Case Name: ADPF 1215 (Paving of BR-319)

Summary

This is a Claim of Non-Compliance with a Fundamental Precept (ADPF) with a request for precautionary measures filed by the Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB) with the aim of remedying alleged unconstitutional actions and inactions perpetrated by the federal government that paralyze and prevent the implementation of the policy on the paving of the BR-319 highway, located in the northern region of the country. The party defends the importance of the highway for national integration and the economic and social development of the region. It alleges that the non-paving of the BR-319 is a failure of the State to guarantee minimum infrastructure, which violates the rights of the Amazonian population such as human dignity, access to education and health services, the right to come and go, the exercise of citizenship, the right to movement, and the principles of equality and efficiency. The PSDB argues that it is possible to align economic development with sustainable development, presenting the BR-319 as a viable and environmentally safe alternative to solve the problem of isolation in the Amazon and to guarantee the social and economic rights of its inhabitants. The document highlights that the isolation imposed by the absence of the highway disproportionately affects indigenous, riverside, and traditional communities, which face difficulties accessing essential public services. The party argues that the region depends mainly on river transport for connection with other areas, a situation that worsens during the dry season, when navigation can become impossible. It points out that droughts are worsening due to climate change, placing the population at risk of total isolation and highlighting the need for paving the highway. It argues that the existence of a paved highway would ensure the maintenance of the flow of goods and essential services and would be a strategic route for responding to environmental, health, or climate crises. The plaintiff emphasizes that all concerns should have been overcome after three decades of technical studies presented on the construction and operation of the highway. It argues that one of the reasons obstructing paving is the existence of conflicting decisions in legal proceedings. As an example, it presents Public Civil Action 1001856-77.2024.4.01.3200, which questions Preliminary License 672/2022 issued by IBAMA authorizing the paving of the highway, challenging it based on failures in environmental governance, the absence of a climate impact study, and the lack of prior consultation with communities. In a precautionary measure, it requests that the Supreme Federal Court ensure the effectiveness and production of the effects of Preliminary License No. 672/2022 issued by IBAMA. On the merits, it requests recognition of the injury and threat to fundamental precepts of the Federal Constitution, in order to promote sustainable regional development and the integration of the Amazon region; and a declaration that it is the duty of the Public Power to guarantee the regular, swift, and constitutional continuation of all stages of environmental licensing and the implementation of state public policies that guarantee the complete paving of Highway BR-319.

The reporting judge, Luiz Fux, dismissed the action due to the inadequacy of the chosen legal avenue. His reasoning emphasized that an ADPF (Action for Declaration of Unconstitutionality by Omission) is not admissible for the analysis of the specific situation, and that it could be challenged through ordinary legal channels. An appeal was filed against the decision, which was not granted. The final decision became res judicata.

* The case was classified as unfavorable to climate protection. It is recognized that the case's argument addresses, among other things, the adverse effects of climate change and the need for climate resilience measures. However, based on an analysis of the legal arguments of the action as a whole, it is understood that the overall objective of the claim is not aligned with climate protection.

See more See less

Main norms mobilized

• Article 170 of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• Article 225 of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• Article 5th of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• CONAMA Resolution 237/1997
• Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)

Case timeline

Case documents