Judgment Certificate / STF (in Portuguese)

This is a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality by Omission (ADO), with a request for a precautionary measure, brought by the Rede Sustentabilidade (Rede) political party, due to the unconstitutional omission of the President of the Republic, Jair Messias Bolsonaro, and the Minister of the Environment, at the time, Ricardo de Aquino Salles. The party claims that the defendants have omitted the task of combating deforestation in the Amazon, failing to comply with the provisions of articles 23, items VI and VII, and 225, caput and §1, items VI and VII, of the Federal Constitution. It presents the growing deforestation of the biome, especially as of 2019, as evidence of the concerns. The political party also points out the delegitimization, by the Executive Branch, of the data presented by the Space Research Institute (INPE) which proves the increase in deforestation, even causing the dismissal of the Institute's head of research and publication, violating the right to transparency. It presents data brought by the non-governmental organization Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazônia (Imazon), that exposed the rampant increase in deforestation that could lead to a "tipping point", at which point the cleared forest can not be recovered, seriously impacting climate change in the region. The case also points out the cuts in financial transfers by other states to the Amazon Fund due to the alleged omission of the Executive Branch.

In addition, it argues that Brazil is failing to comply with objective 15.2 of the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda, which refers to combating deforestation by 2020. It claims that this commitment was also made at national level by Federal Decree 7.390/2010, revoked by Federal Decree 9.578/2018, which provides for an 80% reduction in annual deforestation rates in the Legal Amazon compared to the years 1996 to 2005, a measure that is part of the National Plan on Climate Change.
 
Among the requests is that: (i) that the injunction be granted, ordering the President of the Republic and the Minister of the Environment to promote concrete actions to combat deforestation in the Amazon; (ii) that the defendants be ordered to report on the measures adopted to combat deforestation, following the release of the data by INPE; (iii) that they be ordered to provide annual data on actions to combat deforestation since 2011; (iv) on the merits, that the injunction be confirmed, and the unconstitutional omission declared in order to order the adoption of administrative measures, in accordance with art. 103, §2, of the Federal Constitution; (v) in the alternative, that the progressive omission be declared unconstitutional in order to warn the defendants of their omission; and (vi) if the Court finds that the ADO is inappropriate, that this action be received and processed as an Argument for Failure to Comply with a Fundamental Precept (ADPF) due to the fungibility of actions.

Due to the similarity of the objects of this ADO (54) and ADPF 760, the Rapporteur of both, Minister Carmen Lúcia, decided to judge them together. In a plenary session, the Justice acknowledged and upheld the actions. In her vote, the Justice stated that the right to an ecologically balanced environment is a fundamental right provided for in the Constitution and in international treaties to which Brazil is a party. The Minister emphasized the principle of the prohibition of environmental retrogression and considered that there was a process of normative "termite infestation" taking place silently, through the dismantling of the state's bureaucratic-normative apparatus. This phenomenon is only visible with a general analysis of the existing framework in the country. It recognized the unconstitutional state of affairs regarding the illegal deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. It ordered the resumption of the Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon (PPCDAm) by the Federal Union and the competent federal bodies. After the Reporting Justice's vote, Justice André Mendonça asked to see the case file and so the judgment was suspended.

 In April 2024, ADPF 760 and ADO 54 were partially upheld. The Court did not declare the state of affairs unconstitutional but recognized the existence of structural flaws in the policy of protecting the Legal Amazon. It ordered the Federal Government to make a "significant commitment" to combating illegal deforestation in the biome and determined that it should adopt measures to implement the PPCDAm, strengthen the inspection bodies IBAMA, ICMBio and Funai, that the Federal Government present transparent information on the actions and results of the measures adopted in compliance with the STF's orders and that the data on the measures adopted by the Executive Branch should be submitted to the CNJ's Observatory on the Environment and Climate Change in the Judicial Branch. The judgment was published on June 26, 2024, and the case was closed on August 03, 2024.

ADO 54 (Amazon Deforestation)

<p>This entry was provided by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Please see the terms of use for citation and licensing of third party data.</p>

ADO 54 (Amazon Deforestation) - judgment

Filed

This is a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality by Omission (ADO), with a request for a precautionary measure, brought by the Rede Sustentabilidade (Rede) political party, due to the unconstitutional omission of the President of the Republic, Jair Messias Bolsonaro, and the Minister of the Environment, at the time, Ricardo de Aquino Salles. The party claims that the defendants have omitted the task of combating deforestation in the Amazon, failing to comply with the provisions of articles 23, items VI and VII, and 225, caput and §1, items VI and VII, of the Federal Constitution. It presents the growing deforestation of the biome, especially as of 2019, as evidence of the concerns. The political party also points out the delegitimization, by the Executive Branch, of the data presented by the Space Research Institute (INPE) which proves the increase in deforestation, even causing the dismissal of the Institute's head of research and publication, violating the right to transparency. It presents data brought by the non-governmental organization Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazônia (Imazon), that exposed the rampant increase in deforestation that could lead to a "tipping point", at which point the cleared forest can not be recovered, seriously impacting climate change in the region. The case also points out the cuts in financial transfers by other states to the Amazon Fund due to the alleged omission of the Executive Branch.

