4th Federal Regional Court decision rejecting the transfer of the case (in Portuguese)

On October 8, 2020, the Institute of Amazonian Studies (Instituto de Estudos Amazônicos - IEA) filed a Public Civil Action (class action) against the Federal Government of Brazil, seeking recognition of a fundamental right to a stable climate for present and future generations under the Brazilian Constitution, and seeking an order to compel the federal government to comply with national climate law. Plaintiffs allege that the federal government has failed to comply with its own action plans to prevent deforestation and mitigate and adapt to climate change, violating national law and fundamental rights. Plaintiffs assert that the government has failed to meet the Brazilian emissions targets set out in the Climate Change National Policy Act, a binding act passed by the Brazilian legislature. In order to meet these targets, the federal government issued a decree setting out specific action plans for preventing and controlling deforestation in various Brazilian biomes, as well as outlining sectoral plans for climate change mitigation and adaptation. A key part of this decree is the Action Plan for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in Legal Amazon (PPCDAm). By failing to meet critical targets in the PPCDAm and emissions targets, plaintiffs allege that the government is violating fundamental rights and national law. Plaintiffs seek an order to compel the federal government to comply with its existing policies, to reforest an area equivalent to what was deforested beyond the statutory limit, and to allocate sufficient budgetary resources for this purpose.

In July 2021, the Federal District Court of Curitiba issued an order rejecting jurisdiction and transferring the case to the 7th Federal Environmental and Agrarian Court of the Judiciary Section of Amazonas, on account of the alleged connection between this case and another case in that court. The other case involves a dispute over whether the government adequately implemented measures to combat those who put the Amazon forest and its ecological hotspots under threat during the Covid-19 pandemic. The lower court found that both lawsuits aimed at combating illegal deforestation in the Amazon and both referred to the PPCDAm, thus presenting “sufficient similarity” or “close connection” between the issues discussed, thereby “giving rise to an undue risk of conflicting solutions.” IEA appealed the transfer decision to the federal appellate court (TRF4). 

On August 20, 2021, the TRF4 (through a decision from the reporting judge) suspended the lower court decision to transfer the case and returned the case to the Federal District Court of Curitiba. The Court found that this case and the ecological hotspots case "present quite different typology and structure, specialized instruments and distinct political-legal approaches, in addition to the fact that their object, cause of action and demands do not coincide." The Court found that this case has as its central objective to put pressure on the legislative and executive branches to ensure a stable climate. The ecological hotspots case, on the other hand, addresses matters related to environmental law, and does not have a central theme linked to Brazilian climate legislation. The decision also includes a lengthy discussion of the unique nature and importance of climate litigation. On December 7, 2021, the third chamber of the appellate court confirmed the decision. 

On March 29, 2022, the TRF4 issued a decision delimiting the powers of the amicus curiae, given their inability to appeal the decisions of the process. The judge considered the request for the National Institute for Space Research (INPE) to act as amicus curiae in the case to be unfounded, given that the entity did not show interest. Furthermore, the decision called for a conciliation hearing and judgment of the case to be scheduled within 30 days and for the parties, the Attorney General's Office and the Federal Public Ministry to be summoned regarding the date and time of the hearing. It is worth mentioning that the order also deals with the possibility of the parties being accompanied by technicians in order to clarify any points on the subject. Two days after the dispatch of the order, the parties were summoned and the hearing was scheduled for May 18, 2022 in the courtroom of the 11th Federal Court.

On July 22, 2022, the Federal Government filed its defense, pointing out that the Federal Government has adopted active measures for the formulation, implementation and management of public environmental protection policies. It denied that the Federal Government, the MMA, and other federal entities had failed to implement public policies to combat deforestation in the Amazon and to meet internationally agreed climate targets. It emphasized that investment in protecting and inspecting indigenous lands has increased, even during the COVID-19 pandemic. It denied that the country is failing to comply with international agreements and that the Federal Government is failing to comply with policies aimed at controlling illegal deforestation in the Amazon rainforest, nor that an unconstitutional environmental state of affairs has been established. It emphasized that the responsibility for recovering deforested areas should be attributed to those responsible for such acts, not the Federal Government. It argued that there was no causal link between the federal government and the environmental damage mentioned in the initial petition. Finally, required that the claims should be dismissed. 

