute, as it finds limits in other rights such as health, security, and an ecologically balanced environment. It further states that those who, being needy, built strictly residential houses before the IBAMA inspection, will be required by the negligent Municipality to provide them with material support, including through "social rent" and priority in housing programs, but this duty is neither a condition nor an impediment to the immediate execution of the court order for the removal of the illegitimate constructions. Furthermore, it recognized the omission and negligence of the Municipality of Pitimbu, identifying its joint and several liability and subsidiary execution. Therefore, it ruled in favor of the appeal filed by IBAMA.

Having become final and unappealable, the case is currently in the sentence enforcement phase.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for preliminary injunction, filed by the NGO Costa Legal, UFECO, and Associação Pachamama, with legal assistance from the Research Group on Environmental Law and Political Ecology in the Risk Society (GPDA) and the Research Group on the Observatory of Ecological Justice (OJE), both from the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC). Subsequently, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF), the Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of Santa Catarina (MPSC), and the National Association of People Affected by Dams (ANAB) joined the action. The action was filed against the Municipality of Florianópolis, FLORAM, the State of Santa Catarina, IMA/SC, CASAN, and ARESC. The ACP aims at the implementation of a socio-ecological governance system for the protection, control, monitoring, and oversight of the ecological integrity of Lagoa da Conceição, located in Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, through the adoption of structural measures. The authors present Lagoa da Conceição as a subject of ecological rights and affirm that, due to the organized irresponsibility in the functioning of the current institutional structure, there is an unconstitutional state of affairs. They highlight that its surroundings contain a complex mosaic of dunes, coastal vegetation, and forests, integral parts of the Atlantic Forest biome, demonstrating an interface between terrestrial and marine ecosystems. They explain the importance of the ecosystem services provided by the Lagoon, especially for greater adaptive capacity to climate change in ecosystems and nearby communities, which are more vulnerable to the effects of rising global temperatures. They emphasize the Lagoon's role in local sociocultural history, highlighting the importance of water quality for the identity of the region's communities. They stress that the risks of deterioration and collapse of the Lagoon's ecosystem integrity are evident and urgent, generating harm to the effectiveness of fundamental rights and causing structural problems related to ineffective management and a lack of effective and systemic ecological governance by the responsible actors. They claim that the impacts of human activities on ecological systems threaten various forms of life, therefore constituting a matter of ecological justice. Finally, they request, among other things: (i) recognition of the active legitimacy of the plaintiff associations to claim, in addition to the protection of collective rights to the environment, the protection of specific rights of the Lagoa da Conceição; (ii) recognition of the existence of a structural problem so that the Judicial Chamber for the Protection of Lagoa da Conceição (CJ-PLC), or a similar body, may be established on an interim basis; (iii) based on the information provided by the CJ-PLC, a determination to establish a Judicial Plan for the Protection of Lagoa da Conceição (PJ-PLC); (iv) the determination that the defendants, based on the results of the PJ-PLC, establish and maintain a Permanent Chamber for the Protection of Lagoa da Conceição (CP-PLC), to continue the activities and structural measures identified, to be executed by the CJ-PLC; and (v) the declaration of the Lagoon as a natural entity holding specific rights.

The preliminary injunction was granted, ordering the creation of the CJ-PLC, with the purpose of assisting the Court in adopting the necessary structural measures to guarantee the ecological integrity of the natural entity, to be composed with the participation of the defendants and interested parties in the case. Furthermore, the decision accepted the inclusion of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) and the Public Prosecutor's Office of Santa Catarina (MPSC) as plaintiffs.

The State of Santa Catarina and CASAN filed interlocutory appeals (AI) against this decision (AI 5025622-12.2021.4.04.0000 and AI 5029519-48.2021.4.04.0000, respectively), both requesting a stay of execution, and which, among other preliminary points, similarly argue: (i) the non-verification of the requirements necessary for granting urgent relief; (ii) that granting the injunction exhausts the object of the action; and (iii) that the decision violates the separation of powers.

Monocratic decisions were issued, within the scope of the appeals, concluding with the partial granting of the suspensive effect, establishing that the CJ-PLC is a merely advisory body, not equivalent to a public body, and that it does not have decision-making power or the power to impose obligations on any party in the process, nor does it enjoy prerogatives for the use of public resources, in addition to its actions being limited only to the subject matter of the legal actions related to the preservation of the Lagoon that are being processed before the court of origin. This understanding was subsequently confirmed in the judgment of the appeals, in rulings that partially granted the appeals to affirm the advisory nature of the CJ-PLC and the absence of decision-making power, the power to impose obligations, and the use of public resources. Both rulings became final and the appeals were definitively closed.

In the context of the original action, the State of Santa Catarina filed a defense, arguing, among other points: (i) the incompetence of the Federal Court, since the Union, or its entities, are absent from any of the parties to the action; (ii) the absence of a claim against the State; (iii) the passive illegitimacy of the federative entity, with only the IMA/SC being involved; (iv) the exclusively local interest of the claim; (v) the absence of legal provision permitting the creation of the Judicial Chamber; (vi) the redundancy in relation to other committees created by law; (vii) the exhaustion of the object of the action due to measures taken in a related action (ACP 5004793-41.2021.4.04.7200); and (vii) that the requested measures violate the principle of separation of powers, and the requests for provisional relief should be denied. Finally, it requests (i) the recognition of the incompetence of the Federal Court; (ii) their exclusion from the case; and (iii) the dismissal of the claims.

CASAN also contested the initial claim on several grounds. It stated that the claim is structured around vague, abstract, and common-sense expressions, criticizing the request regarding the Judicial Chamber on several points. It cited the decision rendered in the context of the AI (Incident of Appeal) regarding the new contours given to the role of the requested collegiate body. Furthermore, it asserted that the requested Judicial Chamber does not offer any difference compared to existing popular collegiate bodies. It argued that there is lis pendens with respect to other lawsuits with the same claim. It asserted that there is no unconstitutional state of affairs, refuting the alleged lack of environmental governance. Finally, it requested the dismissal of the case without prejudice, or, if the merits are analyzed, the dismissal of the Public Civil Action.

Subsequently, IMA/SC also filed a response. In its defense, it stated that there was a lack of procedural interest and emphasized the discretionary power of the Executive Branch and its autonomous agencies, as well as stating that the proposed Chamber has no legal basis. It requested the dismissal of the case without prejudice against IMA and, alternatively, the rejection of the claim as formulated. Nevertheless, it highlighted its lack of opposition to the creation of the CP-PLC as long as it has a purely advisory character.

The Municipality of Florianópolis and FLORAM filed a response stating that the plaintiffs' claim undermines the autonomy of the municipal Executive Branch and creates obligations based on generic and unsubstantiated allegations. They asserted that there is no justification for the creation of the external body, given that the public entities have fulfilled all their legal obligations. Finally, they requested: (i) the dismissal of the claims, in respect of the principle of separation of powers and the autonomy of administrative bodies; or (ii), should the Court decide otherwise, maintaining the CJ-PLC, the limitation of the Chamber's scope to a merely advisory body.

ARESC contested the initial claim, highlighting the actions taken in the sewage system. Furthermore, it emphasized the autonomy and independence of its decisions. Therefore, it requested that the claim against ARESC be dismissed, arguing that it has been fulfilling its duties and expressing its lack of opposition to the Chamber's participation if it is merely advisory.

A decision was rendered in the first instance in which the court dismissed the preliminary objections (i) of lack of jurisdiction of the Federal Court, (ii) lack of standing of the plaintiff, (iii) lack of standing of the State of Santa Catarina and (iv) occurrence of lis pendens and violation of res judicata.

Following a conciliation hearing between the parties, a ruling was issued in April 2022 approving the final proposal for the composition of the Judicial Chamber for the Protection of Lagoa da Conceição (CJ-PLC) and its Internal Regulations.

In October 2024, the first instance court issued a preliminary injunction ordering (i) the implementation of the Lagoa Viva Project for the recovery of the Lagoa da Conceição ecosystem; (ii) the creation of a native seedling nursery as an emergency measure to restore degraded areas around the lagoon; and (iii) the immediate renewal of the Trato pela Lagoa Program so that CASAN, together with other interested parties, reestablishes inspection, sanitary regularization, and environmental awareness activities in the region, establishing a 60-day deadline for the implementation of the measures, under penalty of a fine of R$ 100,000.00 for the defendants. According to the court, this decision was based on the conclusion of the CJ-PLC that the adoption of measures to mitigate the pollution of Lagoa da Conceição would be indispensable and urgent to prevent the environmental damage from becoming irreversible.

Subsequently, CASAN filed Appeal No. 5039438-56.2024.4.04.0000 against the decision, arguing, in summary, that (i) the CJ-PLC's role was limited to assisting the court in decision-making; and (ii) the decision had exceeded the limits of the initial petition, determining obligations beyond those requested by the plaintiff. As a result, in November 2024, the Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region issued a decision granting the request for a stay of execution of the appeal, considering, among other points, that the appealed decision ordered measures suggested by only some members of the CJ-PLC (NGO Costa Legal, Florianópolis Association of Community Entities - UFECO and Pachamama Association) and violated the principle of congruence by granting preliminary injunctions for requests not included in the initial petition.

The suspension of the effects of the preliminary injunction decision was challenged by means of an internal appeal that is awaiting judgment.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for precautionary measures, filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against the Federal Government, IBAMA, the State of Sergipe, the State Environmental Administration, and others, including private individuals, alleging environmental damage. The argument is that environmental damage occurred due to the irregular occupation of an area on Boa Viagem Beach, Saco Village, in Estância, Sergipe. The area in question is a restinga environment, with dunes and mangrove vegetation, constituting a permanent preservation area, and has bars and vacation homes built irregularly. There has allegedly been an invasion of federal public property, landfilling, and the discharge of waste directly into the soil, in cesspools, contaminating the water table and hindering public access to the beach. All constructions are allegedly irregular and violate several protective regulations.

An emergency injunction was issued ordering the closure of the bars in the area, considering a supervening event – subsequent to the initial requests in the lawsuit. The event considered was the sea's advance over the location, eroding the foundations of the establishments and placing them at risk of collapse.

In response to the decision, Josefina Conceição dos Santos and José Nivaldo dos Santos, two defendants whose bars were closed, filed an interlocutory appeal. The final decision on the interlocutory appeal upheld the closure of the establishments. Josefina Conceição dos Santos and José Nivaldo dos Santos then filed a special appeal requesting its annulment. The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) presented counter-arguments, defending the maintenance of the decision and highlighting the expert evidence that the properties were vulnerable to coastal erosion. The special appeal was not admitted, and the defendants filed an appeal. Given the dismissal of the appeal by the president of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), the defendants filed an internal appeal.

The ruling on the Internal Appeal in the Special Appeal (AgInt no AREsp), authored by Justice Herman Benjamin, denied the appeal. The ruling was the document that expressly mentioned climate change and highlighted its undeniable consequences that already affect everyone, but especially the poorest. The principles of climate justice were implicitly invoked, given the impacts on this particularly vulnerable group. Within this context, it was emphasized that judges need to pay attention to safeguarding the values of the Environmental Rule of Law. It stated that, in this case, it would not be appropriate for the Court to re-examine factual issues seen in lower courts and that, within the context of climate change, the advance of tides and the consequent destruction of bars and restaurants located on the shores are foreseen.

* As other parts of the case file were not accessible, the classifications and this summary were completed based exclusively on the ruling issued by the 2nd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ).

This is a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality by Omission (ADO), with a request for a precautionary measure, filed by the political party Rede Sustentabilidade (Rede), due to the unconstitutional omission of the President of the Republic, Jair Messias Bolsonaro, and the then Minister of the Environment, Ricardo de Aquino Salles. The party alleges that the defendants were negligent in their task of combating deforestation in the Amazon, failing to observe the provisions of articles 23, items VI and VII, and 225, caput and §1, items VI and VII, of the Federal Constitution. It highlights the increasing deforestation of the biome, especially since 2019. Rede emphasizes the Executive Branch's delegitimization of the data presented by the National Institute for Space Research (INPE) on the increase in deforestation, highlighting the Executive Branch's dismissal of the person responsible for research and publication at the Institute, going against transparency. It also presents data from the non-governmental organization Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazônia (Imazon), highlighting the rampant increase in deforestation that could lead to a "tipping point," beyond which it is impossible to recover the deforested area, severely impacting climate change in the region. It emphasizes the cuts in financial transfers from other states to the Amazon Fund due to the alleged inaction of the Executive Branch in the face of deforestation. Furthermore, it argues that Brazil is failing to meet objective 15.2 of the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda, which concerns combating deforestation by 2020. It states that this commitment was also made nationally by Federal Decree 7.390/2010, revoked by Federal Decree 9.578/2018, which provides for an 80% reduction in annual deforestation rates in the Legal Amazon compared to the years 1996 to 2005, a measure that is part of the National Plan on Climate Change. It requests, among other things, that: (i) the granting of the precautionary measure be granted, ordering the President of the Republic and the Minister of the Environment to promote concrete actions to combat deforestation in the Amazon; (ii) the respondents be ordered to report on the measures adopted in response to deforestation, after the release of data by INPE; (iii) that the provision of annual data on actions to combat deforestation since 2011 be determined; (iv), on the merits, that the precautionary measure be confirmed, and the unconstitutional omission be declared to determine the adoption of administrative measures, pursuant to Article 103, §2, of the Federal Constitution; (v), subsidiarily, that the progressive unconstitutional omission be declared to warn the defendants regarding their omission; and (vi), should the Court deem the ADO inadmissible, that the present action be received and processed as an Argument of Non-Compliance with a Fundamental Precept (ADPF) due to the fungibility of the actions.

Due to the similarity of the objects of this ADPF (760) and the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality by Omission (ADO) 54, the Rapporteur of both, Minister Carmen Lúcia, decided to judge them together. In her vote, the Minister stated that the right to an ecologically balanced environment is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution and in international treaties to which Brazil is a party. She emphasized the principle of the prohibition of environmental regression. She understood that there is a process of normative "termite-like" action occurring silently, through the dismantling of the bureaucratic-normative apparatus of the State. This phenomenon is only visible with a general analysis of the existing situation in the country. She affirmed the transnational and transboundary nature of the climate issue and that there are three pillars of policy construction, from which rights derive, in defense of the environment and the climate: (i) deference to science, (ii) international cooperation, and (iii) joint action by the State and society. Furthermore, the set of constitutional norms, principles, and rules of the Brazilian legal system are oriented towards the protection of the environment, the preservation of flora, water, indigenous culture, the Earth, and the climate on a planetary scale. It recognized the unconstitutional state of affairs regarding the illegal deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest. It ordered the resumption of the PPCDAm (Action Plan for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Amazon) by the Federal Government and the competent federal agencies. After the Reporting Minister finalized her vote, Minister André Mendonça requested to review the case files, and thus, the judgment was suspended.

In April 2024, the requests in ADPF 760 and ADO 54 were partially upheld. The Court did not declare the state of affairs unconstitutional, but recognized the existence of structural flaws in the policy for protecting the Legal Amazon. It determined that the Federal Government must make a "significant commitment" to combating illegal deforestation in the biome and ordered it to adopt measures to implement the PPCDAm (Action Plan for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Amazon), strengthen the oversight bodies IBAMA, ICMBio, and Funai, that the Union must present transparent information on actions and results of measures adopted in compliance with the determinations of the STF (Supreme Federal Court), and that data on measures adopted by the Executive Branch be submitted to the Environmental and Climate Change Observatory of the Judiciary Branch of the CNJ (National Council of Justice). The climate issue was expressly mentioned in the votes of different ministers, especially to relate deforestation and climate change and to highlight the importance of the Amazon Rainforest in this context. The international treaties that comprise the International Climate Change Regime were also presented to demonstrate the climate commitments of States and, more specifically, Brazil's commitment to combating deforestation. The role of the judiciary in responding to insufficient environmental protection and in the context of a climate emergency was discussed, mentioning climate litigation and the adjudication of cases by international and foreign courts, and also acknowledging the pioneering role of the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) in this matter. The term "climate justice" was explicitly mentioned, pointing out that the impacts of climate change tend to be felt more intensely by vulnerable groups, and considerations were also made regarding intergenerational justice and future generations. Emphasis was placed on the mention in Justice Luiz Fux's vote of the need to implement "[t]he fundamental environmental, ecological, and climate rights and duties." Also noteworthy was the mention in Justice Edson Fachin's vote of the violation of "what is perhaps the most fundamental right of humanity" because it allows the realization of all others by guaranteeing the conditions for existence and "avoiding climate chaos and the compromise of Amazonian biodiversity." The judgment was published on June 26, 2024, and the case was closed on August 5, 2024.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief filed by the Arayara International Institute of Education and Culture, the Association of Farmers of the Quilombo Remnants of Córrego de Ubaranas, and the Association of Remnants of Quilombos of Rural Producers of Family Farming of the Quilombola Community of São Domingos Sapê do Norte - ARQCSAD against the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP) and the Federal Government. This action is part of a set of 6 ACPs filed against the 4th Cycle of Permanent Offer of Concessions for oil exploration blocks. The aim is to challenge the auction of oil exploration blocks carried out through the 4th Cycle of Permanent Offers. It is argued that the inclusion of a set of blocks located in the Espírito Santo-Mucuri Sedimentary Basin; in the Potiguar Sedimentary Basin; In the Sergipe-Alagoas Sedimentary Basin, the auction is illegal and constitutes a clear case of environmental racism. This is because these blocks overlap Quilombola Territories and Areas of Direct Influence of Quilombola Territories, and there was no prior informed consultation or any mention of this fact in the Joint Manifestations of the Permanent Offer of Areas, which would violate the Interministerial Ordinance of the MME/MMA that regulates the issuance of joint manifestations for the purpose of offering blocks for oil and gas exploration and ILO Convention 169. It is argued that the climate crisis scenario demands an energy transition to clean energy and a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, which is incompatible with the expansion of oil exploration over protected areas, such as Quilombola communities. The administrative act issued jointly by the Ministry of Mines and Energy and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change that authorized the offering of the aforementioned blocks is also challenged. In preliminary proceedings, the following is requested: (i) the suspension of the offering of the disputed blocks; and (ii) the suspension of the Joint Expressions of Interest for the Permanent Offer of Areas regarding the Espírito Santo, Potiguar, and Sergipe-Alagoas Basins, and the suspension of their offerings in the 4th Cycle of the Permanent Offer until new Joint Expressions are made that comply with the necessary legislation. In final proceedings, the following is requested: (i) the recognition of the nullity of the Joint Expressions with respect to the exploratory blocks; and (ii) the exclusion from the offering of the blocks indicated in the initial petition.

The defendants argued for the jurisdiction of the 4th Federal Court of the Judicial Section of Rio Grande do Norte, due to the prior filing of the Public Civil Action 0812151-03.2023.4.05.8400 (included on this Platform as "Instituto Arayara vs. ANP and others (4th cycle of permanent offer of oil concession in Submarine Mountains)"), which was accepted by the court. The new case number is 0812949-61.2023.4.05.8400.

In an interlocutory decision, the court of the 4th Federal Court of the Judicial Section of Rio Grande do Norte, to which jurisdiction was declined, denied the preliminary injunction request. The request was considered moot because the request to suspend the 4th Cycle of Permanent Offer of Concessions had already been examined and denied within the scope of the Public Civil Action 0812151-03.2023.4.05.8400, filed by the same plaintiff. Furthermore, the parties were notified to comment on the jurisdiction of this Court, considering the possibility of amending the initial petition of the Public Civil Action 0812151-03.2023.4.05.8400.

This is a Claim of Non-Compliance with a Fundamental Precept (ADPF), with a request for precautionary measures, filed by political parties (PSB, Rede, PDT, Partido Verde, PT, PSOL, and PCdoB) in partnership with several civil society organizations. The action questions acts of commission and omission by the Federal Government and other bodies of the Federal Public Administration – specifically the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio), and the National Indian Foundation (FUNAI) – in breach of the implementation of the Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon (PPCDAm). The PPCDAm is expressly provided for in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009), and the violation of a fundamental precept is contextualized especially in light of the climate emergency. The petitioning parties seek the adoption of necessary measures by the Federal Government to resume the implementation of the public policy to combat deforestation, associating its paralysis with violations of the fundamental right to an ecologically balanced environment for all and, specifically, the rights of indigenous peoples, traditional peoples and communities, and children and adolescents, as well as threats to the fulfillment of climate goals assumed by Brazil internally and internationally. They address the scenario of intensified deforestation in the Amazon and its adverse effects on Indigenous Lands (TIs) and Conservation Units (UCs) and warn of the "point of no return" for the Amazon. Among the requests, they seek, as a preliminary measure, (i) the effective execution of the PCCDAm at levels sufficient for the effective combat of deforestation in the Legal Amazon and the consequent achievement of Brazilian climate goals, (ii) the implementation of a specific plan for institutional strengthening of IBAMA, ICMBio, and FUNAI, and (iii) the creation of an Emergency Commission for Monitoring, Transparency, Participation, and Deliberation. In the final stage, among other procedural matters, confirmation of the precautionary requests is sought.