In addition, it argues that Brazil is failing to comply with objective 15.2 of the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda, which refers to combating deforestation by 2020. It claims that this commitment was also made at national level by Federal Decree 7.390/2010, revoked by Federal Decree 9.578/2018, which provides for an 80% reduction in annual deforestation rates in the Legal Amazon compared to the years 1996 to 2005, a measure that is part of the National Plan on Climate Change.
 
Among the requests is that: (i) that the injunction be granted, ordering the President of the Republic and the Minister of the Environment to promote concrete actions to combat deforestation in the Amazon; (ii) that the defendants be ordered to report on the measures adopted to combat deforestation, following the release of the data by INPE; (iii) that they be ordered to provide annual data on actions to combat deforestation since 2011; (iv) on the merits, that the injunction be confirmed, and the unconstitutional omission declared in order to order the adoption of administrative measures, in accordance with art. 103, §2, of the Federal Constitution; (v) in the alternative, that the progressive omission be declared unconstitutional in order to warn the defendants of their omission; and (vi) if the Court finds that the ADO is inappropriate, that this action be received and processed as an Argument for Failure to Comply with a Fundamental Precept (ADPF) due to the fungibility of actions.

Due to the similarity of the objects of this ADO (54) and ADPF 760, the Rapporteur of both, Minister Carmen Lúcia, decided to judge them together. In a plenary session, the Justice acknowledged and upheld the actions. In her vote, the Justice stated that the right to an ecologically balanced environment is a fundamental right provided for in the Constitution and in international treaties to which Brazil is a party. The Minister emphasized the principle of the prohibition of environmental retrogression and considered that there was a process of normative "termite infestation" taking place silently, through the dismantling of the state's bureaucratic-normative apparatus. This phenomenon is only visible with a general analysis of the existing framework in the country. It recognized the unconstitutional state of affairs regarding the illegal deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. It ordered the resumption of the Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon (PPCDAm) by the Federal Union and the competent federal bodies. After the Reporting Justice's vote, Justice André Mendonça asked to see the case file and so the judgment was suspended.

 In April 2024, ADPF 760 and ADO 54 were partially upheld. The Court did not declare the state of affairs unconstitutional but recognized the existence of structural flaws in the policy of protecting the Legal Amazon. It ordered the Federal Government to make a "significant commitment" to combating illegal deforestation in the biome and determined that it should adopt measures to implement the PPCDAm, strengthen the inspection bodies IBAMA, ICMBio and Funai, that the Federal Government present transparent information on the actions and results of the measures adopted in compliance with the STF's orders and that the data on the measures adopted by the Executive Branch should be submitted to the CNJ's Observatory on the Environment and Climate Change in the Judicial Branch. The judgment was published on June 26, 2024, and the case was closed on August 03, 2024. 

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

An aim to achieve a quantifiable outcome within a given time-frame, set by an institution such as a national government.

Policy instruments are techniques or tools used by governing authorities to promote certain policies in order to achieve predetermined goals. Put simply, instruments are how a government tries to achieve its goals, with this taxonomy being focused on national policy instruments.

Risk is the potential for adverse consequences resulting from the dynamic interplay between (climate-related) hazards, exposure, and vulnerability of affected human or ecological systems.

Groups  of people who are adversely affected by climate change or the response to it

A set of principles, processes, and practices that build economic and political power to shift from an extractive economy to a regenerative economy.

Justice is the ethical and political framework that addresses fairness, including issues of responsibility, rights, and structural inequity.

Renewable energy means all forms of energy produced from renewable sources in a sustainable manner.

Fossil fuel is a generic term for non-renewable energy sources such as coal, fossil gas, and oil (including crude oil, and petroleum products), that can be used for electricity and heat generation. Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons formed from pressurised and heated organic material buried over millions of years.

Molecules in the atmosphere that play a key role in the greenhouse effect by trapping heat radiating from Earth’s surface.

Area of the economy in which actors engage in identical or related activities.

In human systems, the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate change and its effects, in order to moderate harm, increase resilience or exploit beneficial opportunities. In natural systems, the process of adjustment to actual climate change and its effects; human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected climate change and its effects.

The management and allocation of funds, assets and investments to meet various objectives

Zoning and spatial planning are both methods for guiding the distribution of people and activities in a space, and are regulatory restriction.

Terrestrial means "of the earth" and relates to the risks to ecological system that includes all living organisms and their interactions within land-based environments, such as forests, grasslands, and deserts.

People with different national or cultural traditions from the dominant population

Social and cultural groups that share collective ancestral ties to the lands and natural resources where they live, occupy or from which they have been displaced

This sector creates and distributes information and entertainment through television, radio, print, and digital platforms.

Activities that relate to the production of goods and services from forests.

ADO 54 (Amazon Deforestation) - judgment

Target

Policy instrument

Risk

Impacted group

Economic sector