Case Name: Ministério Público Federal vs. União Federal e outros (Sea advance and coastal erosion)

Summary

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for precautionary relief, 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 claim is that environmental damage occurred due to the irregular occupation of an area of Boa Viagem Beach, Povoado Saco, 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 was allegedly an invasion of federal public property, landfilling and discharge of waste directly into the soil, into sinkholes, contaminating the water table and hindering public access to the beach. All of the constructions were allegedly irregular and built in a way that violated several protective standards. A decision was made in urgent relief that ordered the closure of bars in the location, considering a supervening fact – subsequent to the initial requests of the action. The fact considered was the advance of the sea on the location, eroding the foundations of the establishments and putting them at risk of collapse. In view of the decision, Josefina Conceição dos Santos and José Nivaldo dos Santos, two defendants whose bars were closed, filed an appeal. The final decision in the appeal upheld the decision to close the establishments. Josefina Conceição dos Santos and José Nivaldo dos Santos then filed a special appeal requesting its annulment. The MPF filed counter-arguments in support of the appeal, arguing in favor of upholding 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 that the president of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) did not acknowledge the appeal, the defendants filed an internal appeal. The ruling on the Internal Appeal in the Appeal in Special Appeal (AgInt in AREsp), reported by Justice Herman Benjamin, dismissed 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 foundations of climate justice were implicitly mobilized, since the impacts on this particularly vulnerable group were highlighted. Within this scenario, it was emphasized that the judges need to be careful to uphold the values of the Environmental Rule of Law. It was stated that, in this case, it would not be up to the Court to reanalyze factual issues seen in ordinary instances and that, within the scenario of climate change, the advance of the tides and the consequent destruction of bars and restaurants located on their shores are expected. * As there was no access to other parts of the case, the classifications and this summary were completed based exclusively on the Ruling issued by the 2nd Panel of the STJ.

See more See less

Main norms mobilized

Not Applicable

Case timeline

Case documents