Due to the similarity of the objects of this ADPF (760) and the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality by Omission (ADO) 54, the Rapporteur of both, Minister Carmen Lúcia, decided to judge them together. In her vote, the Minister stated that the right to an ecologically balanced environment is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution and in international treaties to which Brazil is a party. She emphasized the principle of the prohibition of environmental regression. She understood that there is a process of normative "termite-like" action occurring silently, through the dismantling of the bureaucratic-normative apparatus of the State. This phenomenon is only visible with a general analysis of the existing situation in the country. She affirmed the transnational and transboundary nature of the climate issue and that there are three pillars of policy construction, from which rights derive, in defense of the environment and the climate: (i) deference to science, (ii) international cooperation, and (iii) joint action by the State and society. Furthermore, the set of constitutional norms, principles, and rules of the Brazilian legal system are oriented towards the protection of the environment, the preservation of flora, water, indigenous culture, the Earth, and the climate on a planetary scale. It recognized the unconstitutional state of affairs regarding the illegal deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest. It ordered the resumption of the PPCDAm (Action Plan for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Amazon) by the Federal Government and the competent federal agencies. After the Reporting Minister finalized her vote, Minister André Mendonça requested to review the case files, and thus, the judgment was suspended.

In April 2024, the requests in ADPF 760 and ADO 54 were partially upheld. The Court did not declare the state of affairs unconstitutional, but recognized the existence of structural flaws in the policy for protecting the Legal Amazon. It determined that the Federal Government must make a "significant commitment" to combating illegal deforestation in the biome and ordered it to adopt measures to implement the PPCDAm (Action Plan for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Amazon), strengthen the oversight bodies IBAMA, ICMBio, and Funai, that the Union must present transparent information on actions and results of measures adopted in compliance with the determinations of the STF (Supreme Federal Court), and that data on measures adopted by the Executive Branch be submitted to the Environmental and Climate Change Observatory of the Judiciary Branch of the CNJ (National Council of Justice). The climate issue was expressly mentioned in the votes of different ministers, especially to relate deforestation and climate change and to highlight the importance of the Amazon Rainforest in this context. The international treaties that comprise the International Climate Change Regime were also presented to demonstrate the climate commitments of States and, more specifically, Brazil's commitment to combating deforestation. The role of the judiciary in responding to insufficient environmental protection and in the context of a climate emergency was discussed, mentioning climate litigation and the adjudication of cases by international and foreign courts, and also acknowledging the pioneering role of the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) in this matter. The term "climate justice" was explicitly mentioned, pointing out that the impacts of climate change tend to be felt more intensely by vulnerable groups, and considerations were also made regarding intergenerational justice and future generations. Emphasis was placed on the mention in Justice Luiz Fux's vote of the need to implement "[t]he fundamental environmental, ecological, and climate rights and duties." Also noteworthy was the mention in Justice Edson Fachin's vote of the violation of "what is perhaps the most fundamental right of humanity" because it allows the realization of all others by guaranteeing the conditions for existence and "avoiding climate chaos and the compromise of Amazonian biodiversity." The ruling was published on June 26, 2024, and the process is currently in the decision enforcement phase.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against Silvane de Souza Mendes for the deforestation of an area of 183.85 hectares between 2017 and 2018 in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant's occupation of the land was illegal because it is an area within an Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), owned and of interest to the Federal Government, managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractive communities. This ACP represents a set of 20 actions filed by the MPF as a result of the investigation carried out in civil inquiry no. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, for illegal deforestation carried out within the Antimary Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), but against different defendants. The argument for the action is based, among other points, on Brazilian Environmental Law, regarding the constitutional protection of the environment, the accusation of deforestation, civil liability propter rem for environmental damages, including climate damages, and collective moral damages. It also mentions, as an environmental liability, the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) caused by the illegal deforestation of the area, calculated at 108,820.37 tons of carbon dioxide, which are directly related to the Brazilian State's departure from its climate goals, out of step with national and international commitments assumed by Brazil in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). Among other requests, the following is sought: (i) reparation for the damages caused by the illegal deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation corresponding to intermediate and residual environmental material damages; (iv) payment of compensation corresponding to climate damages; and (v) payment of compensation corresponding to collective moral damages.

The defendant filed a response, arguing that she lacked standing to be sued and requested that the claim be dismissed.

INCRA joined the lawsuit as a co-litigant assistant to the plaintiff.

The court issued a ruling dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice. This was based on a request from the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, which acknowledged, through police investigations, that the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) on which the action was based had been fraudulently obtained by a third party acting on behalf of the defendant, who therefore has no connection to the deforested area. The ruling became final and the case was definitively closed.

Subsequently, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office filed a class action lawsuit against the legitimate defendants, which was assigned number 1015921-77.2024.4.01.3200.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief filed by the Public Defender's Office of the State of Pará (DPE-PA) against Brazil AGFOR LLC, Michael Edward Greene, Jonas Akila Morioka, Amigos dos Ribeirinhos Assessoria Ambiental EIRELI, Associação dos Ribeirinhos e Moradores, BLB Florestal Preservação no Brasil Ltda., and the Municipality of Portel, due to projects generating illegal carbon credits sold on the voluntary market. This ACP is part of a set of 4 actions filed by the DPE-PA with the same grounds, but questioning different carbon credit projects. The REDD++ 2252 project, the subject of the action, overlaps with areas of 5 State Agro-extractive Settlement Projects (PEAEX). These PEAEX are public lands, whose real right of use is granted to traditional communities located in the municipality of Portel, in the state of Pará, who did not participate in the challenged project. Project 2252 generates REDD+ assets (credits generated by avoided deforestation, sustainable management, and increased forest carbon stocks), was certified by an international company, and has been established since 2016 to obtain carbon credits for thirty years. The companies and individuals named in the lawsuit are responsible for, and are developers of, the project and/or alleged owners of rural properties where it is located. The Public Defender's Office of Pará (DPE-PA) alleges irregularities in the property registrations of the properties that comprise the project, and that the project lacks authorization from the state of Pará, which constitutes land grabbing of public lands. Furthermore, the mayor of Portel issued a Public Utility Decree authorizing its operation, which the DPE-PA argues is unconstitutional. It should be noted that the project was implemented without prior study. The Public Defender's Office of Pará (DPE-PA) argues that the defendants acted in violation of the right to traditional territory, the right to prior, free and informed consultation of traditional communities, failed to comply with federal legislation on climate change, payments for environmental services and the concession of public forests, and did not benefit the communities directly affected by the project. It argues that the defendants' conduct gives rise to a duty to repair collective moral damages. In the context of provisional relief, it requests (i) recognition of the possession of the traditional communities affected by the project over their overlapping areas; (ii) the suspension of Project 2252 and an injunction preventing the defendants from entering the PEAEX (Extractive Environmental Protection Areas). On the merits, the plaintiff requests (i) confirmation of the urgent requests; (ii) recognition of the right to traditional territory; (iii) invalidation of Project 2252 and legal transactions derived from it; (iv) an injunction prohibiting the defendants from entering the territories. (v) the declaration of nullity of the Public Utility Decree issued by the Municipality of Portel; (vi) the condemnation to pay collective moral damages in the amount of R$ 5,000,000.00 to be allocated to the Eastern Amazon Fund in favor of the communities of the agro-extractive territories of Portel.

Brazil Agflor and Michael Greene, a partner in said company, filed a defense, alleging preliminarily: (i) lack of standing of the Public Defender's Office of Pará (DPE-PA), due to the absence of a power of attorney to represent the communities; (ii) lack of standing, since they would not be responsible for land issues concerning the areas of Project 2252; and (iii) inadequacy of the initial complaint, due to the lack of demonstration of a causal link between the defendant's conduct and the alleged damages, especially regarding the request for compensation for collective moral damages. On the merits, they argue, among other points, that the lands of Project 2252 were not the object of land grabbing, indicating that, contrary to what the DPE-PA alleges, the community's areas unduly overlapped private properties. The only mention of the climate issue was limited to the potential role of carbon credit projects in reducing deforestation, mitigating the main cause of greenhouse gas emissions in Brazil. Finally, they request (i) their exclusion from the passive pole; (ii) total dismissal of the merits of the action; (iii) challenge to the value of the case; and (iv) carrying out an expert examination of documents relating to the properties discussed in the action. They also state their willingness to enter into a conduct adjustment agreement.

This is a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI), with a request for a precautionary measure, filed by the Sustainability Network (Rede), the Socialism and Liberty Party (PSOL), and the Brazilian Socialist Party (PSB), accompanied by a request for the admission of the Arayara International Institute of Education and Culture (Arayara International Institute) as amicus curiae. The constitutionality of articles 1 to 7 of Federal Law 14.299/2022 is questioned. This law establishes economic subsidies for small-scale public service concessionaires of electricity distribution and creates the Just Energy Transition Program (TEJ). The petitioners argue that the challenged articles extend the contracting of electricity generated by the Jorge Lacerda Thermoelectric Complex (CTJL) with subsidies from consumers for another fifteen years starting in 2025. They believe that the economic subsidy provided for in the Law allows for the indirect financing of the purchase of electricity derived from the burning of coal and fossil fuels. Considering that CTJL is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the southern region of Brazil, the applicants allege a violation of the Federal Constitution and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017), as well as the National Policy on Climate Change - PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009). They emphasize that the use of coal for energy generation is responsible for socio-environmental disasters in the region, exacerbating climate change and causing damage to public health, especially in relation to populations already subject to socio-economic disadvantages. They argue that the TEJ allows for the extension of CTJL's operation until at least 2040, and that the regulation did not present guidelines for GHG reduction by the Complex – on the contrary, it stated that there will be no carbon dioxide abatement. Finally, the applicants argue that the composition established for the TEJ Council violates the principles of participatory democracy and equality, since there is no equalization in the number of seats allocated to the government and civil society organizations, and its composition does not reflect the participation of social actors linked to environmental and labor causes, as well as the sustainable closure of mines. In preliminary proceedings, it is requested that Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Law be interpreted in accordance with the Constitution, so that they are considered unconstitutional and the granting of the subsidy established by the norm is prohibited, and that the effects of Articles 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Law be suspended. In final proceedings, it is requested that the Arayara Institute be admitted as amicus curiae and that the injunction be confirmed, with the action being granted, (i) to provide an interpretation in accordance with the Constitution to Articles 1, 2, and 3, considering them unconstitutional and prohibiting the granting of the subsidy under the terms of the Law, and (ii) that Articles 4 to 7 of Federal Law 14.299/2022 be declared unconstitutional and unconstitutional in accordance with international conventions.

The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MMA) requested time to respond in the proceedings, arguing that the subject matter of the action involves technical and political issues relevant to the climate agenda of its ministry, which is currently being structured.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for urgent relief, filed by IBAMA against Siderúrgica São Luiz Ltda. and Geraldo Magela Martins, the company's managing partner, concerning environmental and climate damage caused by the high use of charcoal without a regular origin. It alleges that the defendant steel mill is part of a fraudulent scheme involving deforestation and illegal charcoal production, and that Geraldo Magela Martins adopted and endorsed contracts for the acquisition of charcoal with ideologically false origins, thus establishing objective and joint liability for the defendant parties. It points out that the use of charcoal without a regular origin constitutes an illegal practice that directly contributes to illegal deforestation. Regarding the actual origin of the illegal charcoal, it states that, although it may originate from any biome, the biome in which the steel mill's irregular activity took place is presumed. Therefore, for the purposes of calculating and directing the reparation, the Cerrado biome is considered. In the context of urgent relief, the plaintiff demands the adoption of an environmental integrity program, the suspension of incentives and tax benefits granted by the Public Authorities, and the freezing of funds to guarantee the reparation of environmental damages. On the merits, among other requests, the plaintiff seeks confirmation of the urgent relief granted and the condemnation of the defendant to pay (i) for interim and residual ecological damage, (ii) for collective moral damage, and (iii) for climate environmental damage, as well as the adoption of an environmental integrity program for at least 5 years.

The defendant steel company filed a defense alleging, preliminarily, that the initial complaint was flawed for failing to demonstrate the event that caused the alleged environmental damage and that the managing partner, Geraldo Magela Martins, lacked standing to be sued. On the merits, it argued, among other issues, that (i) there is no evidence of the defendant steel company's actual participation in the fraud scheme, thus precluding joint and several liability for fraud committed by third parties, (ii) it could not be considered a direct or indirect polluter, as there is no evidence of any connection between the company and illegal logging, (iii) there is no causal link between the alleged environmental damage and the defendant's conduct, and (iv) there is no causal link between the defendant's activity and global warming, especially due to the difficulty in assessing the extent of the damage.

In a preliminary ruling, the court denied the request for urgent relief. It held that, at that stage of the proceedings, the imposition of environmental integrity programs could not be demanded, rejecting this request and the requests related to the suspension of tax incentives or benefits, as well as access to credit lines. The decision acknowledges the causal link between the business activity and the production of charcoal originating from illegal deforestation. However, it pointed to the need for further evidence and judicial proceedings to determine the extent of the damage, making it impossible to order the freezing of the aforementioned amount. Finally, it ordered the inclusion of GMM Participações Societárias Ltda. as a defendant.

In their defense, Geraldo and GMM Participações argued that the request for urgent relief should not be granted due to the absence of its prerequisites. They asserted the lack of standing of GERALDO MAGELA MARTINS, as he allegedly did not act to cause environmental damage, and the lack of standing of GMM PARTICIPAÇÕES, as Siderúrgica São Luiz was active, and there was no initiation of an incident of disregard of legal personality to include GMM PARTICIPAÇÕES as a defendant in the action. On the merits, they argued the lack of evidence of environmental damage and causal link, the generic nature of the request for compensation for residual damage, the lack of internal regulations for the use of the CSC (Shared Services Center), and thus requested the dismissal of the action and the rejection of the request for reversal of the burden of proof.

In its reply, IBAMA ratified the grounds presented in its initial filing, arguing for the action to be upheld with its early judgment due to the lack of need for evidentiary proceedings. The court ordered the parties to present their evidence. Siderúrgica São Luiz Ltda. requested the production of testimonial, documentary, and expert evidence, while IBAMA stated that it had no evidence to produce. The court granted the request for testimonial evidence, limited documentary evidence to new documents, and ordered the analysis of the request for expert evidence after the witnesses had been heard.

In May 2025, a judgment was issued that partially granted the requests. The court did not accept the obligation of in-kind reparation for the environmental damage caused, because IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) did not identify the location of the deforestation or its direct perpetrator, leaving the damage unproven and making in-kind reparation unfeasible. However, collective moral damages were recognized due to the acquisition of a large volume of illegally sourced charcoal, which causes an environmental impact affecting the interests of the entire community, and the amount of one million reais was set for its reparation.

This is a Public Civil Action, with a request for urgent relief, filed by IBAMA against Madeireira Nova Aliança Ltda., seeking compensation for environmental and climate damages caused by the storage of logs without an environmental license. This Public Civil Action is part of a set of 9 actions filed by IBAMA with the same grounds, but against different defendants, to challenge illegal timber storage and climate damage. The plaintiff alleges that the storage of timber without proven origin is associated with illegal deforestation and predatory exploitation in the Amazon biome and on indigenous land. Thus, it seeks compensation for associated environmental damages, including (i) damage caused to flora and fauna, (ii) soil erosion, and (iii) contribution to global warming. Regarding climate damage, it claims that the illegal conduct not only removed carbon sinks from the forest but also caused the release of carbon into the atmosphere. The author seeks to have determined (i) an obligation to restore vegetation in an area equivalent to that estimated by IBAMA, based on the volume of seized logs, totaling 30.46 hectares, and (ii) an obligation to pay for climate damage based on the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). Based on the polluter-pays principle, the author argues that the negative climate externality represents an external social cost that was not internalized by the illegal vegetation suppression activity. The author maintains that climate damage can be identified on an individual scale by multiplying the estimated GHG emissions from the activity by the SCC. In this specific case, IBAMA uses the Amazon Fund methodology to estimate emissions based on the area of the Amazon biome considered deforested. The author expressly mentions environmental justice and argues that accountability for climate damage consists of legally affirming the correction of the distortion of environmental burdens and benefits. The author requests, as an urgent measure: (i) suspension of financing, tax incentives, and access to credit lines for the offender, (ii) freezing of assets in the estimated amount for the obligation to restore vegetation and the obligation to pay for climate damage, and (iii) a court order to halt the illegal polluting activity. The author further asserts the need for reversal of the burden of proof and, definitively, requests that the defendant be ordered to restore an area equivalent to the deforested area and to pay the amount corresponding to the social cost of carbon emissions.

The court issued a preliminary injunction partially granting the request for an injunction regarding the freezing of the defendant company's assets, the suspension of the defendant's participation in financing programs, and the suspension or loss of tax incentives or benefits, given the strong evidence of damage and the duty to repair it (probability of the right) and the risk to the useful outcome of the process (guaranteeing reparation). However, at this time, the court considered the use of the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) for the purpose of ordering the freezing of assets unfeasible due to a lack of technical support, and the requested amount appeared, at first glance, disproportionate.

IBAMA filed an interlocutory appeal (1005432-51.2019.4.01.0000) requesting the inclusion of the value related to the Social Cost of Carbon (CSC) in the declaration of asset unavailability, considering the soundness of the methodology used as a reference for its quantification. It argues that to fully compensate for the environmental damage caused, it is necessary to include the social cost of carbon, which is classified as "residual damage" or "permanent damage". The appeal is awaiting judgment.

In its defense, the defendant alleged the initial complaint was flawed, the court lacked jurisdiction (it should have been the court of the location of the damage), the need for a necessary passive joint litigation with the State of Pará, and the absence of a causal link to hold it liable for the environmental damage.

IBAMA submitted a rebuttal contesting the points raised in the defense, and attached Technical Information No. 10/2019-COREC/CGBIO/DBFLO, which explains how the calculation is made to arrive at the amount of compensation sought regarding the application of the Social Cost of Carbon (CSC).

In October 2024, a judgment was issued partially upholding the claims, ordering the defendant company to (i) submit a Degraded Area Recovery Project (PRAD); (ii) pay material damages in the amount of R$ 327,201.32; (iii) suspend the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) of the area until the damage is fully recovered; and (iv) maintain the suspension of participation in financing lines. In short, the judgment confirmed the preliminary injunction, without, however, addressing the claims regarding payment of compensation related to the social cost of carbon.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for urgent relief, filed by IBAMA against Indústria, Comércio, Importação e Exportação de Madeiras Floresta Verde Ltda., seeking compensation for environmental and climate damages based on an infraction notice and administrative proceedings for the storage of sawn timber without valid authorization. This ACP is part of a set of 9 actions filed by IBAMA with the same grounds, but against different defendants, to challenge illegal timber storage and climate damage. The plaintiff alleges that the storage of timber without proven origin was one of the largest infraction notices regarding the storage of timber without proven origin. Thus, it seeks compensation for associated environmental damages, including (i) damage caused to flora and fauna, (ii) soil erosion, and (iii) contribution to global warming. Regarding climate damage, it claims that the illegal conduct not only removed carbon sinks from the forest but also caused the release of carbon into the atmosphere. The author seeks to have determined (i) an obligation to restore vegetation in an area equivalent to the estimated 96 hectares by IBAMA, calculated from the volume of 3,359.993 m3 of stored forest product, which is equivalent to 9,599.99 m3 of timber logs, and (ii) an obligation to pay for climate damage based on the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). Based on the polluter-pays principle, the author argues that the negative climate externality represents an external social cost that has not been internalized by the illegally polluting activity. The author maintains that climate damage can be identified on an individual scale by multiplying the estimated GHG emissions from the activity by the SCC. In this specific case, IBAMA uses the Amazon Fund methodology to estimate emissions based on the area of the Amazon biome considered deforested, totaling 35,232 tons of carbon. The plaintiff explicitly mentions environmental justice and argues that accountability for climate damage consists of legally affirming the correction of the distortion of environmental burdens and benefits. The plaintiff requests, as an urgent measure: (i) suspension of financing, tax incentives, and access to credit lines for the offender; (ii) freezing of assets in the estimated value for the obligation to restore vegetation and the obligation to pay for climate damage; and (iii) a court order to halt the illegal polluting activity. The plaintiff asserts the need for a reversal of the burden of proof and, definitively, requests that the defendant be ordered to restore an area equivalent to the deforested area and to pay the amount corresponding to the social cost of carbon.

The court ruled against the preliminary injunction request, finding no urgency or danger in delay. IBAMA filed an interlocutory appeal against the decision, which was subsequently dismissed as moot due to the issuance of a judgment on the merits.

The defendant filed a response alleging the initial complaint was flawed regarding the claim for compensation for environmental damages, arguing that the concrete facts of liability had not been proven and challenging the value of the case. He stated that the environmental agents had made an error in measuring the amount of wood found and, therefore, the defendant did not have illegal timber storage. He alleged the plaintiff lacked standing to bring a Public Civil Action on the matter. He questioned the argument for the need to pay the social cost of carbon, as it was impossible to individualize the damages allegedly caused by the defendant. He alleged that the administrative procedure initiated by IBAMA was flawed. He requested the dismissal of the case without prejudice or a judgment of dismissal for lack of merit.

