Case Name: Samuel Almeida da Silva vs. IBAMA (Preventive invalidation of licenses for oil exploration at the mouth of the Amazon River.)

Summary

This is a preventive Public Action (APop) filed by Samuel Almeida da Silva against the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) regarding the request for an environmental license to explore the FZA-M-59 oil block, located at the mouth of the Amazon River, off the coast of the state of Amapá, requested by Petrobras SA. It is stated that the company's request was denied due to several inconsistencies and that the licensing process documents indicate the possibility that a potential oil spill could reach the coast of eight countries, in addition to two French territories. It argues that, beyond the specific impacts of the production and transportation project, the installation of the oil and gas industry would promote an extensive chain of related ventures. It is alleged that exploration at the mouth of the Amazon would trigger the drilling of more than 40 blocks off the coast of the North and Northeast regions of the country, which would go against global ambitions to reduce the use of fossil fuels. There is a global effort to modify the energy matrix towards sources other than oil and coal, which are the main causes of high greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Given this scenario, the exploration of oil blocks puts the local ecosystem and climate balance at risk. The author argues that denying the environmental license for the project is a way to protect everyone's right to an ecologically balanced environment, fulfilling article 225 of the Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988. The author requests the invalidation of any license that authorizes oil exploration in the Amazon River estuary.

IBAMA filed a response alleging the initial petition was flawed due to a lack of specification of the facts and legal basis for the request, and that there was no act to be annulled, as no activity is being carried out in the area of interest of the lawsuit. Regarding the FZA-M-59 exploration block, it alleged that the environmental license was denied and that an appeal is under review. It requested, preliminarily, the dismissal of the case without prejudice. On the merits, it requested the complete dismissal of the claims.

In June 2025, a judgment was issued dismissing the initial petition and declaring the case closed without prejudice. The court held that there was no administrative act to be annulled or invalidated, since the plaintiff was seeking the invalidation of an environmental license that had not even been issued or, potentially, of a license that may be issued in the future.

Due to the nature of the action, the case was submitted for mandatory review, and the Court unanimously decided to deny the appeal, on the grounds that the judgment rendered is duly reasoned.In March 2026, the case was definitively closed.

See more See less

Main norms mobilized

Article 225 of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)

Case timeline

Case documents