Rio de Janeiro

Brazil

Sergipe

Amapá

São Paulo

Bahia

Tocantins

Ceará

Distrito Federal

Espírito Santo

Goiás

Maranhão

Minas Gerais

Mato Grosso do Sul

Mato Grosso

Pará

Paraíba

Pernambuco

Piauí

Paraná

Rio Grande do Norte

Rondônia

Roraima

Acre

Rio Grande do Sul

Alagoas

Santa Catarina

Amazonas

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 May 2026, the Attorney General of the State of Rio de Janeiro filed a Representation of Unconstitutionality (RI) before the Court of Justice with the objective of declaring the unconstitutionality of Municipal Complementary Law 281/2025, subsequently amended by Complementary Law 291/2025, both from the Municipality of Rio de Janeiro. The law promotes changes and flexibilities in the urban and building parameters established by the Master Plan, instituting a broad exceptional regime for the regularization, licensing, and expansion of buildings through the payment of financial compensation to the Municipality. The legislative changes allow the legalization of irregular constructions, the addition of sidewalks, horizontal and vertical expansion of buildings, the enclosure of balconies, and changes in real estate uses. 

According to the Public Prosecutor's Office, the legislation promotes structural changes in municipal urban policy without observing the constitutional limits applicable to territorial planning and without conducting studies that demonstrate the environmental and urban carrying capacity of the municipal territory, transforming exceptional regularization mechanisms into permanent instruments for expanding the city's construction potential. It pointed out that these mechanisms are operationalized through digital self-declaration procedures and impact assessments without sufficient technical guarantees. This scenario is aggravated by the inadequate regulation of the Neighborhood Impact Study and Report at the municipal level, which compromises the prior assessment of urban impacts and the observance of the principles of precaution, the social function of the city, and the democratic management of the territory. The public prosecutor argues that the law violates several provisions of the Constitution of the State of Rio de Janeiro related to the social function of the city and property, sustainable urban planning and development, popular participation, the protection of cultural heritage, the right to an ecologically balanced environment, and the guideline for reducing socio-environmental vulnerabilities.

It highlights how Technical Information from the Specialized Technical Support Group (GATE/MPRJ) indicates that the expansion of construction potential resulting from vertical and horizontal additions may cause damage to the urban landscape, increase soil impermeability, intensify the risk of flooding, and overload the drainage infrastructure, especially in areas already classified as having a high degree of climate vulnerability. It emphasizes that the flexibilities promoted by LC 281/2025 affect areas already subject to significant environmental and climate vulnerabilities, notably risks of flooding and the formation of urban heat islands, and highlights that the changes may contribute to increased local temperatures and the worsening of urban thermal discomfort. It concludes that such changes are incompatible with the Sustainable Development and Climate Action Plan of the Municipality of Rio de Janeiro, contradict guidelines aimed at protecting the landscape, addressing climate change, and preserving the natural and cultural values of the city, and violate the precautionary duty established in Advisory Opinion 23/2017 (OC-23/2025) of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR). As a preliminary measure, it requests the suspension of the effects of the challenged regulation and, on the merits, a judgment declaring the regulation unconstitutional.


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.