IBAMA filed a rebuttal contesting the points raised in the defense, and attached Technical Information No. 10/2019-COREC/CGBIO/DBFLO, which explains how the calculation is made to arrive at the amount of compensation sought regarding the application of the Social Cost of Carbon (CSC). IBAMA requested the reversal of the burden of proof and an early judgment on the merits.

The court decided the case summarily, understanding that it involved a matter of law and fact, and therefore did not require the production of evidence in a hearing. It partially granted the initial requests. It found that the materiality and authorship of the environmental offense had been proven by the work of IBAMA agents, the inspection report, and the photographic report presented. It considered that the defendant's conduct caused damage to the community, including loss of soil nutrients, impacts on the local population, loss of natural capital, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and decreased water availability, thus granting the request for condemnation to pay for the social cost of carbon. It argued that the amount to be paid should be fixed based on the severity of the damage, the degree of fault of the offender, and the socioeconomic status of the defendant. Thus, it considered the damage in question to be significant and that the defendant has a high degree of fault. It ordered the defendant to perform an obligation to restore 96 hectares through the preparation of a reforestation plan, in accordance with the conditions established by the court. to pay the amount of one million reais due to the social cost of carbon, through deposit into a judicial account; and to the loss or suspension of the defendant's participation in financing lines offered to official credit institutions and the loss or restriction of access to incentives and tax benefits offered by the Public Authorities.

IBAMA filed a motion for clarification due to a material error, as the court's report stated that the action had been brought by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, not IBAMA. The motion was accepted by the court and the material correction was made.

In a new petition, the municipality also requested the enforcement of the judgment. The defendant responded in the proceedings, alleging that it had not been notified of the judgment and requested the reopening of the appeal period, a claim that was not accepted by the court. Therefore, the defendant was ordered to pay the amounts of the judgment and present a Plan for the Recovery of Degraded Areas. The defendant filed an objection to the enforcement of the judgment, alleging that the request for enforcement of the decision was submitted before it became final. It requested the termination of the execution due to the unenforceability and unenforceability of the title and the annulment of the decision that converted the obligation to perform into damages.

The objection was upheld by the court solely to restore the appeal period to the defendant, and thus, an appeal was filed. In this appeal, the defendant requested: i. the dismissal of the case without prejudice, alleging the lack of standing of IBAMA; ii. the reversal of the judgment to dismiss all claims; or iii. the annulment of the judgment to order a technical expert assessment to quantify the social cost of carbon. The defendant argues that the social cost of carbon does not constitute material or moral damage, but merely a "technical term under construction," which would not be subject to compensation or quantification.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for preliminary injunction, filed by the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) against Brandão de Souza Rezende and Jovino Moreno de Miranda. This ACP is part of a set of 2 actions filed by IBAMA with the same grounds, but against different defendants, to challenge illegal deforestation in the Cerrado. The action is based on administrative process no. 02029.001395/2012-17, initiated on November 22, 2012, which investigates the deforestation of 489.0545 hectares of native Cerrado forest on the Jatobá Farm, in the municipality of Itapiratins/TO, without authorization from the competent environmental agency. The great importance of the Cerrado is highlighted, and the advance of illegal deforestation of the biome contributes to the climate crisis. According to remote sensing images, the plaintiff alleges that the area continues to be exploited (even though it has been embargoed by IBAMA), without regeneration measures having been adopted. The plaintiff argues for the civil liability of the defendants for the specific environmental damage of the irregular suppression of native forest in the Cerrado, and the existence of resulting environmental damages that include damage to fauna, soil, climate, biodiversity, among other harmful consequences related to deforestation. Thus, in addition to in-kind reparation, IBAMA alleges the need for reparation of interim damage, residual damage, and environmental moral damage, as well as restitution of the illicit enrichment obtained. Therefore, it requests, as a preliminary measure, a prohibition on exploiting the deforested area in any way during the course of the litigation, the suspension of tax incentives or benefits, the suspension of access to credit lines granted with public funds, the freezing of the defendants' movable and immovable assets, and the registration of the existence of the Public Civil Action in the property registry. Ultimately, the defendants are ordered to (i) fulfill the obligation to restore an area equivalent to the deforested area, (ii) pay collective moral damages in the amount of R$ 3,693,828.63 (three million, six hundred and ninety-three thousand, eight hundred and twenty-eight reais and sixty-three cents), (iii) pay for the temporary and residual damages caused to the ecological heritage, in addition to compensation for the illicitly obtained economic benefit, the value of which will be determined in the settlement of the judgment, and (iv) register the legal reserve of the property. The amounts corresponding to the indemnities must be reverted to the Fund for the Restoration of Damaged Assets.

The court denied the request for urgent relief, finding that the necessary requirements for its granting had not been demonstrated. It argued that IBAMA has its own self-executing instruments for cases of non-compliance with measures imposed by the agency itself. IBAMA filed an interlocutory appeal (1048550-38.2023.4.01.0000 - TRF1) against the decision.

In their defense, the defendants allege that i) the Jatobá Farm is undergoing environmental regularization, having prepared and submitted to the state environmental agency (NATURANTIS) the Environmental Control Report and Plan (RCA/PCA) concerning extensive cattle farming, with the aim of obtaining environmental licenses; ii) that the area in question has been kept fallow since the administrative embargo, with no agricultural, extractive, or alternative land use activity carried out on the site, with the aim of allowing the natural regeneration of native vegetation (which has already been fully completed). For these reasons, they argue that there is no basis for claiming environmental damage, paying compensation for the allegedly unlawful act, or prohibiting the exploitation of the area, since, given that the deforestation was carried out without a license, the fine was applied and the offenders have already been penalized. The defendants further request that the case be dismissed without prejudice due to the lack of procedural interest and standing of IBAMA and the lack of standing of the defendant Brandão de Souza Rezende (since he was no longer the owner or possessor at the time of the damage).

This is an action filed as an Ordinary Action (ProcedCom), with a request for preliminary injunction, by Biostratum Distribuidora de Combustíveis SA against the Federal Government, aiming to overturn the mandatory target for the acquisition of Decarbonization Credits (CBios) imposed on it, equivalent to 9,959 CBios at the time the action was filed. CBios were established by the National Biofuels Policy (Federal Law 13.576/2017) – known as RenovaBio – which, in turn, was enacted because Brazil is a signatory to the Paris Agreement. RenovaBio, among other objectives, aims to contribute to the fulfillment of the commitments assumed by the country under the Paris Agreement, promote the expansion of biofuels in the energy matrix, and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the production, marketing, and use of biofuels. To this end, it provides for the establishment of annual national decarbonization targets for the fuel sector, which are individualized each year for fuel distributors and met by companies through the acquisition of CBios (Carbon Credits), under penalty of sanctions provided for by law. The annual targets are defined by the National Council for Energy Policy (CNPE) and individualized by the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP). The plaintiff company argues that the obligation to acquire CBios constitutes the imposition of a new tax, with the Decarbonization Credit being a residual tax, as it is not provided for in the Federal Constitution and fulfills the requirements of the National Tax Code (Federal Law 5.172/1966). It argues that, for the establishment of such a tax, the Federal Constitution requires the enactment of a Complementary Law and that the tax be non-cumulative, which does not occur in the case of CBios, implying a formal defect in its establishment. The author further argues that, as a fuel distributor, it is not responsible for the emission of polluting gases, but only for the commercialization of fossil fuels, making it logical that the fuel producer should be the recipient of the mandatory acquisition of CBios. It also states that fuel distribution is a relatively low-polluting activity. It requests, as a preliminary measure, the suspension of its CBio acquisition target. As a final measure, it requests confirmation of the injunction and recognition of the unconstitutionality of the legislation that mandates the company's compulsory CBio acquisition target.

The preliminary injunction was denied, based primarily on the grounds that (i) the constitutional principles for environmental protection set forth in the Federal Constitution make it mandatory to reduce the environmental impact of human conduct, whether in the production or distribution of fossil fuels; (ii) the establishment of CBio acquisition targets does not constitute the creation of a tax rule, but rather an environmental administrative rule, based on constitutional and international dictates for the reduction of environmental pollution, whose deleterious effects are felt worldwide, such as increased heat and decreased rainfall; (iii) the argument that the distribution company does not pollute is not credible. Since no tax-related matter was recognized in the lawsuit, the action was ordered to be redistributed to the federal court with jurisdiction in administrative matters.

In its defense, the Federal Government argues, among other points: (i) that the creation of CBios is in line with environmental regulations, functioning as a form of incentive for social actors to preserve nature, with the creation of compensatory measures being indispensable for reducing GHG emissions and for the effectiveness of RenovaBio; (ii) that CBios are based on the idea of converting the environmental costs of using fossil fuels into revenue for biofuel producers, offering efficiency incentives for their sustainable growth; (iii) that Decarbonization Credits provide for the valuation of externalities present in the fuel market, generating a competitive balance between fossil and renewable fuels; (iv) that CBios are a market solution without altering taxes; (v) the absence of delay in the publication of annual targets; (vi) that there was sufficient time for the acquisition of CBios and their full availability in the market; (vii) the non-existence of a tax legal relationship, especially since it concerns an obligation to reduce GHG emissions through the acquisition of CBios offered by other private parties, with no pecuniary relationship between the Public Administration and the distributor; and (viii) the impossibility of distributors deviating from the mandatory annual decarbonization target and the acquisition of CBios.

In the judgment, the requests were dismissed, based on the same grounds as the decision that denied the request for preliminary injunction sought in the initial petition, thus confirming it. The plaintiff appealed the decision, arguing, in addition to the arguments presented in the initial petition, that imposing the purchase of CBios on fuel distributors harms economic activity, violating the principle of Free Enterprise. The Federal Government filed counter-arguments to the appeal, requesting the upholding of the judgment, in the same terms presented in its defense.

The appeal was dismissed. The court argued that RenovaBio is an instrument that gives effect to the provisions of Article 225 of the Federal Constitution and that it does not have the nature of a tax. The policy establishes an obligation to act, consisting of reducing carbon emissions by fuel distributors, which only becomes a monetary obligation when not fulfilled.

An appeal was filed against the judgment, which was dismissed, and therefore an appeal against the judgment was filed, which was not accepted by the Superior Court of Justice (STJ).

This is a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) with a request for a preliminary injunction, filed by the National Confederation of General Insurance, Private Pension and Life, Supplementary Health, and Capitalization Companies (CNseg) seeking a declaration of the unconstitutionality of Article 56 of Federal Law 15.042/2024 (Brazilian Emissions Trading System Law). The disputed article requires insurance companies, open supplementary pension entities, capitalization companies, and local reinsurers to compulsorily acquire carbon credits or investment fund shares in these assets for a minimum of 0.5% per year of their technical reserves and provisions. CNseg argues that the provision has formal and substantive unconstitutionality defects, in the sense that insurers cannot be subject to mandatory investment, due to the provisions of the Complementary Law that regulates the sector. The argument is that the provision restricts freedom, free enterprise, and free competition and requires insurers, even though they are not the largest contributors to GHG emissions, to acquire carbon credits, placing an excessive burden on them for environmental protection. Within this context, the argument is that the credits have an uncertain real value, there is insufficient supply in the domestic market, and that the obligation implies the artificial creation of demand, which could harm insurers and other companies interested in acquiring the assets. As a preliminary injunction, the claim is seeking the immediate suspension of the article. On the merits, the claim is seeking the declaration of unconstitutionality, with ex tunc effects, of Article 56 of Federal Law 15.042/2024.

This is a Public Civil Action, with a request for urgent relief, filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against the State of Amazonas and the National Foundation for Indigenous Peoples (FUNAI), seeking the suspension of the carbon credit/REDD+ project implemented by the Amazonas State Secretariat for the Environment (SEMA/AM). It is alleged that the project was implemented without prior, free and informed consultation with indigenous and traditional communities, in violation of ILO Convention No. 169. Furthermore, it is argued that carbon credit projects, especially in the REDD+ modality, present structural flaws that compromise their effectiveness in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, serving more as an instrument for the commodification of traditionally occupied territories than as a real mechanism for climate mitigation. In preliminary proceedings, the granting of urgent relief is requested, with the immediate suspension of the administrative acts of SEMA/AM. On the merits, the request is for the project to be declared null and void, and for the State of Amazonas to be ordered to compensate the affected communities for material and moral damages.

In its defense, the state of Amazonas argues that its REDD+ program is legal, effective, and essential as a fundamental instrument for addressing the climate crisis and promoting forest conservation, being in full compliance with current national and international legislation, and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and traditional communities through the provision for prior, free, and informed consultation. Therefore, it requested that the action be dismissed in its entirety.

This is a class action lawsuit, with a request for preliminary injunction, filed by individuals from two global movements seeking to promote climate justice, Families for Climate and Fridays for Future, against the State of São Paulo, the Governor of the State (João Doria) and the Secretary of Finance and Planning (Henrique Meirelles). The adequacy of the administrative acts that structure the institutional design of the IncentivAuto Program – Automotive Regime for New Investments (SFP Resolutions 11 and 12 and COFUNAC Deliberation 27/2020), established by State Decree 64.130/2019, is questioned in relation to federal and state regulations for the protection of the climate system, such as the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the State Policy on Climate Change – PEMC (State Law 13.798/2009), and to the international commitments undertaken by Brazil, especially within the scope of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – UNFCCC (promulgated by Federal Decree 2.652/1998) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). The authors highlight the lack of transparency in the Program's information, which resulted in the filing of the Action for Anticipatory Production of Evidence 1047315-47.2020.8.26.0053. They argue that public policies for social and economic development must be aligned with mitigating environmental or climate damage and preserving the environment, life, and human health of present and future generations, emphasizing the social function of property. They allege that the acts do not require the evaluation of projects through socio-environmental parameters aimed at reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. According to the authors, the Program finances, with public resources, the increase in emissions, being inconsistent with the protective norms of the climate system. Finally, they request, among other things, (i) the granting of urgent relief ordering the suspension of the IncentivAuto Program and, definitively, (ii) the confirmation of the relief to declare the nullity of the regulations that structure it (SFP Resolutions 11 and 12, COFUNAC Deliberation 27/2020 and State Decree 64.130/2019) and other administrative acts arising therefrom; or, subsidiarily, to order the State of São Paulo to include, in the Program, conditions for the approval of projects relating to the adoption of measures aimed at reducing GHG emissions and adapting to climate impacts.

A decision was issued denying the request for urgent relief, on the grounds that there is no evidence of the likelihood of the right. It concluded that, based solely on the initial complaint, it was not possible to identify the illegality alleged by the plaintiffs, and that the production of evidence is necessary to determine whether the environmental damage exceeds the established economic development target. It emphasized that the IncentivAuto Program is obligated to comply with environmental requirements. In this regard, the request for notification to provide documents was also denied, and the defendants were summoned to present their defense.

In its defense, the State of São Paulo argued, in short, that the implementation of the IncentivAuto Program stimulates socioeconomic development, thus serving the public interest for which it was created, and that there is no harm to public assets, administrative morality, or the environment. It stated that environmental protection is not separate from other constitutionally guaranteed rights, and that it is necessary to reconcile this with the values of development through the principle of sustainable development. It defended that the State of São Paulo has a clean energy matrix and a policy based on diverse supply sources, energy security, and efficiency, having already implemented various public policies aimed at reducing emissions and pollutants, notably the PEMC (Environmental Impact Assessment Program).

In his defense, João Doria argued that there is: (i) a lack of procedural interest in bringing a popular action, given that such an action is only appropriate to seek the annulment or declaration of acts detrimental to the assets of the Union, the Federal District, States, and Municipalities, a situation not observed in the case where the preliminary injunction seeks the suspension of the IncentivAuto Program, thus rendering the chosen legal avenue inappropriate; and (ii) lack of standing to sue, since there was no proof of any harmful act by the Governor. On the merits, he argued that the plaintiffs cannot question the convenience and timeliness of the legislation concerning the IncentivAuto Program through a Popular Action, and that the request to suspend the Program violates the principles of discretion and separation of powers. Therefore, he requested, among other things, that the claims made by the plaintiffs be dismissed if the preliminary objections raised are not upheld.

The court issued a ruling dismissing the action. It highlighted that the Program requires compliance with several obligations, including obtaining environmental licenses and adhering to the pollutant emission standards of the Vehicle Emission Control Program (PROCONVE), established by CONAMA Resolution 18/1986 and ratified by Federal Law 8.723/1993. It concluded that there was no act detrimental to public assets, administrative morality, or the environment. Regarding the subsidiary request, it understood that it constitutes an obligation to act, and a Popular Action cannot be used for this purpose.

The authors filed a motion for clarification. They argued that the decision failed to address the national and international norms and commitments adopted by Brazil and the state of São Paulo for the protection of the climate system. It also failed to address the alleged misuse of the administrative act and the request for amicus curiae participation. The motion was rejected by the court.

The authors also filed an appeal (AC 1068508-84.2021.8.26.0053). They request the reversal of the judgment, alleging that the decision did not analyze the object of the lawsuit, namely the non-compliance by the State of São Paulo with climate regulations, and reiterated arguments defended in the initial complaint.

The court upheld the lower court's decision, denying the appeal. The appellate court understood that the IncentivAuto program requires beneficiary companies to fulfill a series of obligations, including obtaining an environmental license that considers the legal standard for pollutant emissions foreseen in the "Proconve" program. Therefore, it concluded that there was no conflict between the program and climate regulations. Regarding the request to compel the State of São Paulo to include "in the IncentivAuto Program conditions for the approval of projects related to the adoption of measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change," the court held that it is not appropriate to impose an obligation on the Public Authority in a public action. For these reasons, the initiation of an incident of unconstitutionality was denied, and the sentence was upheld.

An appeal was filed, but its admissibility was deemed inadmissible. Therefore, the plaintiffs also filed an appeal against the decision of the court of origin that did not admit the appeal. Subsequently, the appeal against the decision was not admitted.

An internal appeal was filed against the single-judge decision, which is awaiting judgment.

This is a Claim of Non-Compliance with a Fundamental Precept (ADPF), with a request for precautionary measures, filed by four political parties. The objective is to resume the federal environmental sanctioning process. The petitioners argue that the Federal Government has acted in a way that dismantles and weakens the national system for environmental protection. They highlight the increase in deforestation and fires in the Amazon and Pantanal, also affecting indigenous lands, in addition to the paralysis of the Action Plan for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon (PPCDAm) and the delegitimization of data related to these facts by the President of the Republic. They argue that the issuance of Federal Decree 9.760/2019 by the President of the Republic paralyzed the environmental sanctioning process, mainly due to the provision for a conciliation stage in the process and the impossibility of converting fines into environmental services. They point out that the conversion foreseen in Federal Law 9.605/1998, which deals with criminal and administrative sanctions for conduct harmful to the environment, is an important instrument for fulfilling Brazil's commitment under the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). They allege that proceedings awaiting conciliation hearings are suspended, while the statute of limitations continues to run. The applicants argue that the Federal Government could not have altered Federal Law 9.605/1998, introducing a new phase to the sanctioning process, by decree, and that the normative instrument has several inconsistencies. They argue that the paralysis of this system violates articles 225, 231 and 23, caput and items VI and VII, of the Federal Constitution, the principles related to due process of law and the precautionary principle. In their preliminary injunction request: (i) a declaration of unconstitutionality of Federal Decree 9.760/2019 and an order to unblock the environmental sanctioning process; (ii) alternatively, that the aforementioned decree be interpreted in accordance with the Constitution, as requested; (iii) if interpreted differently from the previous requests, that the statute of limitations for the proceedings be suspended until a conciliation hearing takes place; (iv) an order to monitor the implementation of the requested measures; (v) that the Federal Government be ordered to submit to the Court a plan for resuming the regular functioning of the environmental sanctioning process; and (vi) that the Federal Government refrain from taking any new measures that hinder, prevent, or paralyze the regular progress of the federal environmental sanctioning process. In their final injunction request, they seek confirmation of the preliminary injunction measures, with a declaration of unconstitutionality of the challenged Federal Decree.

The Reporting Justice, Rosa Weber, admitted, as amici curiae, the Brazilian Association of Members of the Public Prosecutor's Office for the Environment (ABRAMPA) and the Climate Observatory Laboratory (Observatório do Clima). In its statement, ABRAMPA emphasized the climate issue and reinforced the points of the initial petition. It highlighted that the increase in deforestation causes socio-environmental damage and that the land use and forestry change sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Brazil. It pointed out that encouraging the advancement of illegal deforestation exacerbates global warming, contradicting international climate commitments and Brazilian climate policy. Thus, it argued that the situation violates the fundamental right to an ecologically balanced environment and climate stability. Finally, it stressed the need for consideration of the precautionary measures and a judgment on the merits of the initial requests.

The case was reassigned to Justice Luiz Fux. In his decision, the Justice determined that the ADPF (Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental - Claim of Non-Compliance with a Fundamental Precept) was moot due to the supervening loss of its object, considering the substantial alteration of the factual and normative framework existing at the time the action was filed, including the express repeal of provisions that introduced the contested innovations. For these reasons, he dismissed the case without prejudice.

In February 2024, the decision became final and the case was closed.

