📋 Tender Overview
The Fifth Panel of the Federal Regional Court of the 5th Region (TFR5) unanimously denied authorization for a company in Rio Grande do Norte to drive a vehicle adapted for tourist tours without presenting a certificate of regularity for the structural changes made to it. The claim had already been denied by the 1st Federal Court of RN. In both instances, the defense carried out by the Attorney Generals Office (AGU) prevailed.
The company filed a lawsuit against the Union and the Department of Traffic (Detran) for failing to obtain the Certificate of Adequacy to Traffic Legislation (CAT) for a Mitsubishi L200 Triton pickup truck (model 2021/2022) that had its body modified to transport passengers in recreational activities. The certificate - issued by companies that have a Technical Capacity Certificate (CCT) - is one of the requirements for licensing a vehicle with more complex modifications, which affect structures or safety systems.
The operator claimed losses in its economic activity of tourist tours, as its only vehicle is prohibited from traveling. He said that the administrative process with the regularization request had been paralyzed since 2023 at the National Traffic Secretariat (Senatran) and that there is no company in the country qualified to issue the CAT for the intended vehicle, as it is new on the market.
The request was denied in a decision at first instance and the company appealed to the TRF5 with an appeal, requesting that the CAT requirement be removed and the vehicle allowed to circulate for tourist purposes. He also highlighted that the truck had technical reports required to ensure safety and that it had obtained authorization for the same vehicle in another judicial process.
Legal forecast
In the counter-arguments presented to the TRF5, the Regional Attorneys Office of the Union of the 5th Region (PRU5), a unit of the AGU based in Recife, defended the full maintenance of the decision of the court of the 1st Federal Court of RN. He recalled that, according to the Brazilian Traffic Code (CTB) and resolutions of the National Traffic Council (Contran), the owner of the vehicle to be modified must, before carrying out the transformation, request authorization from Detran to register the asset; submit the previously authorized vehicle for modification to a duly qualified company; and submit the modified vehicle to technical vehicle safety inspection, among other obligations.
For cases in which the standard requires the issuance of a CAT - more complex modifications, which normally affect the structural part of the vehicle and/or its safety systems -, it is necessary to prove compliance with the technical safety requirements by carrying out more robust tests and tests, such as braking, anchoring and seat and seat belt performance tests, lighting, or even impact tests aimed at protecting occupants, among others, wrote Union lawyer Fabio Goncalves Pereira, from PRU5.
Decision
The federal judges of the Fifth Panel of the TRF5 followed the vote of the rapporteur, federal judge Cibele Benevides, who accepted the PRU5s arguments, denying authorization for the vehicle to circulate without presenting the CAT.
Although the appellant alleges economic losses resulting from the impossibility of using the vehicle, the issue involves traffic safety regulations, a matter of public order that does not allow for flexibility without due compliance with the technical requirements established by specific legislation, says the ruling.
The decision states that the absence of companies qualified to issue the CAT does not authorize the flexibility of federal legislation, especially in situations involving passenger safety. It emphasizes that the modifications made to the truck are not provided for in Contran Resolution No. 916/2022, a standard that regulates vehicle transformations permitted in the country, and that, in view of this, the company assumed the risk by promoting changes not foreseen in the regulations, without the guarantee of subsequent approval by the competent bodies.
In relation to the authorization in a previous judicial process, the Court clarified that that process was terminated without a resolution on the merits, which is why it does not produce binding effects on the current judgment.
Reference process: no 0003093-18.2025.4.05.0000.
AGU Special Social Communication Advisory
