Case Name: MPMT vs. Joel Rubin, Milton Paulo Cella e Diogo Ricardo Bavaresco (Deforestation in Nova Maringá/MT)

Summary

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP), with a request for urgent relief, filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the state of Mato Grosso (MPMT) against Joel Rubin, seeking compensation for material and moral damages resulting from the deforestation of 296.2541 hectares in a Legal Reserve area (RL) on the Silva I Farm, in the municipality of Nova Maringá, Mato Grosso. The deforestation occurred without authorization from the environmental agency between 2015 and 2018. It is mentioned that the damage caused by the emission of greenhouse gases as a result of the deforestation violates the provisions of the National Climate Change Policy (Federal Law 12.187/2009) and the State Climate Change Policy (State Law 582/2017) and contributes to global climate change. It argues that the Brazilian legal system enshrines the principle of preserving climate integrity and warns of the intensification of the effects of global warming. It is argued that environmental civil liability is objective and the obligation to repair, being a real obligation (propter rem), justifies the filing of the lawsuit. In preliminary proceedings, the plaintiff requests, among other measures, a prohibition on the economic use of the area during the course of the litigation, the restoration of the degraded or altered area, the suspension of financing and tax incentives and access to credit lines, and the registration of the Public Civil Action (ACP) in the property's registration. Ultimately, the plaintiff requests payment of compensation for material environmental damages, estimated at R$ 12,169,649.70, and for moral damages, to be determined by the court.

In a preliminary ruling, the court partially granted the provisional injunction, limiting it to the registration of the lawsuit in the property's registration record.

In his defense, Joel Rubin argued that the property whose area was deforested was sold by him in 2017 to Milton Paulo Cella and that, therefore, he was neither the author of the deforestation nor a legitimate party to be named as a defendant in the lawsuit. On the merits, he requested the complete dismissal of the plaintiff's claims. He argued for the preference for the recovery of the area over the payment of compensation, for the impossibility of combining compensation for material and moral damages, and for the non-existence of moral damages.

In response, the MPMT (Public Prosecutor's Office of Mato Grosso) requested an amendment to the initial petition to include Milton Paulo Cella and Diogo Ricardo Bavaresco as defendants in the action, since they acquired the deforested area, which was accepted by the defendant.

Due to the connection of this lawsuit with other lawsuits against the defendant in the Federal Court of the First Region, the case was referred to the federal court under number 1002350-88.2024.4.01.3604.

Milton Cella and Diogo Bavaresco filed objections. Milton argued that the same area in question is already the subject of other lawsuits, that the CAR (Rural Environmental Registry) is duly registered, and that the environmental damage is already being repaired and regularized with the environmental agency. He further argued the inadequacy of the calculation presented to quantify the environmental damage, the need to avoid the cumulation of obligations to act and to pay, and the non-existence of collective moral damages. He presented technical evidence seeking to refute the quantification of the perimeter presented in the initial complaint and the legal reserve area to be considered. He requested the dismissal of the requests made for urgent relief and that the action be dismissed. Diogo argued that he never acquired the deforested area, as he withdrew from the purchase and sale agreement between him, Joel, and Milton, which would prove that he never exercised direct or indirect possession or exploited any activity on the property, or exercised any power of interference over the area subject to the lawsuit. It argued the absence of environmental damage, the impossibility of combining the convictions, and the inadmissibility of compensation for collective moral damages. It requested recognition of its lack of standing to be sued or that the action be dismissed.

See more See less

Main norms mobilized

• Article 225 of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• Forest Code (Federal Law 12.651/2012)
• National Environment Policy Act - PNMA (Federal Law 6.938/1981)
• National Policy on Climate Change Act - PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009)
• State Policy on Climate Change - PEMC

Case timeline

Case documents