This is a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI), with a request for a precautionary measure, filed by four political parties. It seeks a declaration of unconstitutionality of Federal Law 14.285/2021, which was approved by the National Congress and sanctioned by the President of the Republic. The law alters the environmental protection regime of urban Permanent Preservation Areas (APPs), granting municipalities and the Federal District the power to define the limits of APPs around watercourses in urban areas, regardless of the limits established by Federal Law 12.651/2012 (Forest Code). The authors argue that the challenged law is materially unconstitutional because it violates (i) the constitutional regime for the distribution of powers in environmental matters (articles 24, VI, VII and VIII in conjunction with 30, item II), (ii) the fundamental right to an ecologically balanced environment (article 225), and (iii) the duty of the public authorities to protect the environment (articles 225 and 23, VI and VII), as provided for in the Federal Constitution, as well as the principles of prevention and precaution, the prohibition of regression in environmental matters, and the prohibition of insufficient protection. They believe that the law represents a weakening of the protection of urban APPs (Permanent Preservation Areas), which, in turn, impacts the management of environmental risks and disasters (such as floods and landslides), which are increasingly frequent with the intensification of extreme events associated with climate change. They request, as a precautionary measure, the suspension of the effects of Federal Law 14.285/2021 until the final judgment of the action, maintaining the applicability of the previous law. On the merits, they request a declaration of unconstitutionality of the law. Alternatively, they request the unconstitutionality of the challenged interpretation, without textual reduction, attributing a reading in accordance with the Federal Constitution so that the law is interpreted in a way that prevents the reduction of the minimum protection level previously established for urban APPs, that is, aiming at the application of the minimum protection zones established by the Forest Code.

In a single-judge decision, it was determined that an abbreviated procedure should be adopted, taking into consideration the regulatory context and the relevance of the matter, so that the analysis of the controversy can be carried out definitively.

The Socialism and Liberty Party (PSOL) issued a statement reiterating the urgency of considering the precautionary measure, emphasizing that several municipalities are already enacting laws that weaken the protection of Permanent Preservation Areas (APPs). This situation highlights the need for a swift and decisive analysis of the issue, since the new municipal legislation could further compromise environmental integrity and the safety of urban areas in the face of natural disasters.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against Sarah Ketley Muniz Almeida due to the deforestation of an area of 214.88 hectares, between 2015 and 2018, in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant's occupation of the land was illegal because it is an area included in an Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), owned and of interest to the Federal Government, managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractive communities. This class action lawsuit is part of a set of 22 actions filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) as a result of the investigation carried out in civil inquiry no. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, concerning illegal deforestation within the Antimary Agrarian-Extractive Settlement Project (PAE), but against different defendants. The lawsuit's arguments are based, among other points, on Brazilian Environmental Law, regarding the constitutional protection of the environment, the accusation of deforestation, civil liability propter rem for environmental damages, including climate damages, and collective moral damages. It also mentions, as an environmental liability, the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) resulting from the illegal deforestation of the area, calculated at 116,509.18 tons of carbon dioxide, which are directly related to the Brazilian State's departure from its climate goals, out of step with national and international commitments assumed by Brazil in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). Among other requests, the following are made: (i) reparation for the damages caused by the illegal deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation corresponding to intermediate and residual environmental material damages; (iv) payment of compensation corresponding to climate damages; and (v) payment of compensation corresponding to collective moral damages.

INCRA joined the lawsuit as a co-litigant assistant to the plaintiff.

In its defense, the defendant argued that it was neither the owner nor the possessor of the property at the time of the deforestation nor currently, and that it did not cause the deforestation. It points out that there would be lis pendens with another action filed against another defendant. It requested that the action be dismissed or, subsidiarily, that (i) the action be suspended; (ii) the compensation for material damages be dismissed; (iii) the compensation for collective moral damages be dismissed; (iv) the calculations on carbon presented by the Public Prosecutor's Office be invalidated.

A judgment was issued recognizing the relationship between deforestation and climate change, presenting extensive arguments on climate change and civil liability for climate damage, acknowledging said damage in the case. The requests were partially granted, ordering the defendant to: a) comply with the obligation to restore the degraded area according to the Degraded Area Recovery Plan (PRAD); b) refrain from using the area, in order to allow natural regeneration; c) pay compensation for material damages related to interim and residual environmental damages, the value of which will be subject to settlement of judgment; d) pay compensation for climate damages caused by deforestation, in the amount of R$ 3,046,715.10, using as a basis for calculating the amount of carbon emitted the Technical Note prepared by the Amazon Research Institute (IPAM) and, for pricing purposes, the value of 5 dollars per ton, according to the Amazon Fund; e) to the payment of compensation for collective moral damages, in the amount of 5% of the total material damages determined in the settlement of the judgment. Finally, it declared the respective CAR null and void and allocated all the resources obtained to the Fund for Diffuse Rights.

The defendant filed an appeal requesting the complete reversal of the judgment. In its requests, it pleaded for the dismissal of the case due to preliminary procedural issues or the total dismissal of the initial claims. Among the arguments presented, it defended the non-existence of a rule that regulates the quantification of CO2 emissions for compensation purposes, establishes its value, and allows for its independent judicial collection.

This is a Collective Writ of Mandamus (MSCol), with a request for preliminary injunction, filed by the Association of Fuel Distributors (BRASILCOM). The Association challenges the mandatory annual target for reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by fuel distributors for the year 2020, an act whose respondent authority is the Minister of Mines and Energy, in his capacity as President of the National Council for Energy Policy (CNPE), the target having been disclosed through CNPE Resolution 8/2020 and individualized for companies through Dispatch 797/2020 of the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP). The updated annual target, reduced by 50% due to the COVID-19 pandemic, was released by the CNPE on September 10, 2020, and individualized for distribution companies on September 25, 2020, to be met by December 31, 2020. The mandatory annual target for reducing GHG emissions is an instrument of the National Biofuels Policy - RenovaBio (Federal Law 13.576/2017), created to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017) and aims to promote greater participation of biofuels in the national energy matrix by encouraging energy generation from renewable sources. In order to meet the established annual target, fossil fuel distributors must purchase Biofuel Decarbonization Credits (CBios) in the financial market. The petitioner alleges that the 2020 target is illegal, since, from the publication of the new annual target, distribution companies would only have 3 months to meet it, arguing that its volume would not be proportional to the time needed to acquire the CBios. It argues that the quantity of CBios available on the market is insufficient to meet the annual target, that the increased demand for the asset has led to an overvaluation of its price, and that if fuel distributors fail to meet the target, they will be subject to penalties including suspension of their activities, potentially causing a collapse of the national fuel distribution system. Finally, the petitioner requests (i) the granting of a preliminary injunction ordering the CNPE to reduce the new mandatory annual target for distributors for the year 2020, proportionally to the time available for acquiring CBios, and (ii) on the merits, the granting of the injunction definitively, confirming the preliminary injunction.

The Minister of Mines and Energy responded by arguing that the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) lacked absolute jurisdiction, since the National Energy Policy Council (CNPE) has merely proactive competence, directed at advising the President of the Republic, and the impugned act was effectively carried out by the President. He argued that there was no illegality, disproportionality, or unreasonableness in relation to the 2020 annual target. He alleged that there was no delay in the publication of the annual targets, added that there are sufficient CBios (Brazilian Biofuel Certificates) on the market and time for their acquisition, and that the petitioner intends to claim an alleged right to pollute more, thus affronting public order, health, and the economy. He stated that granting the preliminary injunction interferes (i) with the fulfillment of international commitments to reduce carbon emissions to which Brazil is an integral part, such as the Paris Agreement, (ii) negatively impacting the population's quality of life, given the reduction in the quality of the environment in which they live, and (iii) impacting the economic model created for the implementation of Renovabio instruments and the Federal Government's own revenue estimates. Finally, he requested recognition of the absolute lack of jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), as this is a writ of mandamus seeking to challenge an act of the President of the Republic, and also requested that the preliminary injunction and the security sought not be granted.

A single-judge decision was issued denying the preliminary injunction request, as the mandatory annual targets had been known since March 2020 and no illegality or disproportionality was found in the disclosure of the target reduction. Subsequently, the Reporting Justice issued a decision denying the injunction, recognizing the lack of jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) to process and judge a writ of mandamus against an act of a collegiate body presided over by a Minister of State (STJ Precedent 177) and recognizing the lack of standing of the respondent authority. BRASILCOM filed an internal appeal against the decision, which was denied by the Justices of the First Section. Thus, the lack of jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Justice to analyze the claim was confirmed.

In November 2022, the case was definitively closed.

This is a class action lawsuit with a request for preliminary injunction, filed by two individuals against an act committed by the President of the Republic, the President of the CNPE (National Council for Energy Policy) – a position held by the Minister of State for Mines and Energy – and the Federal Government. The action aims to annul the act that determined the reduction of the mandatory biodiesel blending percentage in diesel fuel to 10% during 2022 (“B10”), according to CNPE Resolution 25/2021, approved by Presidential Decree. The plaintiffs request compliance with CNPE Resolution 16/2018, so that the mandatory biodiesel blending percentage in diesel is 13% (“B13”) in January and February 2022 and 14% (“B14”) from March 2022 onwards, maintaining the gradual increase in the blend previously announced by the authorities. They emphasize that adding biodiesel to fossil diesel helps reduce the harmful environmental impacts caused by the latter and decreases dependence on petroleum for diesel production. As a clean energy source, biodiesel production has become even more valued, especially considering the commitments made under the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017) and the establishment of the National Biofuels Policy – RenovaBio (Federal Law 13.576/2017), which recognizes the strategic role of biofuels in the Brazilian energy matrix for energy security, market predictability, and mitigation of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. In this regard, the CNPE, through resolutions, and the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP) announced the evolution of the percentage of biodiesel content that must be present in fossil diesel, with Resolution CNPE 16/2018 stipulating a mandatory percentage of 13% in March 2021, 14% in March 2022, and reaching 15% in March 2023. However, in 2021, the President of the Republic and the President of the CNPE established a temporary measure to reduce the mandatory percentage to 10% for the remaining auctions to be held that year, with a view to reducing the price of diesel for final consumers. However, through CNPE Resolution 25/2021 and a formal order issued in December 2021, the President of the CNPE and the President of the Republic maintained the mandatory minimum percentage of 10% biodiesel in diesel for the entire year of 2022, contrary to the previous CNPE resolution (16/2018). Given these facts, the authors argue that this reduction during 2022 is harmful to the environment, administrative morality, and public assets, as well as unconstitutional and illegal. They further argue that the action taken was not properly justified and that the Federal Government intentionally omitted the 8th Extraordinary Meeting of the CNPE, which resulted in the alteration of the contested percentage. The authors argue that the reduced percentage of the blend violates the legal order for environmental protection established at the constitutional, legal, and international levels, including the Federal Constitution, the RenovaBio Law, the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009), the Paris Agreement, and the nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and climate targets presented by Brazil. This is because this reduction generates an increase in GHG emissions, since it implies greater use of fossil fuels, and causes a deterioration in public health. They maintain that there is a violation of administrative morality insofar as (i) the Public Administration contradicts its own norms and pronouncements, (ii) there is harm to the biodiesel production chain, and (iii) there is a breach of the objective and principle of promoting predictability established by RenovaBio. Finally, the authors allege that the challenged act harms public assets by reducing the demand for biodiesel to be produced by the national industry. They request, on a preliminary basis: (i) the suspension of the harmful act and, consequently, the determination of compliance with CNPE Resolution 16/2018; and (ii) subsidiarily, until a conclusive technical note is published by the study group created to evaluate the biodiesel blend in diesel, the suspension of the harmful act and determination of compliance with CNPE Resolution 16/2018. On a final basis, they request: (i) the ratification of the preliminary measure; (ii) the annulment of the harmful act; and (iii) the determination of compliance with CNPE Resolution 16/2018, complying with the "B13" percentage in January and February 2022, and "B14" from March 2022 onwards.

The defendants filed a response. Preliminarily, they argued that the challenged act was not harmful or illegal, since Federal Law 13.033/2014 grants the CNPE (National Council for Energy Policy) the power to reduce the percentage of biodiesel blended with diesel fuel sold to the final consumer to as low as 6% at any time, and that this reduction was based on public interest. They challenged the value of the case, claiming it was exorbitant and lacked technical basis. On the merits, they emphasized the possibility of reducing the blend percentage due to current legislation and the technical-administrative discretion of the Public Administration, which acted based on the CNPE's recommendations, highlighting its importance as a body composed of various actors and sectors of society. They argued that the reduction in the biodiesel percentage was technically justified and in accordance with the public interest. Furthermore, they alleged that the evaluation, formulation, and execution of public policies are the typical competence of the Executive Branch, and that judicial intervention is not appropriate. Furthermore, they highlighted that agents investing in the biodiesel sector are aware of the possibility of changes to the indicative percentages established by the CNPE in order to protect the consumer. Finally, they argued, among other requests: (i) for the dismissal of the initial petition or for the termination of the proceedings without resolution of the merits; (ii) for the acceptance of the objection to the value of the case; (iii) for the denial of the request for urgent relief; and (iv) for the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims.

In its decision regarding the preliminary injunction, the court did not accept the defendants' preliminary objection of lack of standing. Regarding the challenge to the value of the case, it determined that a decision should only be made after the plaintiffs have responded. It admitted the participation of the National Confederation of Transport (CNT) as amicus curiae. On the merits, it held that the challenged act falls within the scope of the technical-administrative discretion of the Public Authority and that it was duly justified in the public interest. Federal Law 13.033/2014 establishes that the minimum mandatory percentage is 6%, and since the reduction was to 10%, it concluded that there was no violation of legality or harm to administrative morality. Furthermore, it highlighted that the Ministry of the Environment, which has a seat on the CNPE (National Council for Energy Policy), did not object to the proposed reduction in the biodiesel content. It concluded that the Judiciary should not interfere with the Public Administration, under penalty of violating the separation of powers. Thus, the request for a preliminary injunction was denied.

Subsequently, a judgment was issued dismissing the Public Action. The court reiterated the grounds presented in the preliminary decision and added that, after this initial dismissal, no other evidentiary elements capable of altering the judgment on the facts alleged in the initial complaint were presented. The case file was sent for mandatory review by the TRF-4 (Regional Federal Court of the 4th Region).

According to the court, the necessary referral was not granted because the defendants acted in accordance with the technical and administrative discretion granted to them by law, based on their criteria of convenience and opportunity, using the available data and studies. The case was definitively closed.

This is a Public Interest Lawsuit (APop), with a request for preliminary injunction, filed by young activists who are members of the Engajamundo and Fridays for Future Brazil movements, against Ricardo de Aquino Salles (at the time Minister of the Environment), Ernesto Henrique Fraga Araújo (at the time former Minister of State for Foreign Affairs), and the Federal Government. The plaintiffs claim that an act detrimental to administrative morality and the environment was issued, consisting of the submission, in 2020, of a less ambitious Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) than the previous one, presented in 2015, in violation of the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). They allege that Brazil's new NDC will allow the country to reach 2030 emitting between 200 million and 400 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) more than proposed in 2015, resulting in a lower level of ambition compared to the previous NDC. The authors point out that the reduction of Brazil's climate ambition through the use of accounting tricks constitutes a "climate manipulation." As a preliminary measure, they request that the effects of the new NDC be suspended and that an updated version be presented, in accordance with the progressivity required by the Paris Agreement. In their final request, they ask that: (i) the 2020 NDC be declared null and void; (ii) the defendants present an NDC with increased CO2e emission reduction percentages beyond the necessary limit, aiming to fulfill the progressivity commitment of the Paris Agreement; and (iii) the defendants be ordered to pay damages for their actions.

A single-judge decision was issued recognizing the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, since the Paris Agreement was signed and promulgated domestically. However, it denied the request for urgent relief, stating that it was not possible to summarily assert that the new NDC does not reflect the highest possible ambition. The Federal Government filed an interlocutory appeal (AI 5016374-49.2021.4.03.0000) against the decision, challenging the Federal Court's jurisdiction to analyze the matter. The appeal was dismissed and the original decision upheld, based on the following main grounds: (i) the Paris Agreement is a norm incorporated into the Brazilian legal system, possessing the status of law; and (ii) from the moment the treaty was incorporated into Brazilian law, the NDC, being a domestic obligation of the signatory countries, has the internal character of an administrative act and can be subject to review by the Judiciary. Subsequently, the Federal Union filed an Internal Appeal, seeking to overturn the decision insofar as it denied the summary dismissal of the popular action, arguing the absence of Brazilian jurisdiction to analyze the matter. Upon analyzing the Internal Appeal, the Court denied the appeal. The judgment confirmed that the eventual annulment of the NDC would only remove the act's effectiveness domestically, reinforcing its nature as an administrative act, thus allowing for judicial review. The Union filed an Extraordinary Appeal, the admissibility of which has not yet been analyzed.

The defendants filed a defense, alleging preliminarily the absence of domestic jurisdiction to analyze the matter, arguing that: (i) acts of sovereignty performed in the international sphere are not subject to internal control by ordinary civil jurisdiction and bind States in the realm of foreign relations; (ii) no connecting factors were presented determining the subjection of the matter to national jurisdiction; (iii) the Paris Agreement provided for its own dispute resolution mechanism. They further assert that there is no harmful act, as Brazil continues to play a leading role in mitigating the effects of climate change, and the new NDC observes the parameters of the greatest possible ambition and progressivity, in addition to the update being aligned with international best practices.

By agreement of the parties, the proceedings were suspended for sixty days in order to reach a consensual solution. Subsequently, the plaintiffs requested a further six-month suspension of the proceedings. Later, the Federal Government reached an agreement with the group of young environmental activists who filed the lawsuit to settle the case and terminate it. The agreement, in addition to acknowledging that Brazil's commitment under the Paris Agreement had been resumed, stipulated that the country's next climate target would be established transparently and with broad participation from civil society. In June 2024, the agreement was ratified by the court.

In September 2024, the case was definitively closed.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of São Paulo (MPSP) against the company KLM - Royal Dutch Airlines for alleged environmental damage resulting from commercial activities carried out by the defendant at São Paulo International Airport, in Cumbica, Guarulhos, through the landing and takeoff of its aircraft. The action requests that the company be ordered to take specific actions or, subsidiarily, to pay compensation for environmental damage related to the emission of Greenhouse Gases (GHG), negatively impacting climate change. The main request consists of an obligation to restore forest cover in an area within the same hydrographic basin in sufficient quantity to fully absorb the GHG emissions and other pollutants resulting from the activity.

In its defense, the defendant company alleged that the plaintiff filed 35 lawsuits identical to the present one and that the Court of Justice of the State of São Paulo (TJSP) immediately recognized the inadequacy of 26 of the initial petitions and had the opportunity to rule on the merits of the action in only one case, when judging case 224.01.2010.082070-8, filed against EMIRATES AIRLINES, having dismissed the claims. In this regard, the defendant company argued (i) its lack of standing to be sued, given that it carries out its activity in accordance with the determinations of the National Civil Aviation Agency (ANAC), and cannot be held responsible for complying with what is authorized and imposed on it by the Public Authority; and (ii) the legal impossibility of the claim since there would be no illicit activity practiced by the defendant.

Initially, the Court understood that the Defendant possessed government authorization to operate certain routes and that the emissions resulting from the normal exercise of said activity were already included within the scope of that authorization. On appeal before the TJSP (Appeal 0082072-08.2010.8.26.0224), the MPSP, on the merits, again requested the mitigation and reparation of the environmental damages caused by the defendant. Subsequently, the National Civil Aviation Agency (ANAC) joined the action requesting intervention as a third party and the transfer of the case to the federal court. A judgment was issued in the TJSP rejecting the preliminary objection presented by the MPSP and, considering the ANAC's statement, decided to transfer the case to the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region (TRF-3).

It is noteworthy that this action was initially filed in the State Court of São Paulo (TJSP), but was subsequently transferred to the Federal Court due to a request for intervention by ANAC (National Civil Aviation Agency). The action was registered in the TRF-3 (Regional Federal Court of the 3rd Region) under the number of Civil Appeal 0046991-68.2012.4.03.9999. In the appeal, the TRF-3 ruled against the action, following the understanding of the court of origin, which held that an environmental licensing process had already been completed for Guarulhos Airport and that authorization for landing and takeoff activities had been issued by ANAC. Following this ruling, the MPSP (São Paulo State Public Prosecutor's Office) filed a Special Appeal (REsp 1.856.031/SP) with the STJ (Superior Court of Justice), where a single-judge decision followed the position of the court of origin, emphasizing the specific regulation of the activity by ANAC and its efforts regarding the measurement and mitigation of emissions from the aviation sector. It was understood that there was no question of an illegal act committed by the company (or even pollution), and that the Public Prosecutor's Office of São Paulo (MPSP) was attempting to impose an unforeseen regulation. After the decision, the Special Appeal was sent back to the court of origin. Subsequently, the case was definitively closed.

This case is one among other similar cases brought by the MPSP (São Paulo State Public Prosecutor's Office) against more than 30 airlines that operated at São Paulo International Airport.