On October 28, 2022, the NGO, Instituto Internacional Arayara, filed a Public Civil Action (environmental class-action) against the National Environmental Agency (Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis – IBAMA), the Federal Union, the Rio de Janeiro State Environmental Agency (Instituto Estadual do Meio Ambiente – INEA), the State of Rio de Janeiro, and the companies EDF Norte Fluminense SA - Usina Termelétrica Norte Fluminense SA, Global Participações em Energia SA, Usina Termelétrica Nossa Senhora de Fátima, and Litos Energia Ltda. The plaintiff seeks the annulment of the previous environmental licenses issued by IBAMA for thermoelectric projects located in the municipality of Macaé, in the state of Rio de Janeiro. It also seeks the annulment of the (i) water resources use right grants and (ii) Water Availability Reserve Certificates referring to the Macaé and Ostras River Hydrographic Basin, granted by INEA for the same projects. The plaintiff institution argues that the installation of a thermoelectric complex in the region, consisting of eighteen enterprises, is contrary to the need for investment in a clean energy matrix and the fight against climate change. It argues that there should be a determination that licensing agencies require, prior to issuing licenses: (i) a Strategic Environmental Assessment (AAE) for the analysis of synergistic and cumulative impacts of enterprises to be installed in the same hydrographic basin; (ii) the updating of the plan of the Hydrographic Basin of the Macaé and Ostras River and the study of water availability of the Basin; and (iii) the presentation of a Climate Diagnosis, with an inventory of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by the enterprises. The plaintiff argues that the failure to conduct AAE prior to the issuance of the licenses invalidates the administrative procedures already carried out, since it was not possible to investigate the various cumulative impacts of the activities to be licensed. It is emphasized that emissions of pollutants by thermoelectric plants contribute to air pollution, damage to human health, and loss of agricultural productivity. From the climatic point of view, it is argued that in order to maintain the limit of planetary temperature increase at 1.5°C, to fulfill the commitments made in the Paris Agreement, COP 26 and NDCs, the installation of new enterprises that use fossil fuels cannot be allowed. The plaintiff highlights the consolidation of jurisprudence favorable to environmental and climate issues at the Supreme Federal Court, exemplified by the judgment of ADPF 708 (Climate Fund), which recognizes that current Brazilian measures to address climate change are in disagreement with its international commitments. The plaintiff requests, as a preliminary injunction the suspension of the environmental licensing processes of the plants until the defects in the Environmental Impact Studies (EIA/RIMAs) and the defects related to atmospheric dispersions are remedied, including, among others (i) the determination that the Climate Diagnosis be presented and considered for the analysis of the environmental licensing processes, (ii) IBAMA be ordered to include the guidelines set forth in the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC), the guidelines of the Rio de Janeiro State Policy on Climate Change, and the preparation of an AAE in the terms of reference of the licensing processes for the power plants and (iii) the companies be ordered to refrain from construction work and activities at the thermoelectric complex until the AAE, basin plan update, hydric availability study, and other studies required in the lawsuit have been conducted. In the final stage, it is requested that the preliminary injunction be confirmed, reiterating the requests, with the inclusion of the requirements for the annulment of the environmental licensing processes, licenses and permits already granted by the environmental agencies. IBAMA, the Federal Government, Litos Energia Ltda, Usina Termelétrica Norte Fluminense SA, the State of Rio de Janeiro, INEA and Global Participações filed responses. In relation to climate aspects, IBAMA argued that the terms of reference used for the licensing of the project included the need for a synergistic assessment of atmospheric gas emissions from existing plants and those to be implemented. 

On March 25, 2022, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (Minstério Público Federal - MPF) filed a Public Civil Action (environmental class action) against the Rio de Janeiro’s State Environmental Agency (Instituto Estadual do Meio Ambiente – INEA), and the company Karpowership Brasil Energia Ltda. due to alleged irregularities in the environmental licensing process of 36 temporary towers for power transmission lines in Sepetiba Bay, Rio de Janeiro. The plaintiff informs that INEA, when granting the Integrated environmental license disregarded the synergistic and cumulative impacts with the request for a license to install and operate four floating Thermoelectric Plants in the same region, which are part of the same project. It argues that both the temporary towers for power transmission lines and the floating Thermoelectric Plants should be analyzed together and that there was an absence of an Environmental Impact Study/Environmental Impact Report (EIA/RIMA) and of a public hearing with the participation of the local community. The MPF points out that thermoelectric enterprises are generators of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) pollution. For this reason, INEA should require prior studies to assess the contribution of the project to climate change, taking into account the objectives of the National Policy on Climate Change - PNMC (Federal Law 12.189/2009) and the goals assumed by Brazil in the Paris Agreement.It raises the special protection of the Atlantic Forest biome (under Federal Law 11.428/2006) when it comes to suppression of vegetation. The MPF bases its claim on the duty of the Public Authorities to defend and preserve the ecologically balanced environment provided for in article 225 of the Federal Constitution. 

Among other measures, the plaintiff requests the preliminary suspension of the license and, definitively, the: (i) declaration of its nullity; (ii) evaluation of the project considering its contribution to climate change, so as to ensure that emissions are mitigated; (iii) determination that INEA abstain from granting licenses without conducting an EIA; (iv) determination that INEA considers, after the presentation of the EIA/RIMA, the global analysis of the licensing, considering the cumulative and synergistic effects of the projects; (v) determination that the defendants to recover the already deforested areas and the existing environmental liabilities; and (vi) determination that the defendants compensate for the damages caused, considering their material and extra-patrimonial nature, including collective moral damages.

On September 25, 2022, the judge dismissed the case without resolution of the merits, on procedural grounds. It emphasized that the case should be dismissed on the grounds of (i) lack of standing to sue on the part of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF); (ii) absolute lack of jurisdiction of the court; and (iii) lack of interest in suing on the grounds of inadequacy of the chosen legal avenue.

The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office filed an appeal with a request for urgent provisional relief, challenging the decision to dismiss the case.

The Court issued a ruling that partially granted the appeals and necessary remands, annulling the dismissal judgment and ordering the continuation of the Public Civil Actions, recognizing the standing of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office and the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. However, it declared the request for annulment of the environmental licenses based on the absence of an Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report (EIA/RIMA) and a public hearing to be moot, due to the supervening loss of interest in pursuing the action, maintaining the case only for the purpose of investigating any potential environmental damage and the corresponding duty to repair it, with the internal appeals also being dismissed as moot.

Geography

Rio de Janeiro

Recent cases