Minas Gerais

Brazil

Distrito Federal

Espírito Santo

Goiás

Maranhão

Mato Grosso do Sul

Mato Grosso

Pará

Paraíba

Pernambuco

Piauí

Paraná

Rio de Janeiro

Rio Grande do Norte

Rondônia

Roraima

Acre

Rio Grande do Sul

Alagoas

Santa Catarina

Amazonas

Sergipe

Amapá

São Paulo

Bahia

Tocantins

Ceará

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

In November 2025, the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office filed a Public Civil Action, with a request for preliminary injunction, against the Federal Government, the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio), the State of Minas Gerais, the State of Bahia, the State Environmental Foundation (FEAM), the State Forestry Institute (IEF), the Minas Gerais Water Management Institute (IGAM), and the Institute of Environment and Water Resources (INEMA). Through the lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks to enable the restructuring of these environmental agencies with regard to the mismatch between the development of economic activities in the region of the Grande Sertão Veredas National Park (PNGSV) and the protection of this federal conservation unit, whose extension covers areas of Minas Gerais and Bahia. 

Plaintiff argues that excessive water use for agricultural irrigation and deforestation around the PNGSV affect the water availability of the Cariranha River basin, further exacerbating the climate crisis. It argues that the defendant environmental agencies adopt outdated and non-integrated methodologies—disregarding seasonality, the effects of climate change, and changes in land use—both in relation to water-use permits and to the suppression of native vegetation. The complaint highlights the role of the veredas (wetlands) in the hydrodynamics of the Cerrado biome, acting as natural springs and regulators of the water regime. 

Plaintiff requests an injunction suspending the water resource permits and suppressing native vegetation until the criteria and procedures adopted by the competent environmental agencies are reviewed. On the merits, it requests: i) the recognition and definition of the structural problem consisting of the damage caused to the PNGSV (São Francisco River Basin National Park), in addition to the elaboration of a Regional Structural Plan in collaboration with the Regional Committee of the São Francisco River Basin; ii) measures to update and integrate environmental and water management; iii) incorporate climate assessment into the procedures for granting permits and authorizing vegetation suppression.

On February 7, 2022, Duda Salabert Rosa filed a preventive Citizen Suit with a request for a preliminary injunction against the state of Minas Gerais, Taquaril Mineração S/A and Vale S/A - later excluded from the parties - due to the omission to analyze the worsening of extreme weather events within the environmental licensing process of mining projects in the state of Minas Gerais. The plaintiff alleges that the exploitation of minerals in the state is being affected by extreme atmospheric phenomena, a situation neglected by the federative entity. It is pointed out that the negligence regarding the climate issue resulted in the flooding of the Downstream Containment Structure (ECJ) dam built by Vale S/A in the Municipality of São Sebastião das Águas Claras after heavy rains, flooding roads in the region, leaving the district without access to water, electricity, transportation, garbage removal and other essential services. The author indicates that the project was not preceded by an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) or due environmental licensing. The plaintiff emphasizes that the company is unable to measure the impacts of a possible dam failure if the ECJ reservoir is overflowing with water and tailings. It is affirmed that it is therefore necessary to review the hydraulic modeling for this type of project through a corrective environmental licensing process. Still regarding Vale S/A, it is required the stoppage of the Apolo Project, since the studies presented in the scope of its environmental licensing processes would not have analyzed the influence of the intensification of extreme climatic events on the operation of the activity. The environmental licensing process for the Serra do Taquaril Mining Complex, managed by Mineração Taquaril S/A, is also to be halted, considering that the effects of climate change on the project have not been assessed. According to the EIA, due to the Complex, sediment containment basins will be built, which, if they break, will directly impact a water intake pipeline, affecting the supply of 70% of the local population. The plaintiff argues that the National Policy on Climate Change and the State Policy for Preventing and Combating Disasters Resulting from Heavy Rainfall should guide environmental licensing in the State of Minas Gerais, in order to include the climate variable in the procedure, following a decision issued by the 9th Federal Court of Porto Alegre, which determined the inclusion of climate guidelines in the Terms of Thermoelectric Power Plants in Rio Grande do Sul State. It is required that the environmental licensing of the Serra do Taquaril Complex and the Apolo Project must be suspended and the corrective licensing of the JTC must be immediately initiated.
In its reply, Vale S/A informed that the Apolo Project was at a preliminary stage, still under analysis by the competent environmental agency, so as not to represent danger to the environment. It informed that ECJ would already be going through a corrective licensing phase before the competent environmental agency, which is why there was no interest in acting by the plaintiff. It defended the existence of an impossible passive joinder of defendants, since there would be no relationship between the defendants or affinity between the requests made against each defendant. Subsequently, the plaintiff requested an amendment to the initial application, in order to exclude Vale S/A from the defendant's position. In August 2022, a partial judgment was rendered that extinguished the claim against Vale S/A. Afterwards, the court dismissed the action, without resolution of the merits, for inadequacy of the chosen path. It was understood that the Citizen Suit is not an appropriate procedural means for the demand sought.

