📋 Tender Overview
The Attorney General of the Union (AGU) assured, in the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), the demolition of irregular construction in permanent preservation area (APP) on the banks of the Parana River, by reversing previous decision that had removed the application of environmental legislation. The AGU argued that private property aimed at leisure does not meet the exceptions provided for in the Forest Code for the use of permanent preservation area (APP).
The action took place in a public civil action proposed by the Public Prosecution Service and the Federal Regional Attorney of the 4th Region (PRF4), representing the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio), to remove a summer house built in APP. The authors also asked that measures were adopted for the recovery of the degraded area.
The Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region had considered the disproportionate demolition measure, claiming that it was a consolidated urban area.
In the appeal, federal prosecutors maintained that construction - a summer house - did not meet any relevant social function and generated significant damage to the environment. The thesis was welcomed by the Superior Court, which pointed out that the apps perform essential ecological functions, such as the preservation of watercourses, biodiversity and geological stability.
The STJ also agreed with AGUs argument by stating that leisure -oriented buildings, such as fishing ranches and seasonal houses, do not fit the exceptional hypotheses that allow intervention in APPs, such as agropastoris activities, ecotourism or rural tourism.
Damage to society
In this case, it is a summer house, so that there is no economic or social reason that justifies its maintenance to the disadvantage of the environment. On the contrary, the summer residences have as its purpose only the pleasure of its users, implying an excessive environmental impact and damage to other members of society, says the coordinator of the PRF4 Priority Management Center, Camila Vieira Martins.
Based on the arguments presented by AGU, the STJ reformed the TRF4 decision and determined that the construction person promotes the recomposition of the degraded area. The Court reiterated that there is no acquired right when it comes to a situation that causes environmental damage, and that accepting such practice would be incompatible with the principles of environmental law.
For federal prosecutor Leandro Ferreira Bernardo, who acted in the case, the decision represents an important precedent, for recognizing the primacy of environmental protection, in favor of the whole collectivity, on individual values. Another victory obtained by AGU in the protection of the environment and compliance with the rules governing the responsible use of the national territory, especially in sensitive and special protection areas such as river margins, he celebrates.
RE No. 1874161 - PR (2020/0108863-8)
Special Advisory of Social Communication of AGU