This is a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI), with a request for a precautionary measure, filed by the Democratic Renewal Party (PRD). The aim is to declare the unconstitutionality of arts. 4th, paragraph I, 6th, 7th, 9th and 10 of Law 13,576/2017, which provides for the National Biofuels Policy (RenovaBio) and other measures, as well as, consequently, the unconstitutionality of arts. 1st to 8th and 12, items IV to VII, of Decree 9,888/2019, of all articles of ANP Resolution 791/2019 and of arts. 6th, items II to VII, 8th, item II, 11, §3º and 13 of Normative Ordinance 56/GM/MME/2022, which violate standards provided for in the Federal Constitution, the principles of reasonableness and proportionality and articles of the Paris Agreement, an international human rights treaty with supralegal force. The violation would result from the discrimination against fossil fuel distributors, as they are the only ones required by the contested rules, individually and under penalty of fine, to acquire CBios (pecuniary obligation) to comply with the formal duty of proving the volume limit of the annual mandatory target for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but creating discrimination between agents in violation of the polluter pays principle, equality, the environment, the economic order and consumer protection. This would result from the choice of fossil fuel distributors as the only ones in the entire fossil fuel chain to be responsible for the decarbonization of the chain, even though other agents have been emitting, confirming the ineffectiveness of the program's modeling. It is alleged that the current RenovaBio modeling would have created an inefficient, asymmetrical public policy with serious negative environmental, social and economic repercussions, such as the increase in the final price of fuels, inflation and GHG emissions – as a result of the uncontroversial increase in the consumption of fossil fuels – which generate results that are contrary to the commitments made in the Paris Agreement and that go against constitutional precepts. In the preliminary proceedings, the suspension of the effectiveness of the contested provisions is requested until the judgment of the action. On the merits, it is requested that the contested provisions be declared unconstitutional, with erga omnes effect and ex tunc effects, or, alternatively, that an interpretation be given in accordance with the Constitution to these normative acts, provided that: (i) the mandatory annual and individual target is assigned to all agents in the fossil fuel chain, in proportion to their GHG emissions; (ii) the supply of CBios is proportional to the mandatory demand, and fines for non-compliance with annual and individual targets are prohibited in the event of unavailability of CBios on the stock exchange; (iii) a mandatory annual and individual target for the production or import of biofuels is established; (iv) a transparency system should be established to prove reinvestment in biofuel production, based on the amounts obtained; (v) the standards of reasonableness and proportionality are met in setting and applying the fine provided for failure to meet individual targets, and the suspension of the obligated party's activities as a sanction for failure to meet individual targets with the sale of CBios is excluded.

This is a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) filed by the Democratic Labor Party (PDT) arguing the unconstitutionality of articles 4, item I, 5, items V, VII, XI and XIII, 6, 7, caput and § 2, and 13, caput and § 1, of Federal Law 13.576/2017 - National Biofuels Policy (RenovaBio). The aim is to deregulate the carbon market established by the policy. The party alleges a formal flaw in the legislative process, consisting of a deviation from the intended purpose in the bill's processing, favoring private interests to the detriment of environmental protection. From a substantive standpoint, it is argued that the Law violates constitutional norms related to an ecologically balanced environment, the social function of property, the prohibition of deficient protection, and free enterprise. It is argued that, in a biased way, the purpose of the Law is to offer financial assistance to the biofuels sector, and not to environmental protection. This is because RenovaBio does not fulfill the objective of contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, given the lack of additionality of Decarbonization Credits (CBIOs) – that is, there would be no effective and measurable reduction in GHG emissions or removal of CO2 as established by the Law to actually mitigate climate change. The party suggests that RenovaBio represents state intervention in the economic domain, selectively benefiting manufacturers and importers without any counterpart in environmental protection, camouflaging socio-environmentally harmful practices under the pretext of fulfilling international commitments of the Paris Agreement. Furthermore, the Law confers on distributors the responsibility for the decarbonization of the entire fossil fuel chain, despite representing only a fraction of the agents that compose it, creating unequal treatment. A declaration of formal and material unconstitutionality is requested for Federal Law 13.576/2017, with a pronouncement of partial nullity without reduction of text, of articles 4, item I; 5, items XXIII, V, VII, XI and XIII; 6; 7, heading and § 2; and 13, heading and § 1, giving them an interpretation in accordance with the Constitution.

The plaintiff party requested the dismissal of the action, but it was not dismissed due to the principle of non-disposability that governs actions of concentrated constitutional review.

This is a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality at the state level, with a request for a precautionary measure, filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of Rondônia (MPRO) due to the enactment of State Complementary Law (LC) 1.089/2021, initiated by the Governor of the State, specifically questioning: (i) Article 1, heading, and its paragraphs 1 and 2; (ii) Article 2, heading and paragraphs 1 and 2; (iii) Article 15, heading and sole paragraph; (iv) Article 17, heading and its items; and (v) Annexes I, II, V, VI, VII and VIII. The author highlights that the Complementary Law reduces the area of the Jaci-Paraná Extractive Reserve and the Guajará-Mirim State Park, and, as a form of compensation, creates the Ilha das Flores and Abaitará State Parks, the Bom Jardim and Limoeiro Sustainable Development Reserves, and the Pau D'Óleo Fauna Reserve. Furthermore, the Complementary Law allows for the environmental regularization of property or possession for owners or possessors in the areas removed from the Extractive Reserve and the State Park. It states that these Conservation Units (CUs) are illegally occupied and deforestation occurs to the detriment of the rights of traditional populations (extractivists and others), being used mainly for livestock farming. The removal of these areas directly impacts the Uru-eu-wau-wau, Karipuna, Igarapé Lage, Igarapé Ribeirão, and Karitina Indigenous Lands, and the peoples in voluntary isolation in the surrounding region. The argument is that the reduction of Conservation Units, by harming environmental protection and contradicting the purpose for which the Conservation Units were created, violates the right to an ecologically balanced environment and the duty of the Public Authorities and the community to defend and preserve it for present and future generations. It emphasizes that the creation of new protected areas by the Complementary Law is insufficient, representing an environmental setback. Furthermore, it argues that no hearings were held with affected communities during the project that resulted in the Complementary Law, nor were technical studies prepared for the declassification of the areas, which violates the principles of prevention and precaution. It asserts that the precautionary measure should be granted, as there is a risk of irreversible environmental damage and an imminent risk to the lives of indigenous peoples and traditional populations. It emphasizes that the Jaci-Paraná Extractive Reserve is already the second most deforested in the Legal Amazon, while the Guajará-Mirim State Park is the ninth most deforested. Finally, it requests, among other things: (i) as a preliminary measure, the suspension of the effectiveness of the challenged provisions; and (ii), on the merits, a declaration of unconstitutionality of the provisions, with the decision to be communicated to the Legislative Assembly for the suspension of its execution.

In a single-judge decision, the Reporting Judge, José Jorge Ribeiro da Luz, ruled that he will only judge the merits of the case, since, as the preliminary injunction in the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) must be granted by an absolute majority of the members of the Court, the time for consideration of both will be the same. In the same decision, he granted the request for admission as amicus curiae of the Association of Rural Producers of Minas Novas (ASPRUMIN).

Subsequently, the request for admission as amicus curiae of the Association for Ethno-environmental Defense (KANINDÉ), the Organization of Indigenous Peoples of the Guarajá-Mirim Region (Oro Wari), the Ecological Action Ecoporé (ECOPORÉ), the SOS Amazônia Association (SOS Amazônia), and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF-Brazil) was granted. It is noteworthy that, in their amicus curiae briefs, the organizations, in defending the unconstitutionality of Supplementary Law 1.089/21, pointed out that the law represents damage to biodiversity, to local traditional and indigenous populations, and to climate stability by summarily absolving environmental offenders who occupied and degraded protected areas, receiving the endorsement of the Public Authorities. They highlighted the violation of the principles of prevention and precaution, foreseen in the National Environmental Policy – PNMA (Federal Law 6.938/1981) and the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009), as well as the violation of the right to prior, free and informed consultation of affected indigenous and traditional peoples, according to Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO). They argued that the reduction of protected areas results in climate damage, violating the right to climate stability foreseen in article 225 of the Federal Constitution, and also defended that there is a failure on the part of the Public Authorities in the implementation of the PNMC and the State Policy on Climate Governance and Environmental Services – PGSA (State Law 4.437/2018).

A judgment was rendered, in accordance with the vote of the Reporting Judge, who, by majority vote, declared the unconstitutionality of the challenged provisions, as well as recognizing the consequent unconstitutionality of Supplementary Law 1.096/2021, which amends the wording of §1 of Article 2 of Supplementary Law 1.089/2021. It concluded that prior studies were lacking for the declassification of the Conservation Units, violating the principles of precaution, prevention, and prohibition of environmental regression. It emphasized that it is the duty of the Public Authorities to protect the environment, and that the justification of anthropization and degradation in the areas is flawed. Furthermore, it was understood that the principles of ubiquity and intergenerational solidarity were violated. The vote of Judge Miguel Monico Neto stands out, who, although also recognizing the unconstitutionality of the regulations, was overruled in the part that highlights the need for a structural measure due to the abuse of the institutional legislative function by the State Governor and the Legislative Assembly. The Judge emphasized the relevance of the Conservation Units for protection against the climate emergency and argued that the environmental impacts resulting from new agricultural projects in the area, should the reduction of protected areas be carried out, would represent a threat to the environment, water security, the security of the climate system, soil fertility, atmospheric air, fauna and flora, the health and lives of present and future generations, as well as the sustainability of agriculture and livestock farming and exports of state and Brazilian products.

An appeal was filed against the decision to dismiss the extraordinary appeal (ARE 1417998), which was denied due to non-compliance with the admissibility requirements, given the absence of pre-trial questioning and the need to discuss factual matters. The Minas Novas Rural Producers Association (Asprumin) was admitted as amicus curiae in the context of the ARE. Subsequently, a motion for reconsideration was filed in the ARE, which was not granted for the same reasons as the appealed decision. The action was then definitively archived at the court of origin.

This is a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI), with a request for a precautionary measure, filed by the political party Rede Sustentabilidade, accompanied by six civil society organizations that signed the petition. It seeks a declaration of unconstitutionality of articles of State Law 18.104/2013 and State Law 20.017/2023 of the State of Goiás. State Law 20.017/2023 amends several environmental provisions contained (i) in State Law 18.102/2013, on administrative infractions against the environment; (ii) in State Law 18.104/2013, the Goiás Forestry Code; and (iii) in State Law 20.694/2019, which deals with environmental licensing in the state. The authors argue that the law approved in 2023 was processed too quickly and without any debate, participation from civil society, or opinion from the Environment Committee of the legislative body, presenting material and formal violations of the Federal Constitution. It is argued that the changes in state legislation promoted by Law 20.017/2023 are detrimental to the protection of the Cerrado biome, the region's water security, and the fight against climate change. It is emphasized that the biome stores enormous amounts of carbon, making it important for combating global warming. Therefore, the increasing deforestation of the region, also encouraged by legislative changes in forestry and licensing regulations that would facilitate authorizations for vegetation suppression and the use of legal reserve areas, has serious dimensions in view of the climate emergency. It is argued that the challenged normative acts are unconstitutional because they violate, among others, (i) the principles of publicity and transparency of administrative acts; (ii) the principle of prohibition of environmental regression; (iii) the right to an ecologically balanced environment and the duty to protect the environment. They allege the relaxation of environmental rules, the violation of the powers of the Federal Union in forestry matters and of the Municipalities in licensing matters, as well as the direct violation of the Paris Agreement by facilitating deforestation. They request, as a precautionary measure, the suspension of the effects of the challenged laws that would represent a relaxation of licensing and forest protection rules. On the merits, they request a declaration of unconstitutionality of provisions of State Law 22.017/2023 and State Law 18.104/2013. They also request the admission of the signatory organizations of the petition as amici curiae.

In a single-judge decision, it was determined that an expedited procedure should be adopted, in consideration of the relevance of the matter and its special significance for social order and legal certainty.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for urgent relief, filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of Goiás (MPGO) against the state of Goiás. The action seeks to compel the state to implement appropriate measures to improve air quality and safeguard public health. To this end, it requests the implementation of a policy for monitoring and controlling air pollution – the Atmospheric Emissions Control Plan (PCEA) – and climate change. The MPGO argues that the Public Authority has been negligent in this matter, as the state of Goiás has not implemented, or has done so insufficiently, an air quality monitoring network, nor has it conducted an inventory of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and emissions from mobile sources, or implemented Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs – such as the Vehicle Pollution Control Plan (PCPV). The state's negligence is also evidenced by the lack of climate impact analysis in environmental licensing procedures. The author states that the state is in violation of the mandates of the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the State Policy on Climate Change – PEMC (State Law 16.497/2009). The risks of damage to human health and the environment resulting from air and noise pollution are highlighted. The Public Prosecutor's Office of Goiás (MPGO) links air pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels to the climate crisis. It requests, as a preliminary measure, that measures be adopted to implement CONAMA Resolutions and relevant federal and state laws, including the Paris Agreement. On the merits, it requests that the State of Goiás be ordered, as specified in the initial complaint, to (i) develop pollution control and climate change mitigation policies through a PCEA; (ii) implement an air quality monitoring network; (iii) prepare an updated PCPV every three years; (iv) develop and implement the Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program and the annual Environmental Vehicle Inspection Program for gas and noise emissions from motor vehicles; (v) issue administrative regulations that establish activities with significant GHG emissions for environmental licensing purposes and the requirement to submit the State GHG Emission Inventory; criteria for the Terms of Reference for the preparation of the Inventory and that it is effectively prepared; and technical criteria and standards for the assessment of environmental impacts on the micro and macroclimate in environmental licensing procedures and GHG mitigation and compensation instruments; (vi) demonstrate that in environmental licensing procedures that require an EIA/RIMA, the GHG emissions inventory and the presentation of an assessment of environmental impacts on the micro and macroclimate are required in their respective Terms of Reference.

In response to the request for urgent relief, the judge of the 4th Public Treasury Court of the State of Goiás granted the preliminary injunction, ordering the immediate implementation of the violated regulations. She understood that the Public Authority's failure to comply with its legal and constitutional obligations was sufficient to prove the existence of a prima facie case, while the danger of harm was characterized by the risk to public health.

In contrast, the state of Goiás filed an interlocutory appeal with suspensive effect requesting the reversal of the preliminary decision, indicating, in summary, (i) the absolute nullity of the decision, since the competent court to deal with the case would be the federal court, and (ii) the lack of the necessary requirements for granting urgent relief.

Furthermore, a Response was filed by the state of Goiás. The state argued that only the Executive Branch can determine the form and conditions for implementing environmental public policies, considering the available financial resources. It argued that the Public Prosecutor's Office of Goiás (MPGO) is using the judicial process to request the implementation of public policies, which is not the appropriate avenue and interferes with the principle of separation of powers. Among other requests, it preliminarily requested: (i) a declaration of the court's lack of jurisdiction, since the subject matter of the dispute concerns the administrative competence of the Federal Government and the municipalities; (ii) the joinder of the State Department of Transit (Detran/GO), the Goiás Infrastructure and Transport Agency (Goinfra), the Federal Government, and the municipalities of Goiás; (iii) the suspension of the proceedings for 365 days so that the parties can begin negotiations to establish objective parameters for the implementation of public policies; and (iv) the establishment of a Working Group with professionals knowledgeable in the areas subject to regulation. On the merits, among other issues, it requested the dismissal of the preliminary injunction and a declaration that the plaintiff's claims were unfounded. Alternatively, it requested that the limits on judicial review of administrative acts, the separation of powers, and the federal pact be respected.

In the context of the interlocutory appeal 5245769-11.2022.8.09.0051, the Court of Justice issued a ruling in which it partially accepted the appeal filed by the state of Goiás. It held that the Court could not examine the preliminary argument of absolute incompetence of the State Common Court, as it had not been examined by the lower court. On the merits, it considered that the requirements for granting the urgent relief requested by the Public Prosecutor's Office were met. It emphasized that the installation of systems to control noise and air pollution emitted by motor vehicles within the state of Goiás has a normative basis for compliance, and acknowledged that they have not been effectively implemented, resulting in a violation of the constitutional duty to protect the environment. It stated that the appealed decision only ordered the appellant to comply with environmental laws. The court understood that the state entity had sufficient time to implement public policies, such as those aimed at monitoring and controlling air pollution and climate change, and noise pollution, thus constituting negligence. Therefore, it denied the appeal.

In May 2025, the court granted a stay of proceedings for a period of 60 days, in order to allow the State Secretariat for the Environment and Sustainable Development (SEMAD) to carry out the necessary investigations related to the environmental issues discussed in the case.

This is a Claim of Non-Compliance with a Fundamental Precept (ADPF) filed by the political party Rede Sustentabilidade (Rede) to challenge CONAMA Resolution 500/2020, which revoked CONAMA Resolutions 284/2001, 302/2002 and 303/2002 – which regulated the licensing of irrigation activities and definitions of permanent preservation areas (APPs) in artificial reservoirs, mangroves and coastal vegetation – as well as the new CONAMA Resolution 499/2020, which altered the licensing of waste processing activities in rotary kilns, revoking CONAMA Resolution 264/1999. Regarding the revoked Resolutions, the plaintiff argues that (i) the authorization of pesticide burning, (ii) the reduction of the permanent preservation area, and (iii) the modification of the environmental licensing process for irrigation and burning of toxic waste are measures that go against environmental protection efforts. It claims there is a violation of the fundamental right to an ecologically balanced environment, given the regression in regulations that established greater control and oversight of activities with potential environmental degradation or potential increase in the waste of natural resources. No regulation aimed at the same environmental protection goals has been presented to replace the revoked regulations, evidencing socio-environmental regression, with consequences that the plaintiff claims will be felt by current and future generations regarding water, climate, and pollution issues in a systemic way. The initial complaint also specifically points out the effects of climate change. In questioning the revocation of Resolution 303/2002, which deals with the protection of mangroves and coastal dunes in Brazil as Permanent Preservation Areas (APPs), it highlights its consequences for climate change. The text argues that coastal dune and mangrove areas contribute directly and indirectly to atmospheric carbon sequestration, which is important for mitigating climate change, and help reduce the vulnerability of coastal zones, which are the areas most affected by these changes, demonstrating their importance for adaptation. It emphasizes that maintaining legal protection for these areas is essential to enable, among other benefits, the achievement of the goals of the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). Furthermore, it reinforces the importance of CONAMA Resolution 303/2002, due to the special protection afforded to the Atlantic Forest, particularly with regard to coastal dune vegetation. Finally, discussions regarding CONAMA Resolution 499/2020 also mention greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from waste incineration. Therefore, as a precautionary measure, the suspension of the effects of (i) CONAMA Resolution 500/2020 is requested, with the reinstatement of Resolutions 284/2001, 302/2002 and 303/2002, and (ii) the new CONAMA Resolution 499/2020, which revokes and replaces Resolution 264/1999. Ultimately, a declaration of the unconstitutionality of the Resolutions is requested.

Reporting Justice Rosa Weber ordered the joint processing of this ADPF (Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental - Claim of Non-Compliance with a Fundamental Precept) with ADPFs 747 and 748, which also questioned the constitutionality of CONAMA Resolutions 499/2020 and 500/2020, due to the similarity of their subject matter. A single-judge decision, later confirmed by the Plenary of the Supreme Federal Court, partially granted the preliminary injunctions to suspend, until the judgment on the merits of the action, the effects of CONAMA Resolution 500/2020, with the immediate restoration of the validity and effectiveness of CONAMA Resolutions 284/2001, 302/2002, and 303/2002, but denied the request to suspend the effectiveness of CONAMA Resolution 499/2020. The climate issue was not addressed in the decision.

Subsequently, a final decision was issued confirming the preliminary ruling and declaring CONAMA Resolution 500/2020 unconstitutional, ordering the immediate restoration of the validity and effectiveness of CONAMA Resolutions 284/2001, 302/2002, and 303/2002. It was understood that the mere revocation of norms necessary for compliance with environmental legislation, without their replacement or updating, compromises the observance of the Federal Constitution, current legislation, and international commitments. The preliminary ruling regarding CONAMA Resolution 499/2020 was also confirmed, rejecting the request regarding its unconstitutionality based on the understanding that the new normative parameters established would be compatible with the constitutional text. After the final judgment, the action is definitively archived.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for urgent preliminary injunction, filed by the State of Rondônia and the Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of Rondônia (MPRO) against several individuals who invaded the area of the Guajará-Mirim State Park and its buffer zone, a region called Bico do Parque, without authorization from the competent authority. The news of the invasion of the areas by approximately 70 people was received by the State Secretariat for Environmental Development (SEDAM) and the military police in September 2020, and the suppression of native vegetation and the construction of buildings were confirmed. After the intervention of the state authorities, the individuals vacated the park area, but remained in its buffer zone and more people joined the group of occupants, threatening to invade the conservation unit again. It is requested, as a preliminary measure, (i) that the defendants be ordered to refrain from entering the state park and to withdraw from its buffer zone; (ii) that the authorities with police powers notify the defendants and negotiate the non-occupation of the areas and their withdrawal, while maintaining surveillance on site. On the merits, confirmation of the requests for urgent relief is requested and the defendants are ordered not to occupy the areas in question, under penalty of a daily fine.

