Ministério Público Federal vs. J Filgueiras Empreendimentos e Negócios LTDA, Município de Paraty, Instituto do Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico Nacional, Estado do Rio de Janeiro (Licensing of the Emiliano SPA Hotel)

In July, 2025, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) 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, alleging irregularities in the licensing process for the Emiliano Paraty Hotel Spa. The hotel, to be built on Itatinga Farm, would be located within the Cairuçu Environmental Protection Area (APA) in Paraty, Rio de Janeiro, and owned by J Filgueiras Empreendimentos e Negócios LTDA. The aim is to compel the licensing agencies to require an Environmental Impact Study and Environmental Impact Report (EIA-RIMA), including the climate variable in the project's licensing process, to annul the Installation License (LI) issued by the municipal entity, and to order the defendants to conduct a free, prior, and informed consultation (CPLI) pursuant to ILO Convention 169, as well as to pay collective moral damages. The author emphasizes that Caiçara, Indigenous, and Quilombola communities are directly and indirectly influenced by the project, which is also located within a UNESCO World Heritage Site, a federal conservation unit, and is located near archaeological sites and ruins recognized by IPHAN. Due to the scope of the impacts, the non-compliance with the APA zoning, and the failure to comply with the conditions imposed by ICMBIO, the MPF argues for the need to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA-RIMA) and for the transfer of jurisdiction to the state entity. The author argues that climate impact assessments should be incorporated into environmental licensing processes, based on the finding that, to date, there are no specific requirements from environmental agencies within the State of Rio de Janeiro and the Municipality of Paraty to enforce the duties already imposed by current legislation to guide the monitoring and assessment 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 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 the perspective of adaptation; (b) the analysis of locational and technological alternatives; and (c) the adoption of mitigation and compensation measures at all phases of the project. Among the measures addressed, the plaintiff points out that solid waste and sewage treatment, water reuse, and solar energy generation should be considered, including as possible conditions for providing these same mechanisms to surrounding communities. For all these reasons, the MPF identifies a patently unlawful state of affairs, which is why it requests that the action be treated as a structural proceeding, since it seeks to restructure the defendants' activities. As a preliminary injunction, the following is requested: (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 from ICMBio are analyzed, a reevaluation is carried out by IPHAN, and the CPLI is conducted; (iii) that the court establish a Judicial Monitoring Committee to adopt the necessary structural measures and prepare a definitive restructuring plan; (iv) that the EIA-RIMA be submitted and that the relevant agencies express their opinion on the licensing process and meet the conditions presented. In the final instance, among others, the following are requested: (i) confirmation of the requests submitted in 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 obliged to carry out the CPLI observing the consultation protocols of the affected communities, paid for by the entrepreneur and (iv) to include the climate variable in the environmental licensing process, finally, (v) the defendants be ordered to pay collective moral damages. A preliminary decision was issued that partially granted the urgent requests to determine the suspension of the effects of the Installation License issued by the municipality of Paraty and the refrain from granting licenses, authorizations or other acts that allow the execution of the "Hotel Spa Emiliano" project until the due prior, free and informed consultation is carried out in accordance with ILO Convention No. 169 or until a new judicial determination, and, specifically, J Filgueiras Empreendimentos e Negócios LTDA, which refrains from starting works or interventions at Fazenda Itatinga with the objective of building the "Hotel Spa Emiliano" project.

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.

The Itaxi Mirim Indigenous Land Community requested to be included in the case as a co-litigant assistant to the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office; and the summons of IBAMA to join the litigation, as it understands that the federal agency has jurisdiction for licensing the project, with the respective amendment of the initial requests to include the need for compliance with the licensing stages by the federal environmental agency.

The court decided to include the Itaxi Mirim Indigenous Land Community as a plaintiff, given the impossibility of registering it as a co-litigant in the procedural system, and notified IBAMA to acknowledge the action.

J Filgueiras Empreendimentos e Negócios Ltda. filed a defense, in which it argued, preliminarily, the lack of standing of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, on the grounds that administrative remedies had not been exhausted, that the judicial route could not replace the competent technical bodies in the analysis of the merits of the environmental licensing, and that the desired practical result had already been achieved in the administrative sphere, through the participation of all bodies involved in the licensing procedure. On the merits, it argued for the complete dismissal of the claims and, subsidiarily, in the event of eventual acceptance, for the adoption of measures that do not impede the continuation of the environmental licensing process, on the grounds that (a) the environmental licensing of the Project was not conducted in isolation by the Municipality, but was regularly processed by the Municipal Secretariat of the Environment of Paraty (“SEMAM”), the competent body, with the participation, knowledge and opinion of the relevant technical bodies, including INEA, IBAMA, IPHAN and ICMBio, each within the limits of its legal competence, so that the subsequent disagreement of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office does not render irregular an administrative procedure that was instructed, monitored and validated by the competent technical bodies; (b) The environmental impact classification of the Project observed objective technical criteria, expressly established by INEA-46 NOP, dispensing with the preparation of an EIA/RIMA; (c) IPHAN concluded, through its higher instances, that there were no pending issues in the licensing process; (d) The CPLI was carried out as determined by the licensing body, with the effective participation of the communities identified as directly affected, including a favorable statement from the Saco do Funil Community; 7 (e) There is no concrete environmental, cultural or social damage that justifies the intended judicial intervention, and the Project has not even begun construction; (f) Considering the climate variable within the scope of the Project's environmental licensing is unfeasible, since climate legislation does not allow the conversion of such general guidelines into an autonomous judicial obligation. Finally, it requested reconsideration of the previously issued preliminary decision.

IPHAN (National Institute of Historic and Artistic Heritage) filed a response requesting, preliminarily, the recognition of the partial inadequacy of the initial petition and, subsidiarily, the lack of procedural interest regarding the request for the establishment of a Management Committee for the Mixed Site of Paraty and Ilha Grande, arguing the absence of a specific cause of action and that the measure does not constitute a necessary or useful provision for resolving the controversy; and regarding the request for reappraisal of Technical Opinions No. 1/2025 and No. 2/2025, on the grounds that the obligation of analysis whose imposition is sought has already been fulfilled by the Administration, and the claim for the indefinite reopening of the administrative decision-making activity until the result desired by the plaintiff is achieved is inadmissible. On the merits, it argued for the total dismissal of the claims made against the Authority, arguing that there was no institutional omission, the Technical Opinions having been duly considered; that any technical additions are admissible and do not compromise the validity of the administrative acts regularly performed; that there is no legal basis for the annulment of the challenged administrative acts; and that, in light of the legal regime applicable to World Heritage, there was no breach of duties related to UNESCO.