Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database
  • Climate Litigation Database
  • /
  • Search
  • /
  • Brazil
  • /
  • Amazonas
  • /
  • Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Aristoteles Socrates Onassis; Luiz Carlos Corso; Maria do Bom Conselho Ermino da Silva; and Pacheco Comércio de Laticínios e Frios Ltda. — Environmental Public Civil Action (Illegal Deforestation in Manicoré)

Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Aristoteles Socrates Onassis; Luiz Carlos Corso; Maria do Bom Conselho Ermino da Silva; and Pacheco Comércio de Laticínios e Frios Ltda. — Environmental Public Civil Action (Illegal Deforestation in Manicoré)

Geography
Date
2024
Document type
Litigation

About this case

Filing year
2024
Status
Pending
Court/admin entity
BrazilAmazonasAmazonas Federal Court
Case category
Suits against corporations, individualsEnforcement of Environmental and Climate Laws
Principal law
BrazilFederal ConstitutionBrazilForest Code (Law 12 651/2012)BrazilNational Environmental Policy Act (Law No. 6.938 of 1981)
At issue
Whether a corporation is responsible for climate damages due to illegal deforestation in the Amazon rainforest.

Documents

Filing Date
Type
Summary
Document
11/21/2024
Petition
(in Portuguese)

Summary

This case is part of a set that consists of 195 Public Civil Actions (ACPs) filed by the Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) under the fourth phase of the “Amazônia Protege” Project, coordinated by the MPF’s 4th Chamber, which aims, among other objectives, to ensure the reparation of environmental damage caused by deforestation in the Amazon. The lawsuits were filed against several defendants, including individuals and legal entities, held responsible for illegal deforestation in polygons equal to or larger than 60 hectares during the years 2020, 2021, and 2022, in the states of Amazonas, Pará, Rondônia, and Mato Grosso. The actions are based on satellite monitoring of deforestation and seek to hold each party individually accountable, both those directly responsible for the deforestation and those who derive economic benefit from it, such as the registered landholders of the deforested areas. To identify those responsible for the environmental damage, the MPF used public databases, including data from the Land Management System (SIGEF), the National Rural Property Certification System (SNCI), and the Terra Legal Program, all maintained by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA), as well as information from the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) and, where available, Infraction Notices and Embargo Reports for the areas involved. The lawsuits are grounded on the constitutional protection of the environment and on civil liability propter rem for environmental damages arising from deforestation, including climate damages and collective moral damages. They explicitly refer to the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) resulting from illegal deforestation. Among the final requests, the MPF seeks: i) An order requiring defendants to pay a specific monetary amount corresponding to the material damage resulting from deforestation; ii) An order requiring payment for illegal CO₂ emissions, applying the National Council of Justice (CNJ) Environmental Litigation Protocol, with a valuation of US$ 5.00 per ton of CO₂; iii) An order requiring payment for collective moral damages; iv) Restoration of degraded areas, including suspension of their use to allow natural regeneration, and submission of a Degraded Area Recovery Plan (PRAD); v) Allocation of all compensation funds to federal environmental agencies (IBAMA and ICMBio) operating in the respective states.