The request for urgent relief was granted, and subsequently, a judgment was issued against the occupants of the areas, ordering their eviction. The defendants filed an appeal. The judgment on the appeal is the procedural document that contains an express discussion directly related to climate change.

In its argument on the merits of the claim, the judgment highlighted the importance of the Guajará-Mirim State Park for the preservation of biodiversity in the state of Rondônia. It emphasized that illegal landholdings cannot be converted into legal ones for the implementation of agricultural projects that disregard the importance of the Amazonian biome. It argued that climate change necessitates the creation of conservation units, that Brazil is the sixth largest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG), with 60% of emissions originating from land-use change and forestry. Furthermore, the judgment details the impacts of deforestation on water security, climate, soil, air, biodiversity, health, the lives of future generations, and the economy. It highlighted Advisory Opinion 23/2017 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which declared that the effects of climate change impact the realization of human rights. Furthermore, it was argued that the Brazilian legal system, due to the socio-environmental function of property, does not protect property that infringes on the rights of others. It concludes that the occupation of the areas in question is recent and that current legislation does not permit human intervention in these locations. Therefore, the appeal was not granted.

* The classifications and this summary were completed based exclusively on the initial petition and the judgment issued by the 2nd Special Chamber of the Court of Justice of the State of Rondônia.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against Gilvan Onofre Souza and José Milton Onofre dos Santos due to the deforestation of an area of 1,849.60 hectares between 2017 and 2018 in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the occupation of the land by the defendants occurred illegally because it is an area included in an Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), owned and of interest to the Federal Government, managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractive communities. This class action lawsuit was filed following a set of 22 lawsuits filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) as a result of the investigation carried out in civil inquiry no. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, concerning illegal deforestation within the Antimary Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), stemming from the same civil inquiry. The lawsuit was filed following the dismissal without prejudice of case 1022785-39.2021.4.01.3200, based on the identification of the individuals who allegedly deforested the same area that was the subject of the lawsuits. The lawsuit's arguments are based, among other points, on Brazilian Environmental Law, specifically regarding the constitutional protection of the environment, accusations of deforestation, civil liability propter rem for environmental damages, including climate damages, and collective moral damages. It also mentions, as an environmental liability, the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) resulting from the illegal deforestation of the area, calculated at 1,088,203.70 tons of carbon dioxide, which are directly related to the Brazilian State's departure from its climate goals, out of step with national and international commitments assumed by Brazil in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). The granting of urgent relief is requested, as specified in the initial petition. On the merits, it is requested, among other things: (i) reparation for the damages caused by the illegal deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation corresponding to intermediate and residual environmental material damages; (iv) payment of compensation corresponding to climate damages; and (v) the payment of compensation corresponding to collective moral damages.

The court granted the preliminary injunction, based on the principle of in dubio pro natura. It ordered the removal of all cattle from the area subject to the action within 15 days; the prohibition of issuing Animal Transport Guides (GTA) and invoices for the movement of cattle originating from or destined for the property; the suspension and prohibition of access to public financing and tax benefits linked to the rural property and to rural financing in the name of the defendants; and the suspension by IPAAM and INCRA of the CARs (Rural Environmental Registry) for the contested area.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against Istefania Ferreira da Silva due to the deforestation of an area of 81.95 hectares between 2014 and 2020 in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant's occupation of the land was illegal because it is an area included in an Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), owned and of interest to the Federal Government, managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractive communities. This class action lawsuit is part of a set of 22 actions filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) as a result of the investigation carried out in civil inquiry no. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, concerning illegal deforestation within the Antimary Agrarian-Extractive Settlement Project (PAE), but against different defendants. The lawsuit's arguments are based, among other points, on Brazilian Environmental Law, regarding the constitutional protection of the environment, the accusation of deforestation, civil liability propter rem for environmental damages, including climate damages, and collective moral damages. It also mentions, as an environmental liability, the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) resulting from the illegal deforestation of the area, calculated at 64,229.56 tons of carbon dioxide, which are directly related to the Brazilian State's departure from its climate goals, out of step with national and international commitments assumed by Brazil in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). Among other requests, the following are made: (i) reparation for the damages caused by the illegal deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation corresponding to intermediate and residual environmental material damages; (iv) payment of compensation corresponding to climate damages; and (v) payment of compensation corresponding to collective moral damages.

Subsequently, INCRA was included in the active party as a co-litigant assistant to the plaintiff.

The defendant filed a response. As a preliminary matter, it was argued that the Public Prosecutor's Office lacked standing to sue. On the merits, it was argued that civil liability was impossible due to the impossibility of demanding different conduct, considering that the area occupied by the defendant is smaller than the established fiscal module and is used solely to ensure her survival and that of her family. Therefore, the defendant requested that the action be dismissed in its entirety.

A judgment was issued recognizing the relationship between deforestation and climate change, presenting extensive arguments on climate change and civil liability for climate damage, acknowledging said damage in the case. The requests were partially granted, condemning the defendant: a) to fulfill the obligation to restore the degraded area according to the Degraded Area Recovery Plan (PRAD); b) to the obligation not to act, consisting of prohibiting the defendant from using the area, in order to allow natural regeneration; c) to pay compensation for material damages related to interim and residual environmental damages, the value of which will be subject to settlement of judgment; d) to pay compensation for climate damages caused by deforestation, in the amount of R$ 1,679,602.94, using as a basis for calculating the amount of carbon emitted the Technical Note prepared by the Amazon Research Institute (IPAM) and, for pricing purposes, the value of 5 dollars per ton, according to the Amazon Fund; e) to the payment of compensation for collective moral damages, in the amount of 5% of the total material damages determined in the settlement of the judgment. Finally, it declared the respective CAR null and void and allocated all the resources obtained to the Fund for Diffuse Rights.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against Degmar Serrath de Menezes Caetano due to the deforestation of an area of 115.91 hectares, between 2015 and 2018, in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant's occupation of the land was illegal because it is an area included in an Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), owned and of interest to the Federal Government, managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractive communities. This class action lawsuit is part of a set of 22 actions filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) as a result of the investigation carried out in civil inquiry no. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, concerning illegal deforestation within the Antimary Agrarian-Extractive Settlement Project (PAE), but against different defendants. The lawsuit's arguments are based, among other points, on Brazilian Environmental Law, regarding the constitutional protection of the environment, the accusation of deforestation, civil liability propter rem for environmental damages, including climate damages, and collective moral damages. It also mentions, as an environmental liability, the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) resulting from the illegal deforestation of the area, calculated at 126,491.02 tons of carbon dioxide, which are directly related to the Brazilian State's departure from its climate goals, out of step with national and international commitments assumed by Brazil in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). Among other requests, the following are made: (i) reparation for the damages caused by the illegal deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation corresponding to intermediate and residual environmental material damages; (iv) payment of compensation corresponding to climate damages; and (v) payment of compensation corresponding to collective moral damages.

Subsequently, INCRA was included in the active party as a co-litigant assistant to the plaintiff.

In its defense, the defendant argued for the dismissal of the action. Among other arguments, it alleged that there is an overlap in the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) and that, in reality, the deforested area is smaller than that indicated in the initial petition. Furthermore, it argued that the compensation amounts are excessive; that there is no expert report confirming the value of the climate damage; and that there is a lack of objective parameters for determining the values of interim and residual damages.

A judgment was issued recognizing the relationship between deforestation and climate change, presenting extensive arguments on climate change and civil liability for climate damage, acknowledging said damage in the case. The requests were partially granted, ordering the defendant to: a) comply with the obligation to restore the degraded area according to the Degraded Area Recovery Plan (PRAD); b) refrain from using the area, in order to allow natural regeneration; c) pay compensation for material damages related to interim and residual environmental damages, the value of which will be subject to settlement of judgment; d) pay compensation for climate damages caused by deforestation (using the assigned areas as a parameter), the value of which will be subject to settlement of judgment, using as a basis for calculating the amount of carbon emitted the Technical Note prepared by the Amazon Research Institute (IPAM) and, for pricing purposes, the value of 5 dollars per ton, according to the Amazon Fund; e) to the payment of compensation for collective moral damages, in the amount of 5% of the total material damages determined in the settlement of the judgment. Finally, it declared the respective CAR null and void and allocated all the resources obtained to the Fund for Diffuse Rights.

The defendant filed an appeal requesting the annulment of the judgment for the purpose of conducting a judicial expert assessment and, subsidiarily, its amendment to revise the methodology for calculating climate damages, to eliminate or reduce the amounts of the award for collective moral and material damages, among other things. Among the arguments presented, it defended the lack of a rule that regulates the quantification of CO2 emissions for compensation purposes, establishes its value, and allows for its independent judicial collection.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for urgent relief, filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of Mato Grosso (MPMT) against Nelson Noboru Yabuta, aiming to hold the defendant responsible for environmental damage caused by the degradation of native vegetation (forest), obtaining the environmental regularization of the Luana I and II Farms, as well as a conviction for collective moral damages. The MPMT alleges – based on an Infraction Notice issued by the State Secretariat for the Environment – that the defendant deforested 11.9584 hectares in a Permanent Preservation Area (APP), without authorization from the environmental agency, on the aforementioned farms, owned by the defendant, in the municipality of Juara/MT. The Public Administration and the defendant signed a Reserve Compensation Agreement (TCR) and a Conduct Adjustment Agreement (TAC), in which the owner undertook to recover the deforested area, leading to the cancellation of the Infraction Notice. Furthermore, a Single Environmental License (LAU) was issued.

In a preliminary injunction, the Court of the 1st District of Juara/MT prohibited the performance of any activity not licensed by the responsible agency. Subsequently, the judgment issued by the aforementioned Court partially granted the requests made by the plaintiff, ordering Nelson Noboru Yabuta to pay collective moral damages due to the environmental damage caused. Both parties appealed the decision.

The ruling, issued by the 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Justice of the State of Mato Grosso (TJMT), denied the appeals, thus upholding the defendant's conviction to pay compensation for collective moral damages. It was highlighted that the cancellation of an infraction notice through administrative channels does not preclude liability in other spheres, as environmental offenses allow for triple liability (criminal, administrative, and civil). It was concluded that it was proven that Nelson Noboru Yabuta deforested, without authorization from the competent authority, 100% of the Permanent Preservation Area (APP) and the Legal Reserve of the property in question for livestock farming, and that such conduct could contribute to the desertification of the forest, which would compromise the quality of life of the local population, mainly due to climate change and the excessive emission of Greenhouse Gases (GHG).

The defendant deposited the amount of the judgment into the Mato Grosso State Environmental Fund, in addition to paying the court fees and costs. Therefore, the case was closed.

* As other parts of the case file were not accessible, the classifications and this summary were completed based exclusively on the ruling issued by the 4th Civil Chamber of the TJMT (Court of Justice of Mato Grosso).

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) on climate issues with a request for urgent relief filed by the Arayara International Institute of Education and Culture against the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP) and the Federal Government. The action seeks to challenge the auction of exploratory oil blocks conducted through the 1st Cycle of the Permanent Offer under the Production Sharing Regime. It argues that the inclusion of blocks located in the Santos Basin and the Campos Basin in the auction is invalid because they overlap and are close to Priority Areas for Biodiversity Conservation and Conservation Units. It is argued that the climate crisis scenario demands an energy transition to clean energy and a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, which is incompatible with the expansion of oil exploration over protected areas. The administrative act issued jointly by the Ministry of Mines and Energy and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change that authorized the offering of the aforementioned blocks is also challenged. The following is requested as a preliminary measure: (i) the suspension of the offering of the aforementioned blocks; (ii) the presentation of an inventory of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that will be generated by the commercial exploitation of the blocks offered in the auction; (iii) the presentation by the defendants of in-depth studies on the socio-environmental and economic impacts resulting from the expansion of E&P activity in the Santos and Campos Basins. As a final measure, confirmation of the preliminary injunction is requested, and further requests that the defendants refrain from conducting new bidding rounds for the aforementioned blocks/areas without unequivocally demonstrating technical and environmental compliance, especially with substantiated opinions from bodies such as ICMBio, IBAMA, and state/municipal environmental agencies.

ANP (National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels) submitted a preliminary statement regarding the request for urgent relief, arguing that the initial petition was flawed because it failed to indicate the cause of action. It also alleged the need to observe the decision of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) ADPF 825 and that environmental studies should be the subject of future licensing of blocks acquired at auction, including the analysis of issues related to fauna, climate, and mitigating and compensatory measures. It affirmed the legality of holding the auction and that judicial intervention should not interfere with technical choices. Therefore, it requested the dismissal of the preliminary injunction.

In its preliminary statement, the Union argued that the plaintiff lacked standing; that the Supreme Court's decision in ADI 825 needed to be observed; that the environmental impacts resulting from the activity would be duly assessed through the subsequent environmental licensing procedure; that a public hearing would be held with the participation of those affected; and that the executive branch had discretion to decide on the best model for providing the service and for the economic exploitation of the asset in question, thus there was no reason to suspend the auction.

In its ruling, the court dismissed the action without prejudice, recognizing Arayara's lack of standing and absence of interest in bringing the action. According to the decision, Arayara failed to demonstrate thematic relevance to be considered a legitimate party in this class action, and the bidding process it seeks to prevent was already concluded on December 16, 2022.

Arayara filed a motion for clarification due to the omission in the judgment regarding requests ii and iii, but the motion was rejected due to the inadequacy of the chosen appeal route. Consequently, an appeal was filed. Arayara argued that it has standing to bring the class action lawsuit defending the diffuse right to an ecologically balanced environment and that the fact that the auction has already taken place does not preclude consideration of the requests related to the GHG emissions inventory and studies on the socio-environmental and economic impacts resulting from the expansion of E&P activity.

In their counter-arguments to the appeal, the ANP and the Union insisted on the arguments presented in their defense documents, arguing for the upholding of the sentence.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against Cleide Guimarães Machado due to the deforestation of an area of 292.84 hectares, between 2011 and 2020, in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant's occupation of the land was illegal because it is an area included in an Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), owned and of interest to the Federal Government, managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractive communities. This class action lawsuit is part of a set of 22 actions filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) as a result of the investigation carried out in civil inquiry no. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, concerning illegal deforestation within the Antimary Agrarian-Extractive Settlement Project (PAE), but against different defendants. The lawsuit's arguments are based, among other points, on Brazilian Environmental Law, regarding the constitutional protection of the environment, the accusation of deforestation, civil liability propter rem for environmental damages, including climate damages, and collective moral damages. It also mentions, as an environmental liability, the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) resulting from the illegal deforestation of the area, calculated at 160,574.33 tons of carbon dioxide, which are directly related to the Brazilian State's departure from its climate goals, out of step with national and international commitments assumed by Brazil in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). Among other requests, the following are made: (i) reparation for the damages caused by the illegal deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation corresponding to intermediate and residual environmental material damages; (iv) payment of compensation corresponding to climate damages; and (v) payment of compensation corresponding to collective moral damages.

Subsequently, INCRA was included in the active party as a co-litigant assistant to the plaintiff.

In its defense, the defendant argued its lack of standing because its possession only occurred in 2019, while the facts narrated in the initial complaint indicate that the deforestation in the area took place between 2011 and 2020, with no proof that it deforested the area after taking possession. On the merits, it argued for the complete dismissal of the action. Among other issues, it was alleged that the propter rem nature of the environmental obligation refers only to the recovery of the area and that, due to the lack of proof that the defendant was responsible for the deforestation, there is no causal link that allows for its civil liability for material and moral damages.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief filed by the Public Defender's Office of the State of Pará (DPE-PA) against Floyd Promoção e Representação LTDA.; Brazil Agfor LCC; Michael Edward Greene; Jonas Akila Morioka; and Avoid Deforestations Project Limited due to a project generating illegal carbon credits sold on the voluntary market. This ACP is part of a set of 4 actions filed by the DPE-PA with the same grounds, but questioning different carbon credit projects. The Pacajaí project (Project 981), the subject of the action, overlaps with the areas of the State Agro-extractive Settlement Projects (PEAEX) Joana Peres II - Dorothy Stang and Joana Peres II - Rio Pacajá. These PEAEX are public lands, whose real right of use is granted to traditional communities located in the municipality of Portel, in the state of Pará, who did not participate in the challenged project. Project 981 generates REDD+ assets (credits generated by avoided deforestation, sustainable management, and increased forest carbon stocks), was certified by an international company, and has been in place since 2008 to obtain carbon credits for forty years. The companies and individuals named in the lawsuit are responsible for, and are developers of, the project and/or alleged owners of rural properties. The Public Defender's Office of Pará (DPE-PA) alleges the illegality of the lands targeted by Project 981 because they are located on public lands within the perimeter of settlements, and that the project lacks authorization from the state of Pará, which constitutes land grabbing of public lands. It is emphasized that the project was implemented without prior study. The DPE-PA argues that the defendants acted in violation of the right to traditional territory, the right to prior, free, and informed consultation of traditional communities, did not comply with federal legislation on climate change, payments for environmental services, and the concession of public forests, and did not directly benefit the communities encompassed by the project. The plaintiff argues that the defendants' conduct gives rise to a duty to compensate for collective moral damages. In the context of provisional relief, the plaintiff requests (i) recognition of the possession of the affected traditional communities over their overlapping areas; (ii) a court order suspending Project 981 and an injunction preventing the defendants from entering the PEAEX (Extractive Environmental Protection Areas). On the merits, the plaintiff requests (i) confirmation of the urgent requests; (ii) recognition of the right to the traditional territory; (iii) invalidation of Project 981 and any legal transactions derived from it; (iv) an injunction prohibiting the defendants from entering the territories; and (v) an order for payment of collective moral damages in the amount of R$ 5,000,000.00 to be allocated to the Eastern Amazon Fund for the benefit of the communities in the agro-extractive territories of Portel.

Brazil Agflor and Michael Greene, a partner in said company, filed a defense, alleging preliminarily: (i) lack of standing of the Public Defender's Office of Pará (DPE-PA), due to the absence of a power of attorney to represent the communities; (ii) lack of standing, since they would not be responsible for land issues concerning the areas of Project 981; and (iii) inadequacy of the initial complaint, due to the lack of demonstration of a causal link between the defendant's conduct and the alleged damages, especially regarding the request for compensation for collective moral damages. On the merits, they argue, among other points, that the lands of Project 981 were not the object of land grabbing, indicating that, contrary to what the DPE-PA alleges, the community's areas unduly overlapped private properties. The only mention of the climate issue was limited to the potential role of carbon credit projects in reducing deforestation, mitigating the main cause of greenhouse gas emissions in Brazil. Finally, they request (i) their exclusion from the passive pole; (ii) total dismissal of the merits of the action; (iii) challenge to the value of the case; and (iv) carrying out an expert examination of documents relating to the properties discussed in the action.

This is an action to annul an administrative act, with a request for urgent provisional relief, filed by Santo Antônio Energia SA against the state of Rondônia for an act of the State Secretariat for Environmental Development of Rondônia (SEDAM). The Santo Antônio Hydroelectric Plant operates a large hydroelectric plant located in the Amazon region and carried out works that required the removal of vegetation along the banks of the Madeira River, contracting third-party companies for this purpose. During the removal work, the Environment Committee of the Legislative Assembly of the state of Rondônia received complaints that the contracted companies were causing fires in areas of the Santo Antônio and Jirau Hydroelectric Plants. SEDAM issued an infraction notice stating that the contracted companies had burned 2,280 hectares of vegetation (1,750 of which belonged to Santo Antônio SA) and imposed a fine of R$10,000,000.00. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff company alleges that the fires in question were arson and that it took all necessary measures. It seeks recognition of the statute of limitations and, subsidiarily, the annulment of the administrative act due to defects and the absence of elements necessary to establish administrative liability. As a matter of urgency, it requests the suspension of the enforceability of the fine; and an order to SEDAM (State Secretariat for Environmental Development) to refrain from adopting any measure that implies the collection of the applied fine. On the merits, it requests the annulment of the infraction notice and, subsidiarily, the readjustment of the applied sanction, or a reduction in the amount of the fine.

The state of Rondônia filed a response refuting the arguments presented in the initial complaint. It requested that the action be dismissed.

The court issued a ruling partially upholding the initial request to adjust the fine to R$ 5,000,000.00.

The plaintiff company and the state of Rondônia filed an appeal.

In the trial, the court denied both appeals, upholding the sentence. The dissenting vote granted the appeal of the state of Rondônia to reinstate the initial amount of the fine. It considered that the amount of the fine applied by SEDAM (State Secretariat for Environmental Development) was reasonable, given that the fire affected 1,750 hectares of the company's land and lasted for 15 days. It argued that Federal Decree 6.514/2008 stipulates that, for the gradation of the penalty, the extent of the damage and its impact on the environment must be taken into account. It emphasized that one hectare of burned forest is equivalent to hundreds of tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere and that Brazil has high emissions of greenhouse gases. It highlighted the provisions of CNJ Resolution 433/2021 and the country's targets assumed under the Paris Agreement. He argued that, given the climate crisis and the provisions of existing regulations, it is not possible to restrict the discretion of the environmental authority to determine the amount of fines imposed.

