Rio de Janeiro

Brazil

Minas Gerais

Mato Grosso do Sul

Mato Grosso

Pará

Paraíba

Pernambuco

Piauí

Paraná

Rio Grande do Norte

Rondônia

Acre

Roraima

Alagoas

Rio Grande do Sul

Amazonas

Santa Catarina

Amapá

Sergipe

Bahia

São Paulo

Ceará

Tocantins

Distrito Federal

Espírito Santo

Goiás

Maranhão

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 August 2026, the Institute of Collective Law (IDC) filed a Public Civil Action against the Edifício Galeria Limited Liability Real Estate Investment Fund and its administrator, BTG Pactual Serviços Financeiros S/A DTVM, due to the alleged lack of adequate assessment, management, and disclosure of climate risks associated with the fund's real estate asset. The fund is a "brick-and-mortar" type fund and its assets are entirely tied to a physical asset, the Edifício Galeria, a commercial building located at Rua da Quitanda, nº 86, in the Center of Rio de Janeiro/RJ, situated in an area identified as having high exposure to climate risks. 

The IDC argues that the property is exposed to significant climate risks, especially floods, extreme temperatures, landslides, and forest fires, capable of affecting its physical integrity, functionality, and economic value, as well as rental income and shareholder returns. It alleges that, although the fund discloses other types of risks to investors, it does not present specific information on climate or environmental risks, nor has it published the asset valuation report, a circumstance considered especially serious given the existence of 3,750 unit holders, of which 3,727 are individuals. It further argues that climate risks constitute material financial risks and that Real Estate Investment Funds must incorporate them into their management and provide clear and sufficient information to investors to allow for adequately informed decisions. 

Therefore, the IDC requests: (i) the presentation and publication of an asset valuation report containing a detailed analysis of the aspects capable of affecting its value, including physical and transitional climate risks; (ii) the organization and periodic disclosure of the identified climate risks and the methodologies used for their assessment and management; and (iii) the development and implementation, by the administrator, of a Formal Policy for the Management and Disclosure of Climate Risks for the fund. IDC vs. Edifício Galeria Responsabilidade Limitada and BTG Pactual (Real Estate Investment Fund and Climate Risks) (Brazil, Rio de Janeiro State Court)

On June 8th, 2026, the Institute of Collective Law (IDC) and the Association for Inclusive Sustainable Solutions (SIS) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief against the Securities and Exchange Commission (CVM), due to the issuance of CVM Resolution 244/2026, which revoked the mandatory disclosure of financial information related to sustainability previously provided for in CVM Resolution 193/2023. They argued that the previous rule was based on the scientific consensus that climate change already has concrete effects, including financial risks. In this context, the state adopted the ISSB/IFRS S1 and S2 standards for sustainability financial reporting by publicly traded companies, including greenhouse gas emissions inventories, identification of physical and transitional climate risks, mitigation strategies, climate-related corporate governance, and analysis of the financial impacts of climate change, with a transition regime with voluntary adherence in the fiscal years 2024 and 2025 and mandatory compliance from 2026 onwards. They plaintiffs argued that the regulatory change represents a serious regulatory and environmental setback, as it weakens access to essential information about the environmental, climate, and social risks associated with the activities of publicly traded companies, compromising the adequate pricing of these risks by the market and the ability of investors to direct capital to activities compatible with a resilient and low-carbon economy. They contend that the revocation of the mandatory requirements stipulated in the previous resolution occurred without adequate technical justification, without a regulatory impact analysis, and in contradiction to the previous opinion of the CVM's own technical area; which had recognized the relevance of the measure for market transparency, the management of climate risks, and Brazil's alignment with international best practices. The authors allege that the suppression of mandatory sustainability disclosure generates collective damage of a climate and informational nature, as it reduces the availability of reliable and comparable data on the impacts of business activities on the climate, increases informational asymmetry between companies and investors, favors greenwashing practices, and hinders the identification of companies more exposed to or prepared for the effects of climate change. They also argue that the measure violates Brazil's international commitments, such as those undertaken under the Paris Agreement and the Mercosur-European Union Partnership Agreement. Additionally, they claim that it also compromises the integrity of the capital market, penalizes companies that had already invested in implementing international sustainability standards, and weakens essential instruments for climate governance, such as the Brazilian Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System (SBCE). Therefore, the plaintiffs request the granting of urgent relief to immediately suspend the effects of CVM Resolution 244/2026, restoring the mandatory reporting of sustainability information as provided for in CVM Resolution 193/2023. In the final relief they seek a declaration of nullity of CVM Resolution 244/2026, due to flaws in its motivation, procedure, and violation of the principles of environmental protection and legal certainty; or, subsidiarily, a declaration of its illegality and that the CVM be ordered to conduct a public consultation and Regulatory Impact Analysis on the effects of Resolution 244, with suspension of its effectiveness during this process.


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.

Geography

Rio de Janeiro

Recent cases