 In July 2019, Brazil’s Attorney-General’s Office (“Advocacia-Geral da União”), representing the Federal Environment Agency (“IBAMA”), filed a public civil action (environmental class-action) against a steel company (Siderúrgica São Luiz Ltda.) and its managing partner (Mr. Martins), for environmental and climate damages allegedly caused by the company’s continuous and fraudulent use of illegally sourced coal in its units in the State of Minas Gerais. 

According to IBAMA, the company falsified the 'certificates of origin’ for the coal it purchased. IBAMA claims that the company purchased and burned 44,636 cubic meters of coal, fomenting a scheme of illegal deforestation for coal production. 

Highlighting the key role of steel production in the 'life cycle’ of coal, IBAMA contends that the defendants should be held strictly and jointly liable for the (i) environmental damages resulting from the illegal deforestation (equivalent to an area of approximately 2,231 football fields), and (ii) climate damages resulting from the greenhouse gases emitted from the illegal deforestation, from the conversion of the illegally sourced biomass into coal, and from burning the illegally sourced coal in its steel production.

Based on the National Environmental Policy and National Climate Change Policy (Laws Nos. 6,938/1981 and 12,187/2009, respectively), IBAMA seeks remedies for both environmental and climate damage allegedly caused by the defendants: (i) reforestation of an equivalent area; (ii) compensation for interim and residual environmental damages; (iii) compensation for climate damages based on the social cost of carbon, which should be invested into the creation of carbon sinks; (iv) collective moral damages, to be valued according to the defendants’ profits from their illegal activities (disgorgement of profits); (v) undertaking of environmental compliance programmes; (vi) unavailability of goods and values as well as loss or restriction of tax benefits and incentives, and loss or suspension of participation in financing lines in official credit establishments.

On February 3, 2021, the magistrate issued a decision rejecting the request for an injunction for the implementation of the environmental integrity program by the steel company and for the suspension of tax incentives or benefits, on the grounds that there is no legal provision imposing the need for the environmental integrity by companies that explore activities potentially harmful to the environment. The decision also states that even in the face of strong evidence that the company committed environmental violations in 2012, it is not possible to impose the requests made by the plaintiff, because it is not known whether the company continues to practice the same acts. In addition, the judge also did not accept the request for blocking or unavailability of assets in the amount of BRL 16,000,000.00 from the company to repair environmental damage, on the understanding that even if there is a causal link as to the company's participation in environmental infractions as a result of the records drawn up by IBAMA, the current moment requires a greater incursion of evidence of the damage caused by the steel company.

On March 2, 2021, the competent judge issued another decision, rejecting the motions for clarification of both parties, on the grounds of the presence of defects and irregularities in the documents.

On October 5, 2022, Geraldo and GMM Participações submitted their defense, in which they argued that there was no proof of environmental damage and the causal link, that the claim for damages for residual damage was generic, that there were no internal rules for the use of the Social Cost of Carbon and, therefore, requested that the action be dismissed and that the request for a reversal of the burden of proof be rejected.

In November 2017, the Rio Doce River Basin, represented by the Pachamama Association, filed a lawsuit against the Federal Government and the state of Minas Gerais as a result of the collapse of the Samarco mining dam in the municipality of Mariana/MG. It seeks to recognize the Rio Doce River Basin as a subject of rights and hold the Federal Government and the State of Minas Gerais responsible for omissions in disaster prevention measures. The disaster contaminated the Rio Doce with 62 million cubic meters of iron ore sludge, causing damage to its ecosystem and its riverside populations. The plaintiff argues that the National Climate Change Policy (PNMC) and the National Civil Protection and Defense Policy (Law 12.608/2012) were not complied with, which actively contributed to the socio-environmental disaster. It claims that the PNMC obliges the state to make economic and social development compatible with the protection of the climate system, and that the National Plan for Adaptation to Climate Change (PNA) pointed out flaws in the implementation of the PNMC, especially with regard to the failure to establish a national register of municipalities with areas susceptible to disasters and to draw up a State Civil Protection and Defense Plan. These would be important instruments for guaranteeing the protection of river basins and preventing future disasters. Thus, the state's failure to fulfill its obligations to prevent disasters under the Law of the Sea, Climate Law and Disaster Law must be remedied. The case seeks that the Rio Doce River Basin be recognized as a subject of rights; that all people be granted broad legal standing to defend the Rio Doce River Basin's right to healthy existence; that the Federal Union and the state of Minas Gerais be ordered to set up a national register of municipalities with areas susceptible to disasters and that a Disaster Prevention Plan be drawn up for Minas Gerais, with the participation of representatives from academic institutions and riverside peoples.

In September 2018, a decision was held and the case was dismissed for lack of active legitimacy due to the lack of legal personality of the Rio Doce River Basin. No appeal was presented against the decision, which became final and the case was closed.

Geography

Minas Gerais

Recent cases