Brazilian Climate Litigation Platform
Type of Action
Claim for Noncompliance with a Fundamental Precept (ADPF)
Court of origin
Federal Supreme Court of Brazil (STF)
Filing Date
03/2021
Original case number
814
State of origin
Distrito Federal (DF)
Link to court of origin’s consultation website
http://portal.stf.jus.br/Summary
This is a Claim of Non-Compliance with a Fundamental Precept (ADPF), with a request for preliminary injunction, filed by ABRAMPA, related to Decree 10.143/2019 and MMA Ordinance 575/2020, which altered the composition of the Climate Fund Management Committee and its deliberative process. It is argued that the institutional rearrangement promoted by the Federal Executive Branch excluded the representation of states and municipalities, leading to a disproportionate increase in the Union's decision-making power. It highlights the exclusion of representatives from the scientific community, non-governmental organizations, urban and rural workers, and traditional communities, while, conversely, the participation of business sectors has been increased. It is alleged that the normative acts discussed exceed the scope of administrative discretion and violate the Constitutional Environmental State. It is argued that there is a distortion of the forums for discussion and definition of climate policy. It is also understood that the transparency of the deliberative process of the Management Committee has been reduced, given that the meetings can only be recorded by the Ministry of the Environment and accessed by the members of the collegiate body. It further explains that, under the modified composition, the Management Committee of the Climate Fund approved an inappropriate allocation of funds. This refers to the allocation of all non-reimbursable resources to the Zero Landfill Rondônia Project – totaling R$ 6,207,228.00 – without a prior technical feasibility study. It informs that only 4% of Brazilian Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions resulted from the solid waste sector, which confirms the inadequacy of the selected project for the purposes of the Climate Fund. Therefore, it is requested, on a preliminary basis, that the effects of the challenged regulations be suspended and, definitively, that their unconstitutionality be declared.
There was a single-judge decision, in which the Reporting Justice Gilmar Mendes ruled that the applicant lacked standing, based on the absence of proof of its representativeness and exercise of activities at the national level. Despite being appealed, the panel upheld the decision, thus concluding the process.
Plaintiff
Type of plaintiff
Defendant
Type of defendant
Main norms mobilized
Brazilian biomes
Not ApplicableGreenhouse Gas (GHG) emission sectors
WasteStatus
Completed
Type of case
Systemic
Climate in environmental licensing
Non-mentioned
Environmental and/or climate justice approach
Non-existent
Claim alignment with climate protection
Aligned
Measures Addressed
Climate approach
Relevant approach
Document type
Appellate Court Decision
Origin
Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF)
Date
05/2021
Brief description
The Court, by majority, denied the procedural appeal, stating that the applicant entity does not meet the requirements to establish objective control of constitutionality before the STF.
Document type
Decision of a single judge
Origin
Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF)
Date
04/2021
Brief description
Decision by Rapporteur Justice Gilmar Mendes. He finds that the applicant lacks standing to sue, as she failed to prove her representation and exercise of activities at the national level, and dismissed the initial petition.
Document type
Complaint
Origin
Associação Brasileira de Membros do Ministério Público de Meio Ambiente (ABRAMPA)
Date
03/2021
Brief description
Decree 10.143/2019 and MMA Ordinance 575/2020, which changed the composition and internal governance of the Climate Fund Steering Committee, are challenged. This changes reduce the transparency of its deliberative process and the representativeness and plurality of its members, thus detrimental to its ability to act effectively in favor of climate protection. The inappropriate use of the Fund's resources is also challenged, with the allocation of all of the Fund's non-reimbursable resources to the Rondônia Zero Waste Project. A preliminary injunction is requested to suspend the effectiveness of the challenged regulations and, definitively, a declaration of unconstitutionality.