Case Name: Ministério Público Federal e INCRA vs. Érico Batista de Souza (Deforestation and climate damage in the Antimary Environmental Impact Assessment Program)

Summary

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.

See more See less

Main norms mobilized

• Article 170 of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• Article 225 of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• Article 5th of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• Forest Code (Federal Law 12.651/2012)
• ILO Convention 169 (Federal Decrees 5.051/2004 and 10.088/2019)
• National Environment Policy Act - PNMA (Federal Law 6.938/1981)
• National Policy on Climate Change Act - PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009)
• Paris Agreement (Federal Decree 9.073/2017)
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change - UNFCC (Federal Decree 2.652/1998)

Case timeline

Case documents