Case Name: MPMT vs. Carlos Aparecido da Silva e INCRA (Illegal deforestation at the Dois Irmãos site)

Summary

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of Mato Grosso (MPMT) against Carlos Aparecido da Silva due to the deforestation of an area of 11.31 hectares at the Dois Irmãos site, located in the state of Mato Grosso, as verified in Civil Inquiry 025/2023. The MPMT alleges that the defendant owns the property and that native vegetation was deforested there without authorization from the environmental agency. It argues that the environmental damage demands, in addition to the recovery of the biome itself, the reparation of the incidental factors of the degradation, such as the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and highlights the principle of preserving climate integrity enshrined in the legal system. As an urgent measure, it requests, among other things, that the defendant be prohibited from economically exploiting the deforested areas that are susceptible to use without authorization from the environmental agency. Ultimately, the restoration of the degraded area and the payment of compensation for material and moral damages in the amount of R$ 93,498.53 (ninety-three thousand, four hundred and ninety-eight reais and fifty-three cents) are required.

The action was initially filed before the Court of Justice of Mato Grosso under number 1004977-80.2024.8.11.0006, and the court granted the request for urgent relief.

In response, the defendant argued that the area is part of the Agrarian Reform Settlement Project called Limoeiro Settlement and that it has an occupation link, with the Union being the legitimate owner and therefore liable to respond to the action along with INCRA. It alleges the Federal Court's jurisdiction to process the case and that it has authorization to exploit the area, the infraction notice being generic. Therefore, it requested recognition of its lack of standing to be sued, the suspension of the granted preliminary injunction, a declaration of the court's lack of jurisdiction, and the dismissal of the action with a declaration of nullity of the infraction notice.

The lack of jurisdiction was acknowledged, and the case file was forwarded to the Federal Court, now under number 1003895-08.2024.4.01.3601.

By court order, the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) was included as a defendant in the lawsuit, and the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) was included as a plaintiff.

INCRA (National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform) filed a defense, arguing its lack of standing due to the absence of a causal link between the environmental damage and INCRA's duty of inspection and monitoring. The agency maintained that it fulfilled its legal duty to inform the settler of their legal obligations to respect environmental legislation and that non-compliance would lead to the termination of the contract signed between them, according to Normative Instruction 99/2019, which establishes the administrative procedures for the titling of rural properties in Agrarian Reform Settlement Projects. It emphasized that the illegal deforestation did not occur during the land acquisition phase, but rather after the settlers had already entered the area and had already been informed of their duty to comply with the legislation, and that there was no omission, commission, or concurrence on the part of the agency in relation to the damages caused by the settler. He requested that the preliminary objection of lack of standing to be sued be upheld, allowing him to remain in the action as an unauthorized party and for the action to be dismissed in relation to him.

A ruling was issued approving the withdrawal of the lawsuit, taking into account the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office's statement that there was no longer a legitimate interest in the proceedings.

See more See less

Main norms mobilized

• Article 225 of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• National Policy on Climate Change Act - PNMC (Federal Law 12.187/2009)

Case timeline

Case documents