In light of the ruling, Santo Antônio Energia SA filed a Special Appeal (REsp 2188095), which is awaiting judgment.

This is a Public Civil Action with a request for urgent relief filed by the Arayara International Institute of Education and Culture (Arayara Institute of Education for Sustainability) against the National Electric Energy Agency (ANEEL) and the Federal Government, aiming to challenge the implementation of ANEEL Auction No. 08/2022 (Auction of Reserved Capacity in the form of Energy), which aims to contract energy from gas-fired power plants to be installed in areas of the Legal Amazon. The auction stems from a provision contained in Federal Law 14.182/2022, which deals with the privatization of Eletrobras, whose legislative process culminated in the insertion of unrelated content, determining the contracting of energy from gas-fired power plants. The plaintiff alleges that the climate crisis is incompatible with the increased emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) that will be generated by the power plants to be contracted in the auction. The tender aims to contract 2 GW of energy, which could lead to a 39% increase in annual GHG emissions for the electricity sector compared to 2021 levels. The Arayara Institute argues that the regions where the thermal power plants are planned lack natural gas supply, pipeline infrastructure, and electricity transmission networks, as well as demand for this energy source. It points to several negative impacts associated with the projects. These will generate socio-environmental impacts on traditional communities, indigenous peoples, and Conservation Units; compromise the use of local water resources due to high water demand; and increase electricity prices for consumers. In this way, there would be an aggravation of climate change and a violation of the National Environmental Policy (Federal Law 6.938/1981), the National Climate Change Policy (Federal Law 12.187/2009), the Paris Agreement (Federal Decree 9.073/2017), and a compromise to the achievement of Brazil's NDC. Furthermore, it argues that Federal Law 14.182/2022, which underlies the Auction, contains unconstitutional provisions, which should be recognized incidentally. It is requested, on a preliminary basis: (i) the suspension of ANEEL Auction No. 008/2022, or, if the request is considered after its occurrence, the suspension of its effects; (ii) should the Auction be upheld, it argues for a determination that the defendants submit, within ninety days, an inventory of GHG emissions from all thermal power plants involved in the auction, as well as the impact of the emissions on compliance with the NDC. Ultimately, it requests: (i) the cancellation of Auction No. 008/2022, with the annulment of all its effects and a determination that no new similar auction be held based on Federal Law 14.182/2022; (ii) should the Auction be upheld, that the defendants be definitively obligated to submit an inventory of GHG emissions from all thermal power plants involved in the Auction, as well as the impact of the emissions on compliance with the NDC.

The case was originally assigned to the 4th Federal Civil Court of the Federal District, which declined jurisdiction. Subsequently, the 9th Federal Civil Court of the Federal District received the case and recognized its jurisdiction.

The court ruled against the preliminary injunction request, finding no urgency in the measure or danger of delay; on the contrary, it recognized that suspending the effects of the ANEEL auction would cause a risk of reverse damage. An interlocutory appeal (AI 1023259-36.2023.4.01.0000) was then filed by Arayara, requesting the suspension of the effects of ANEEL Auction No. 08/22 or, if the auction is maintained, that the defendants submit, within ninety days, an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions from all fossil fuel-fired power plants involved in the auction, as well as the impact of these emissions on compliance with the NDCs. In their counter-arguments, the Union and ANEEL requested that the appealed decision be upheld.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against Carlos Eduardo de Oliveira Lima for the deforestation of an area of 144.65 hectares between 2017 and 2018 in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant's occupation of the land was illegal because it is an area within an Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), owned and of interest to the Federal Government, managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractive communities. This ACP is part of a set of 22 actions filed by the MPF as a result of the investigation carried out in civil inquiry no. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, for illegal deforestation carried out within the Antimary Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), but against different defendants. The argument for the action is based, among other points, on Brazilian Environmental Law, regarding the constitutional protection of the environment, the accusation of deforestation, civil liability propter rem for environmental damages, including climate damages, and collective moral damages. It also mentions, as an environmental liability, the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) caused by the illegal deforestation of the area, calculated at 84,681.52 tons of carbon dioxide, which are directly related to the Brazilian State's departure from its climate goals, out of step with national and international commitments assumed by Brazil in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). Among other requests, the following is sought: (i) reparation for the damages caused by the illegal deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation corresponding to intermediate and residual environmental material damages; (iv) payment of compensation corresponding to climate damages; and (v) payment of compensation corresponding to collective moral damages.

The summons was served by publication, and the defendant was declared in default, with the Federal Public Defender's Office appointed as special curator.

In its defense, the defendant requested the dismissal of the case due to the initial pleading being defective and challenged the service of process by publication. On the merits, it requested the dismissal of the action. It was argued that the alleged infraction is not properly substantiated, that there is insufficient evidence of the defendant's responsibility for the alleged environmental damages, and that the causal link – fundamental for civil liability – is lacking. It was further argued that the claim for reparation and compensation cannot be combined, that the compensation amount for material damages is disproportionate, and that the application of collective moral damages to the environment should be excluded. Alternatively, should liability be recognized, a reduction in the fine amount was requested, based on the defendant's economic capacity.

Subsequently, INCRA was included in the active party as a co-litigant assistant to the plaintiff.

This is an independent action for the early production of evidence filed against the State of São Paulo by two individuals, both from the Families for Climate movement, seeking to obtain documents regarding the implementation of the IncentivAuto Program - Automotive Regime for New Investments, established by State Decree 61.130/2019. The applicants argue that these documents may support or prevent the filing of a class action lawsuit. The program provides for the granting of financing to automotive manufacturers for the expansion of their industrial plants, the establishment of new factories, or the development of new products. The applicants allege that there is potential illegality in the IncentivAuto program financing projects that do not minimize the reduction of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, in violation of the State Policy on Climate Change - PEMC (State Law 13.798/2009) and the National Policy on Climate Change - PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009). Furthermore, they base their argument on the potential harm to public funds and the environment due to the use of resources from the São Paulo State Taxpayer Support Fund (FUNAC) to finance projects that encourage polluting activity, without observing the need to reconcile socioeconomic development with the protection of the climate system. The applicants emphasize the vulnerability of children and adolescents to air pollution and the impacts of climate change. Therefore, they request the production of documentary evidence relating to projects submitted to IncentivAuto.

The State of São Paulo filed an objection alleging that the applicants lack standing to defend the environment in general or the inalienable rights of children and adolescents, and asserts that the claim is generic. Furthermore, it argues that the refusal to present documents was legitimate. Thus, the defendant State concludes that (i) there is no standing or interest in producing evidence, (ii) the protection of the claimed right is not linked to the objective facts to be proven with the documents, and (iii) the documents are confidential.

The court granted the request for the State of São Paulo to provide some of the requested information and documents, but subsequently issued a judgment dismissing the case. The action is now permanently archived.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for preliminary injunction, filed by Conectas Direitos Humanos against BNDES and BNDESPAR, aiming to compel the defendants to adopt transparency measures and present a plan to align their actions and investment policies with the goals of the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017) and the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009). The plaintiff argues that BNDES and BNDESPAR lack rules or protocols to assess the impacts of their investments on the worsening of the climate crisis, violating articles 225 and 170 of the Federal Constitution and the PNMC, as well as the commitments assumed by Brazil under the Paris Agreement. It emphasizes that BNDESPAR must consider, in its investment decisions, the inequalities linked to socio-environmental and climate impacts. The author also presents a study indicating the importance of BNDESPAR for the implementation of measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change in Brazil, demonstrating that the defendant maintains investments in carbon-intensive sectors. For these reasons, she requests, among other measures, that the defendants be ordered to (i) provide information on whether and how they consider climate risks and opportunities in their investment, divestment, and reinvestment decisions, (ii) present a Plan aimed at reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions, equipped with governance guidelines, a framework of internal rules, investment policies, and other instruments necessary to align BNDESPAR's actions with the goals of the Paris Agreement and the PNMC (National Climate Change Policy), (iii) establish a Climate Situation Room, and (iv) impose a daily fine in case of non-compliance.

The court issued an interlocutory decision denying the request for urgent relief. It argued that the requirement of urgency was not met, since the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC) and the Paris Agreement are public policies that have existed for years, and only in 2022 did the plaintiffs propose to question the defendants' environmental policy. It asserted that the BNDES system demonstrates a transparent commitment to the green economy.

BNDES and BNDESPAR filed a rebuttal. They argued that acts concerning the granting of credit and investments are private, not administrative, acts. Therefore, they do not have the authority to reassess the environmental licensing process of the projects they finance, only to demand the adoption of best socio-environmental practices within the specific characteristics of the activity. They defended that the BNDES system already has internal policies and structured procedures and appropriate conduct for addressing environmental, social, and climate issues, including promoting the carbon market. They highlighted the development of the Social, Environmental, and Climate Responsibility Policy (PRSAC), updated in 2022 and available on its website. The defendants stated that they adopt international and national protocols for best ESG and climate practices, such as the NDC Panel – a platform that shows the BNDES system's performance in relation to Brazilian climate goals, including monitoring emissions from the projects it supports. They asserted that the system has a pilot methodology for assessing the climate risks of supported projects. They highlighted that, in 2022, they measured the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions from their administrative activities, calculated the GHG emissions financed, and adopted divestment processes in carbon-intensive companies and activities. They argued their lack of standing to be sued, since the Supreme Federal Court, in the judgment of ADPF 708 (Climate Fund), established that it is the Union's responsibility to implement public policies related to climate issues. They alleged that a favorable decision in the Public Civil Action would create an obstacle to accessing federal resources for interested parties not cited as defendants and, therefore, the passive pole should be expanded to include them. The defendants argued that the plaintiff lacks legal standing in the lawsuit, in addition to having formulated generic and impossible requests. They alleged that the deadline for claiming the requests related to the PNMC (National Climate Change Policy) had already expired and that the initial requests disregard possible consequences on economic activities developed by the defendants. They argued that the Paris Agreement proposes that countries' treatment of climate issues be conditional, voluntary, and long-term, and that Brazil already occupies a leading position in the fight against climate change. They pointed out that climate litigation would imply a violation of the separation of powers, by seeking to make the Judiciary an instance of political climate governance. As state-owned companies, they argued that they do not have the autonomy to develop their own environmental policy, but must observe the policies defined by the Federal Government, environmental legislation, and the Federal Constitution. They argued that the plaintiff's procedural and extra-procedural conduct causes damage to the image, objective morality, and reputation of the BNDES system. The defendants requested: (i) the procedural communication of potentially interested entities; (ii) the dismissal of the lawsuit without prejudice; (iii) if the claim is not dismissed, recognition of BNDESPAR only as a simple assistant, or recognition of the need for necessary and unitary passive joinder between BNDES, BNDESPAR and all interested institutions and companies listed in the procedural document; (iv) acceptance of the argument of prescription of the claim; (v) judgment for the dismissal of the claims; and (vi) condemnation of the plaintiff for bad faith litigation.

Conectas Human Rights presented a rebuttal, refuting arguments presented in the defense and highlighting the importance of the Judiciary's role in climate disputes to protect citizens' rights. It pointed out that the climate measures sought in the lawsuit are distinct from the environmental measures listed by the defendants. It clarifies that the core of the debate in the Public Civil Action is (i) that the Brazilian legal system implies the necessary collaboration of BNDESPAR to achieve the country's climate goals and (ii) that the entity does not adopt measures in this regard, considering the most advanced technical criteria that exist.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief filed by the Arayara Institute of Education and Culture for Sustainability against the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP) and the Federal Government. This action is part of a set of 6 ACPs filed against the 4th Cycle of Permanent Offer of Concessions for oil exploration blocks. It is argued that the inclusion of oil exploration blocks in the Sergipe-Alagoas Basin and the Potiguar Basin is illegal, as it overlaps with Conservation Units, buffer zones, and extractive reserves. The nullity of the administrative act is argued due to the failure to conduct socio-environmental impact studies. The non-compliance with the Joint Statement regarding the provisions of the Interministerial Ordinance of the MME/MMA (Ministry of Mines and Energy/Ministry of the Environment) that regulates the issuance of joint statements by the MME/MMA for the purpose of offering oil and gas exploration blocks, and the expansion of oil and gas exploration over environmentally protected regions in the context of the climate crisis. In a preliminary injunction, it is requested that the defendant be ordered to publish on its website and inform the qualified companies of the existence of the legal action, suspend the Joint Statement concerning the aforementioned blocks in the Sergipe-Alagoas Basin and the Potiguar Basin, and consequently suspend its offering in the 4th Permanent Offer Cycle until a Joint Statement is issued that adequately complies with the provisions of Article 4 of Interministerial Ordinance No. 01/22M/MMA. In the final stage, it is requested: the recognition of the illegality of the offer and the exclusion of the blocks located in the Sergipe-Alagoas and Potiguar Basins in the 4th Permanent Offer Cycle until a technical analysis is carried out demonstrating their viability and, subsequently, the respective Joint Statement is rectified.

The lawsuit was filed in the 4th Federal Court of Alagoas, which then declined jurisdiction in favor of the Federal Court of Rio Grande do Norte (JFRN). The case was reassigned to the JFRN under number 0812936-62.2023.4.05.840. Following a request from the plaintiff, the inclusion of the company 3R RNCE SA as a defendant was ordered.

In its defense, the ANP (National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels) alleged the plaintiff lacked standing, claiming that the plaintiff had not specifically demonstrated the thematic relevance between its statutory function and the subject matter of the action. On the merits, it argued for the dismissal of the claims. According to the Agency, the bidding procedure was carried out regularly, and the judicial discussion of the issue violates the principle of separation of powers and enters into the discretionary power of the Executive branch. Regarding climate protection, it stated that in the NetZero 2050 scenario, oil and gas are still foreseen as primary energy sources, used with mitigated or neutralized emissions.

The Union filed a response arguing, in preliminary matters, that the plaintiff association lacks standing to bring the action and that there is no interest in pursuing the matter, as it has already been decided by the Supreme Federal Court in ADPFs 825 and 887. On the merits, it argued that the procedure was properly structured, there is no overlap with buffer zones, the discretion of the Executive branch cannot be subject to judicial review, and there are no environmental obstacles, emphasizing that the environmental licensing procedure will define in detail any potential impacts. It requested the dismissal of the case without prejudice due to lack of procedural interest or lack of standing, and, subsidiarily, the dismissal of the claims.

The company 3R RNCE SA also filed a response requesting the dismissal of the lawsuit. According to them, the bidding cycle is regular, and assessments of environmental impacts at this time are premature, with any potential impacts to be evaluated during the environmental licensing process required for any oil exploration and production activity. Furthermore, they argued that there is no impediment to the development of economic activities in buffer zones. Regarding climate, the defendant company argues that the oil and natural gas sector is crucial to Brazil's energy matrix and economy, and plays a central role in the transition to a low-carbon economy. They assert that it is a fundamental industry for addressing global climate challenges, including achieving the commitments of the Paris Agreement. The company emphasizes that the energy transition must be fair, gradual, and synchronized with the development of alternative sources, highlighting the continued importance of fossil fuels until 2050. It asserts that, contrary to the plaintiff's claims, the offering of oil and gas exploration blocks is aligned with the country's energy security needs and climate goals, following the Federal Government's plans and energy policy. Therefore, it considers the action aimed at implementing climate public policies through the judicial system, which would be inappropriate and detrimental to national sovereignty and development. It requested, preliminarily, the dismissal of the case without prejudice, considering the lack of procedural interest, the regularity of the 4th Cycle of Permanent Offer of Concessions, the inadequacy of the chosen legal avenue for discussing public policy, and the encroachment on the competence of environmental agencies. Subsidiarily, it requested that the initial claims be dismissed in their entirety.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for preliminary injunction, filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against the State of São Paulo, CETESB, and IBAMA. The action requests the cancellation of all licenses and authorizations issued by the state agency related to the controlled burning of sugarcane straw in the municipalities covered by the Campinas Judicial Subsection, as well as preventing the defendants from issuing new licenses without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Study and Environmental Impact Report (EIA/RIMA). The objective is for IBAMA to act in a supplementary manner in the implementation and monitoring of environmental protection measures, since the responsible state agencies are allegedly not acting satisfactorily. The author argues that this activity implies several damages, such as to the atmosphere – generating pollution and contributing to global warming – to public health, among others, in addition to the fact that burning sugarcane straw is a practice repudiated by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change - UNFCCC (promulgated by Decree 2,652/1998). Finally, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office requests that, if a licensing request for this activity is made, an Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report (EIA/RIMA) be mandatory as a condition for such, and that the analysis be comprehensive, taking into account, among other factors, changes in the atmosphere related to the greenhouse effect and global warming.

In its defense, IBAMA alleges, among other issues, (i) its lack of standing as a defendant since it would not have the competence to carry out such licensing, (ii) that the technical criteria relating to impact assessment are acts of technical discretion, and (iii) the unnecessary nature of environmental licensing for burning sugarcane straw. The State of São Paulo, in its defense, argues that the abrupt halt of the sugarcane harvesting system will cause damage to economic and social values that will outweigh the impacts on the environment and human health. It identifies the presence of federal and state legislation authorizing the controlled burning of sugarcane straw and that the state has the competence to authorize such practice, without the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report.

In its defense, CETESB argues that the authorizations for controlled burning of sugarcane straw include measures to mitigate the negative impacts of the practice; and that the state agency has the competence to issue such authorizations. It also argues that an Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report (EIA/RIMA) is unnecessary for granting authorization for this activity and that the licensing of a sugarcane and ethanol production facility covers all activities related to the core business, including the planted agricultural area. Finally, it affirms that the practice respects national and state climate change policies, since the aim is to mechanize sugarcane harvesting and gradually reduce the practice of burning.

A preliminary injunction was issued, granting part of the urgent relief, determining, among other measures: (i) that CETESB and the State of São Paulo should not grant environmental licenses and authorizations for the burning of sugarcane straw without prior completion of an EIA/RIMA in the region pertaining to the Campinas Judicial Subsection; and (ii) that IBAMA monitor the requirement for licensing and EIA/RIMA. The Court considered it unreasonable to immediately suspend all sugarcane straw burning activities, determining that the measures be applied from the next harvest onwards.

Subsequently, the court issued a ruling ordering CETESB and the State of São Paulo to refrain from granting new licenses and authorizations that do not include specific licensing with an EIA/RIMA (Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report) and that do not consider the consequences of the activity for the atmosphere, global temperature, and other factors; and IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) was ordered to supplementarily monitor the damage caused by the burning of sugarcane straw.

The defendants filed an appeal, reiterating in their arguments the points raised in their defense, requesting the reversal of the judgment and the dismissal of the initial claims. The court, unanimously, granted the appeals. The preliminary objections of inadequacy of the chosen legal avenue and lack of jurisdiction of the Federal Court were rejected. The decision concluded that the interstate or national dimension of the environmental damage was not established, nor was there any omission on the part of CETESB (Environmental Company of the State of São Paulo) that would justify imposing jurisdiction on IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) to oversee the activity, thus confirming the jurisdiction of the state agency. The court highlighted that Resolution 237/1997 of the National Council for the Environment (CONAMA) did not list the burning of sugarcane straw as an activity subject to environmental licensing, and that the Forest Code and state legislation support the authorization granted by CETESB for the burning of sugarcane straw. Furthermore, it acknowledged the suitability of the activity for environmental protection, since the legislation regulating it provides for the gradual reduction of the use of fire, and the sudden suspension of the activity would cause serious economic damage, as well as highlighting that CETESB adopts a specific system for issuing authorization for the activity.

In October 2022, the case was definitively closed.

This is an action for the enforcement of an obligation to perform, combined with a request for urgent relief, filed by Carbonext Tecnologia em Soluções Ambientais Ltda. against Amazon Imóveis, aiming at the fulfillment of a Carbon Credit Purchase and Sale Agreement, which is an extrajudicial enforceable instrument. Carbonext is a company dedicated to the preservation of the Amazon, operating in the development and implementation of carbon credit projects, known as REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), whose objective is to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and prevent deforestation in the Amazon. REDD+ is a set of incentives for developing countries that adopt policies to mitigate climate change, including reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, increasing forest carbon reserves, sustainable forest management, and forest conservation. The concept of carbon credits was created from the Kyoto Protocol (promulgated by Federal Decree 5.445/2005), within the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change - UNFCCC (promulgated by Federal Decree 2.652/1998). They are assets generated from activities that emit less greenhouse gas (GHG) compared to previous emissions. One unit of this asset represents one ton of carbon dioxide that was not emitted into the atmosphere. Individuals and legal entities can acquire carbon credits in the voluntary market for these assets in order to offset GHG emissions. The executing company, Carbonext, acquires carbon credits from projects managed by it or from assets purchased from other companies and resells them, with the aim of financing environmental preservation and the development of local communities in the Amazon. In this way, the values obtained through the purchase and sale of carbon credits finance environmental preservation and the development of local communities in the Amazon Rainforest.