In October 2022, the Institute for Amazonian Studies filed a request for urgent injunctive relief because it was necessary for the Federal Government to be urgently compelled to carry out direct and effective actions to start forest restoration processes in the Legal Amazon, with the aim of reducing the damage caused to the climate system. IEA emphasized that the measures adopted so far by the federal government have been innocuous in the face of growing deforestation, and that the federal government has continually failed to comply with its climate obligations. It requested that the Federal Government be granted a preliminary injunction ordering it to: (i) carry out forest restoration work in the Legal Amazon; (ii) begin reforesting the region within one year; (ii) restore illegally deforested areas above the legal permissive established in the PNMC and considering the PRODES 2020 and PRODES 2021 data; (iv) maintain forest restoration activities until the deforestation rate reaches a level of 3,925.06 km2. 925.06 km2; (v) the allocation of budgetary, technical and personnel resources for these purposes; (vi) the payment of a daily fine in the event of non-compliance with the measures; (vii) the determination that the measurement of the rate of deforestation in the Legal Amazon should use the official data provided by the PRODES system. Afterwards, the Institute filed a petition requesting that the request for injunctive relief be added, asking that the area of forest in the Legal Amazon that had been deforested above the maximum legal rate allowed by the PPCDAm be restored and presenting new arguments that indicate the upward trend in deforestation in the Amazon biome.

In November 2024, the court rejected the request for interim relief, but acknowledged that the plaintiff's arguments were credible, but that procedural issues were pending and required the parties and the MPF to comment on them in order for the relief to be granted. It also recognized that climate change affects humanity as a whole and the important role of the Amazon rainforest in this context. It ordered the reversal of the burden of proof, so that the Federal Government must prove compliance with the PPCDAm in terms of repairing environmental damage. In addition, it ruled that there was partial lis pendens between this action and ADPF 760 and ADO 54 and ordered that the proceedings be suspended for up to a year in order to await the progress of compliance with the judgments handed down in the aforementioned actions.

The IEA filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the decision that rejected the request for injunctive relief and ordered that the case be suspended for one year. The decision, however, was upheld because it was necessary to await the outcome of the proceedings ordered by the STF, in order to avoid overlapping proceedings for the same purpose.

In a decision dated February 2026, the court recognized the connection between the present Public Civil Action (ACP) and ADPF 760 and ADO 54, ordering the forwarding of the case files to the Supreme Federal Court (STF). It pointed to a partial overlap of claims between the aforementioned actions, addressing the omission of public authorities in combating deforestation in the Amazon biome and the fulfillment of climate goals. It emphasized that this was not a case of lis pendens, as there was no identity of parties, since the present action was filed by the IEA, while the others were filed by political parties. Furthermore, given that ADPF 760 was recognized as a structural process, the need for the case files of the present action to be forwarded to the STF was reinforced.

Institute of Amazonian Studies v. Brazil

<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>

Institute of Amazonian Studies v. Brazil - decision

Filed

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

A target to reduce the prevalence of a greenhouse gas over a specific time frame

Actions or measures to adapt terrestrial systems to climate change.

Risks to the ecosystem health of the marine environment, including ocean warming, ocean acidification, and ocean deoxygenation, harming biodiversity, species health, ecosystem services, and coastal community livelihoods.

Extreme weather refers to events where a weather variable exceeds (or falls below) a threshold. Meaning it is significantly different from the average or usual weather pattern.

A drought is an extended period of unusually dry weather marked by a significant and sustained lack of precipitation, falling below a specific threshold over a large area for more than a month

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

Activities that involve planning, designing and building infrastructure, residential, and commercial structures.

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

Any substance with chemical properties that can cause physical harm to people or damage the environment, including ammonia, carbon monoxide, phosphine, chlorine, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, pesticides, dioxins, microplastics, benzene, asbestos, aflatoxins, fluoride, methanol, and toxins from marine sources.

Slow onset events evolve gradually from incremental changes over many years or from increased frequency or intensity of recurring events. As defined in the Cancun Adaptation Framework (2010), slow onset events include risks and impacts from rising temperatures, desertification, biodiversity loss, land and forest degradation, glacial retreat, ocean acidification, sea level rise, and salinization.

The cryosphere is the frozen part of the Earth—it includes sea ice, glaciers, snow, and ice sheets. It helps regulate the climate and weather by reflecting sunlight. Rising temperatures are causing melting, leading to sea ice loss, glacier collapse, and glacier landslides and avalanches. This threatens the livelihoods of around 700 million people who rely on the cryosphere for food, water security, and cultural practices.

Institute of Amazonian Studies v. Brazil - decision

Target

Risk

Impacted group

Greenhouse gas

Economic sector

Adaptation/resilience