Federal Public Ministry, SOS Mata Atlântica and ABRAMPA v. Federal Union (MMA Order 4.410/2020 and special legislation for the Atlantic Forest)

On May 6, 2020, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) and two NGOs, SOS Mata Atlântica and ABRAMPA, filed a public civil action (environmental class-action) against the Federal Government, seeking a declaration of nullity of Order 4.410/2020 issued by the Ministry of the Environment (MMA). The plaintiffs claim that the contested Order changed the understanding consolidated in the previous MMA Order 64.773/2017 on the specialty and prevalence of the Atlantic Forest Law (Federal Law 11.428/2006) over the Forest Code (Federal Law 12.651/2012) concerning the protection of the Atlantic Forest biome. It so happens that Order 4.410/2020 imposed guidance on federal public entities to apply the Forest Code, which is a less protective general rule, allowing the consolidation of occupation of protected areas (APP) illegally deforested (until July 22, 2008). The plaintiffs aim, among other things, to prevent the cancellation of several environmental infraction notices for deforestation and fires as a result of the possible consolidation of occupation of APP. They point out that the largest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the country is deforestation and changes in land use, and that special legislation, such as the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC – Federal Law 12.187/2009), establishes the duty to preserve, conserve and restore Brazil’s natural biomes such as the Atlantic Forest. Finally, they request, as an injunction, (i) the suspension of the effects of the contested Order 4.410/2021 and (ii) the reinstatement of the effects of MMA Order 64.773/2017. On the merits, they request the confirmation of the injunction with (i) a declaration that the Order 4.410/2021 is null and void and (ii) an order that the Federal Government refrain from issuing another normative act denying the prevalence of the special legislation of the Atlantic Forest over the Forest Code. In its defense, the Federal Government argued that the action had lost its object, due to the spontaneous revocation of Order 4.410/2020, and pointed out that the matter had been brought before the Federal Supreme Court (STF), and that it was up to that Court to determine the best interpretation of the issue. Accordingly, it requested that the case be dismissed. In a judgment based on procedural grounds, the court ruled that the plaintiffs had no interest in acting and dismissed the case, without resolving the merits. This decision was upheld on appeal and the case was dismissed.