The defendant company, Amazon Imóveis, holds 3% of the carbon credits generated by the REDD+ project called “The Envira Amazonia Project – A Tropical Forest Conservation Project in Acre, Brazil”. With the aim of selling these credits to the plaintiff, a Carbon Credit Purchase and Sale Agreement was signed, whereby Amazon Imóveis agreed to sell and transfer 331,080 carbon credits to the plaintiff, according to the harvest and quantities described in the contract. In return, Carbonext agreed to pay the price by December 31, 2021. According to the contract, the defendant was to transfer the assets within five business days from the signing of the contractual instrument, which occurred on February 26, 2021.

In accordance with market practice, Carbonext chose to request the transfer of carbon credits as it made sales to companies interested in offsetting GHG emissions. Initially, Amazon Imóveis transferred 5,000 credits to the plaintiff, relating to the 2017 harvest. In April of the same year, the plaintiff contacted the defendant company to request the transfer of 16,990 carbon credits, which was denied by the defendant. Given this unjustified refusal, Carbonext sent an extrajudicial notification requesting the transfer of the credits. As the transaction was not completed, Carbonext filed this lawsuit to enforce a certain, liquid, and enforceable obligation embodied in an extrajudicial executive instrument, as provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure (Federal Law 13.105/2015). Therefore, the plaintiff requests (i) the transfer of 326,080 carbon credits by Amazon Imóveis to Carbonext within a period not exceeding five business days, under penalty of fine, and (ii) an order to the carbon credit management institutions, under penalty of daily fine, to transfer the credits belonging to Amazon Imóveis, should the defendant fail to do so.

The court of first instance issued an official decision warning the defendant to fulfill the obligation within fifteen days, under penalty of a daily fine. Carbonext proceeded with physical filing at the defendant's headquarters to ensure compliance with the obligation, which Amazon failed to do. The defendant filed an objection to the enforcement (autonomous action number 1088560-57.2021.8.26.0100) and filed an interlocutory appeal with a request for preliminary injunction (2180421-19.2021.8.26.0000). This latter appeal was not admitted.

In the Execution Action proceedings, the plaintiff requested the issuance of an official letter to the custodian of the carbon credits, Carbonfund.org Foundation, so that it would transfer the credits from Amazon Imóveis to the plaintiff, which was ordered by the court through an official decision. Carbonfound transferred the credits to the plaintiff. Given the period of non-compliance with the court decision, Carbonext requested payment of the amount related to the penalty imposed by the Court. The plaintiff reported a new supervening fact to the proceedings, informing that it had prepaid the contractual price, less the amount to be received as a penalty. It requested (i) that the debt be recognized as satisfied in relation to the principal obligation and the executed penalties and (ii) that the execution be terminated due to satisfaction of the debt (principal and penalty). The court issued a ruling dismissing the case, declaring the right to appeal forfeited due to lack of procedural interest.

Amazon Imóveis filed a Motion for Clarification with modifying effects, alleging: (i) that the judgment rendered is unclear because it dismissed the case without giving the objecting/defendant the opportunity to respond to information provided by the opposing/plaintiff in its petitions; (ii) that the fine imposed in the preliminary injunction was not confirmed in the judgment and is therefore not enforceable; and (iii) that the deduction of the price made by the opposing/plaintiff is improper. It requested a new integrative/clarifying pronouncement to overcome the obscurity and annul the appealed judgment. The motion was not accepted, and the company filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the decision, requesting a declaration of nullity of the summons and the consequent return of amounts by the appellee. The appeal was granted suspensive effect and, when judged, was not upheld.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for urgent relief, filed by the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio) against Sandra Mara Silveira, the estate of Pedro Cordeiro, Marcio Natalino Piovesan Cordeiro, Adrielle Silveira Piovezan, and Davi Silveira Piovazan. The action seeks compensation exclusively for climate damages related to environmental infractions committed in an area of 7,075 hectares, comprising three farms overlapping the Jamanxim National Forest, as registered in the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR). In this sense, the plaintiff argues that the case does not concern the recovery of the degraded area nor compensation for material damages and collective moral damages, which are already the subject of ACP No. 1000979-55.2021.4.01.3908, filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office. The area had already been the subject of several infraction notices and embargo and prohibition orders issued by IBAMA and ICMBio. The plaintiff alleges that the climate damage stems from illegal acts of deforestation, burning, herbicide use, introduction of exotic species, destruction of permanent preservation areas, and prevention of native vegetation regeneration for cattle ranching in the federal public domain area. These actions are responsible for the illegitimate emission of greenhouse gases, causing climate damage. The plaintiff alleges that after the embargoes and fines imposed by environmental agencies, the illegal acts continued, increasing the social cost of these illegal activities in relation to climate change. Furthermore, by maintaining cattle ranching without proper registration, the defendants are committing sanitary fraud, and the climate damage within the conservation unit is aggravated by the presence of thousands of head of cattle, especially considering the methane emissions from the cattle. Based on the polluter-pays principle, it argues that the negative climate externality represents an external social cost not internalized by the illegal deforestation activity, translated into the social cost of carbon (SCC). ICMBio uses the CADAF Project methodology to estimate the amount of carbon stored and emitted per hectare due to deforestation in the Amazon biome, totaling 1,139,075 tons of carbon. It argues that the quantification of the compensation value for climate damage can be carried out by multiplying the estimated GHG emissions from the activity by the SCC cost used by the OECD, of 60 euros per ton. It considers that the illegal acts were committed in a specially protected territorial area, which constitutes an aggravating factor for environmental damage since it negatively affects special, differentiated, and unique attributes that justified the creation of the Conservation Unit. Thus, a 50% increase in the value of the CSC is requested, resulting in a compensation amount of R$210,842,782.50. Furthermore, the action expressly mentions the situation of climate injustice generated by illegal actions of environmental damage. The plaintiff requests, as an urgent measure: (i) the immediate evacuation of the area; (ii) the prohibition of exploitation of the area; (iii) the suspension of tax incentives and benefits and access to credit lines; (iv) the freezing of assets in the estimated value for the obligation to pay compensation for climate damage; and (v) the freezing of livestock existing in the area, with its anticipated judicial sale. It asserts the need for a reversal of the burden of proof and, definitively, requests that the defendant be ordered to pay the amount corresponding to the social cost of carbon, with the requested aggravating factor, and that the amounts be reverted to the National Fund on Climate Change and to the fund established by the law that provides for the creation of ICMBio (Federal Law 11.516/2007).

In her defense, Adrielle Mara Silveira argued, preliminarily, that the proceedings were null and void due to the absence of a valid summons, and that the initial petition was generic and imprecise, as it did not clearly describe the illicit conduct that is intended to be attributed to the defendant, nor did it individualize her responsibility for the alleged environmental and climate damages. The defense argued that the accusation stems exclusively from her kinship with Sandra Mara Silveira—also a party to the action—without any demonstration of a causal link between her actions and the alleged damages. The validity of the carbon pricing calculations presented by the plaintiff was also contested, due to the absence of a legal basis, recognized official parameters, and adequate methodological support. Finally, she requested the dismissal of the claims, based on the lack of minimal proof of authorship and materiality of the attributed conduct.

In her defense, Sandra Mara Silveira requested the acceptance of the preliminary objections and the dismissal of the case without prejudice. She argued that the initial complaint is generic and imprecise, as it does not clearly specify the conduct attributed to the defendant, nor the amounts corresponding to the liability that is intended to be imposed, and that the validity of the carbon pricing calculations presented is questionable, as they lack a legal basis and official parameters for recognition. On the merits, she denied authorship of the alleged environmental and climate damages due to lack of evidence, emphasizing that the described environmental impacts are the result of actions carried out by third parties. Thus, she requested that the action be dismissed.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief filed by the Public Defender's Office of the State of São Paulo (DPESP) against the São Paulo State Land Institute Foundation (ITESP), the São Paulo State Forestry Conservation and Production Foundation (Fundação Florestal), and the State of São Paulo. The action seeks the annulment of the State Decree that created a Conservation Unit regarding its overlap with quilombola territory. Environmental racism is presented as a major driver of the severe marginalization experienced by the Quilombola Community of Bombas, whose territorial rights are denied due to an alleged incompatibility between these rights and the protection of local biodiversity. This is because the territory of this community overlaps with a Conservation Unit called the Alto Ribeira State Tourist Park (PETAR). The plaintiffs argue that the quilombola peoples of that region are protectors of nature and have a relationship of mutual dependence with nature. Thus, they request the recognition of quilombola territory. The land survey, including the removal of any third parties; the revocation or invalidation of State Decree 32.283/1958, only regarding the park's impact on the quilombola territory; the titling of the quilombola territory; and the construction of a road and adequate access to the community. The initial petition makes no mention of the climate issue, which is mentioned for the first time in the proceedings in the judgment.

In its defense, the Attorney General's Office of the State of São Paulo (PGESP), acting on behalf of the defendants, argued that (i) the members of the Quilombo de Bombas and their association lacked standing to sue, given the imminent official recognition process; (ii) the action would violate constitutional and administrative principles; (iii) the action would violate the presumption of legitimacy and veracity of the challenged administrative acts; (iv) the imposition of fines, which were calculated in an exorbitant, disproportionate, and unjustified manner, would be impossible. Therefore, it requested that the action be dismissed, revoking the preliminary injunctions granted.

A judgment was issued upholding the initial request in favor of the Quilombola Community of Bombas, recognizing the material invalidity of Decree 32.238/1958, which created PETAR, insofar as it overlaps with Quilombola territory. Its incompatibility with Article 68 of the Transitional Constitutional Provisions Act (ADCT) and ILO Convention 169 was affirmed, declaring the nullity of the allocation of that territory to the Conservation Unit. The decision addressed the concept of environmental racism in the context of climate justice, but concluded that the case is the result of a combination of social, environmental, historical, and legal factors, considering the Quilombola people's own "invisible" trajectory until the advent of the Constitution. Furthermore, it was stated that the relationship between traditional communities and the environment is non-conflictual, and the urgent need to halt the unchecked human action on ecosystems to the point of altering climatic conditions that currently guarantee the survival of humanity was recognized. Thus, in addition to recognizing the invalidity of PETAR in the part that overlaps with the quilombola territory, the judgment: (i) ordered the State of São Paulo and ITESP to carry out an updated land survey within 6 months and to begin land regularization by granting the community the title of ownership; (ii) ordered them to present the access road project and a schedule for its execution, as well as to begin the work within one year, under penalty of fine; and (iii) determined the validity of the dual allocation regime in the Unit, with management of the territory by the community and the Forestry Foundation, affirming the need for prior consultation, according to protocols that must be established by the community itself, inclusion in the management plan, environmental management instruments and observance, by the defendants, of the National Policy for Quilombola Territorial and Environmental Management (Federal Decree 11.786/2023).

In its appeal, the PGESP (São Paulo State Attorney General's Office) used the climate argument in context, stating that climate change is one of the greatest global threats facing humanity and the importance of carbon sinks in sequestering carbon and reducing the accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere. Thus, it argued that the solution to facing the climate challenge may lie in simple concepts, such as the preservation and restoration of green areas, including forests and vegetation cover. Therefore, it asserted that investing in the conservation and sustainable management of green areas is not only an environmental issue, but also a smart strategy to face climate challenges and strengthen the resilience of communities (including quilombola communities). Therefore, this argument was used to defend the importance of PETAR and to request, primarily, that: (i) the State Court's lack of jurisdiction to analyze and judge the case be recognized, given the interest of the Union, specifically the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA), the competent agency at the federal level for the titling of quilombola territories; and (ii) the judgment of unconstitutionality of State Decree 32.238/1958, which created the Conservation Unit, be overturned. Among other points, it was argued that the principle of legal reserve, the principle of non-regression in environmental matters, and the norm obligating the State to create the Conservation Unit were violated, asserting the need for a balancing of interests in the case.

The Forestry Foundation and ITESP also filed an appeal, but without mentioning the climate issue. The Public Defender's Office of the State of São Paulo (DPESP) filed counter-arguments, and the appeals are awaiting judgment.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for preliminary injunction, filed by the Verdeluz Institute, the Indigenous Council of the Anacé People of Japiman, and the Indigenous Association of the Anacé People of the Planalto Cauipe Village against Portocem Geração de Energia SA and the Secretariat of the Environment of the State of Ceará (SEMACE). The objective is to suspend and subsequently annul the environmental licensing process for the Portocem Thermoelectric Power Plant (UTE), powered by natural gas, to be installed in the Pecém Industrial and Port Complex (CIPP). The authors claim that there were violations of legal norms and several omissions in the Environmental Impact Study (EIA), among which they highlight (i) the invisibility of indigenous communities in the vicinity of the project, (ii) the disregard for impacts related to water resources, (iii) the disregard for potential socioeconomic impacts and the potential to increase the existing conflict in the region, (iv) the underestimation of health damage, and (v) the disregard for climate impacts. They also believe that there was no adequate analysis of the synergistic and cumulative impacts with other projects in the region, considering its inclusion in the CIPP (Integrated Planning and Production Complex). Regarding climate impacts, the authors argue that the EIA failed to list important consequences for climate balance, considering that it is a gas-fired thermoelectric plant that uses less efficient methods of energy generation. The authors cite reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and how the use of fossil fuels is at odds with sustainable development goals and the guiding principles of national energy policy. They argue that Brazil and the State of Ceará have legally committed to climate protection and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which contradicts the implementation of yet another gas-fired power plant. The authors also highlight that the Northeast is one of the regions of Brazil most vulnerable to climate change and emphasize the importance of risk analysis of the project for the region's water security, considering that Northeastern water resources are under pressure from climate change. They state that the social groups that contribute least to climate change, such as traditional, indigenous, and marginalized communities, are already the most affected by its consequences, mobilizing the fundamentals of climate justice. In addition to problems in impact assessment and the preparation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), the authors point to flaws in the licensing process due to a lack of effective public participation. This is because only one public hearing was held, without proper publicity and without collecting criticisms or suggestions from those present. The authors also question the absence of prior, free, and informed consultation with the indigenous people of the Anacé ethnic group. They believe there was a violation of national and international norms on the rights of indigenous peoples, especially Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO). They also question the lack of a statement from FUNAI (National Indian Foundation) and the absence of a study of the indigenous component (ECI) in the licensing process. Given these various irregularities, the plaintiffs argue that the licensing of the Portocem Thermal Power Plant should be suspended. They argue that SEMACE (State Superintendency for the Environment) is violating constitutional, conventional, legal, and infra-legal norms in conducting the procedure, making it necessary to initiate a new environmental licensing process at the federal level, under the direction of IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources). Therefore, in a preliminary injunction, they request the suspension of the installation license granted by SEMACE, an order that Portocem Energia SA refrain from starting the construction work, and that SEMACE refrain from granting authorizations within the scope of the plant's licensing process, until the merits of the action are judged. On the merits, they request the annulment of the licensing process and the carrying out of a new environmental licensing process, conducted by the federal licensing body; or the condemnation of the defendant company to present a new EIA that remedies the identified flaws and includes the carrying out of an ECI and the prior, free, informed and good-faith consultation of the affected indigenous peoples.

A decision was issued denying the preliminary injunction request due to the absence of the requirements of urgency and probability of the right, especially considering that the licensing process in question has been ongoing for years and that it concerns a project that could benefit the entire state of Ceará. Regarding the need for prior consultation, the court understood that it would only be necessary if the project were located in indigenous territories and prospected or exploited resources there, which was not the case here. At the same time, the plaintiffs were ordered to request the summons of IBAMA and FUNAI as necessary passive co-litigants, under penalty of dismissal of the case without prejudice. Thus, these agencies became part of the passive side of the action.

SEMACE filed a response defending the regularity and legality of the environmental licensing process. It states that the environmental agency adhered to all technical and legal requirements and considered all environmental impacts generated by the activity. It further states that no indigenous community was found in the project area during the process, either directly or indirectly affected. Finally, regarding the allegation of lack of public participation, it informs that this was remedied by holding a public hearing. Therefore, it requests the complete dismissal of the claim.

Subsequently, in its defense, FUNAI argues that there is no request made directly against it and that it is not a legitimate party to be included in the passive side of the case, since there was no request from the licensing body for its formal statement in the aforementioned environmental licensing process. It also argued that it is necessary to include the location of the project to verify the existence or not of an indigenous community in the area that would justify its intervention.

In turn, IBAMA filed a counterclaim stating that it is not within its purview to conduct prior, free, and informed consultation with indigenous and traditional communities. It also alleged that no claim had been filed against it and further informed that it had rescinded its cooperation agreement with SEMACE, which had authorization to carry out the licensing process, initiating administrative proceedings to verify any possible provision of incorrect information regarding the existence of Indigenous Lands near the project. Therefore, FUNAI and IBAMA requested the dismissal of the case without prejudice, accepting the preliminary objections presented, or a judgment of dismissal of the claim.

Portocem contested the initial claim, alleging incorrectness of the chosen legal avenue and inadequacy of the initial pleading. It stated that questioning the legality of the environmental licensing seeks recognition of indigenous territory, which would not be possible through a public civil action, nor judicially. It also asserted that the statute of limitations had expired, considering the year 2017 in which approval was obtained for the environmental licensing of the Portocem Thermal Power Plant. Furthermore, it argued that the circumstances of the case do not allow for the application of the environmental principles of precaution and prevention; that the effects of the project on water resources were considered during the licensing process; and that the project area does not overlap with indigenous land in a way that would trigger a duty to consult with indigenous peoples, thus there was no violation in this regard either.

In a subsequent decision, IBAMA and FUNAI were excluded from the passive side of the case.

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against Clair Cunha da Silva due to the deforestation of an area of 370.97 hectares, between 2015 and 2019, in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. The MPF alleges that the defendant's occupation of the land was illegal because it is an area included in an Agro-extractive Settlement Project (PAE), owned and of interest to the Federal Government, managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractive communities. This class action lawsuit is part of a set of 22 actions filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) as a result of the investigation carried out in civil inquiry no. 1.13.000.001719/2015-49, concerning illegal deforestation within the Antimary Agrarian-Extractive Settlement Project (PAE), but against different defendants. The lawsuit's arguments are based, among other points, on Brazilian Environmental Law, regarding the constitutional protection of the environment, the accusation of deforestation, civil liability propter rem for environmental damages, including climate damages, and collective moral damages. It also mentions, as an environmental liability, the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) resulting from the illegal deforestation of the area, calculated at 215,909.79 tons of carbon dioxide, which are directly related to the Brazilian State's departure from its climate goals, out of step with national and international commitments assumed by Brazil in the National Policy on Climate Change – PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the Paris Agreement (promulgated by Federal Decree 9.073/2017). Among other requests, it demands: (i) reparation for the damages caused by the illegal deforestation; (ii) payment of compensation corresponding to intermediate and residual environmental material damages; (iv) payment of compensation corresponding to climate damages; and (v) payment of compensation corresponding to collective moral damages.

The defendant filed a response. She argued that she never possessed or owned the area, as she has resided in another state for over 50 years. She alleged that the responsibility for preserving, protecting, monitoring, and preventing invasions and exploitation of the area actually falls on public agents. Thus, preliminarily, she argued that the initial complaint was flawed due to a lack of documentation proving the defendant's possession and that she lacked standing, which should fall on the state of Amazonas and IBAMA. On the merits, she argued for the complete dismissal of the action.

During the course of the action, the defendant passed away, and his son filed a defense as his procedural successor, reiterating the arguments already presented in the answer to the complaint.

Subsequently, INCRA was included in the active party as a co-litigant assistant to the plaintiff.

This is a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality by Omission (ADO) filed by the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB), seeking recognition of the lack of specific federal regulation on the aerial spraying of pesticides as a normative omission incompatible with the 1988 Federal Constitution. APIB argues that the absence of clear and protective rules regarding this practice violates fundamental rights, especially those related to health, adequate food, the preservation of a balanced environment, and the safeguarding of the lands and ways of life of indigenous peoples. The lawsuit explicitly emphasizes aspects related to the climate crisis and environmental preservation, highlighting that aerial spraying intensifies the degradation of ecosystems, threatens biological diversity, and directly compromises the territorial and cultural integrity of indigenous communities, which provide essential environmental services for climate regulation. It is noteworthy that the country occupies a prominent position in the use of pesticides, with aerial application being one of the main sources of soil, water, and air pollution, deepening inequalities and socio-environmental risks. Given this scenario, as a precautionary measure, APIB requests the immediate suspension of aerial spraying of pesticides throughout the national territory. As final requests, it is requested that the Supreme Federal Court declare the unconstitutionality by omission of the federal administrative regulations on pesticide spraying (embodied in Decree-Law 917 of October 7, 1969; Decree 86,765 of December 22, 1981; MAPA Normative Instruction No. 2 of January 3, 2008; and GM/MAPA Ordinance No. 298 of September 22, 2021), due to insufficient protection of constitutional rights, and that it order the Federal Executive Branch to issue administrative measures prohibiting the aerial spraying of pesticides throughout the national territory, by manned and unmanned aircraft. Alternatively, it requests that the Federal Executive Branch be required to issue regulations within a maximum period of sixty days, establishing exclusion zones or areas free from ground and aerial spraying of pesticides around indigenous lands, and setting a daily fine for non-compliance.