📋 Tender Overview
The Attorney General of the Union (AGU) assured, in court, the right of the National Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (Ibama) to seize and donate forest products illegally extracted from the green extractive reserve forever (Green Resex), in Santarem, Para.
The decision was in the context of a writ of mandamus filed by logging in the Federal Court of Para, against the superintendent of Ibama in that state. They claimed illegality in the seizure and donation of forest products by the environmental authority, supporting the agencys incompetence.
In defense of Ibama, federal prosecutors who work in the judicial collection division of the Federal Regional Attorneys Office of the 1st Region clarified that the inspectors caught wood extracted from federal conservation unit, transported by vessels, through the issuance of forest guides in parallel and after the act, with the objective of controlling the illicit wood originating from the reserve.
Maneuvers
AGU argued that those responsible for the venture used maneuvers to undermine surveillance and the environment. If the maneuvers were materialized, it would not be possible to perform the sanctions - and the illegal and documentary coverage wood would be backed and unlawfully marketed.
According to Ibama, there was a attempt to conceal wood in a disguised shed. In addition, the analysis of the data contained in Sisflora 2.0 proved the lack and incompatibility between the custody chain records and the cubed volume.
Reporting allegations of the plaintiffs, the prosecutors argued that the environmental police power is responsible for the environmental police, and Ibama may issue infraction notices and embargo terms whenever the practice of environmental administrative infraction is included.
The Attorney General of the Union pointed out that the competence to oversee is not confused with the existing to license. The competence for the exercise of environmental police power, in its supervisory facet, is common and should be executed by municipalities, states, Federal District and Union, through its organs and municipalities established for this purpose, representing the right to the balanced environment a fundamental right, argued federal prosecutors.
In this way, they reinforced, no legally instituted body or entity to protect the environment can be at the mercy of the others acting, when faced with environmental degradation.
Within the law
AGUs performance in defense of Ibama demonstrates that the municipality acted strictly in accordance with the law. Once the environmental illicit was configured, the infraction notices and terms of apprehension were issued, given the movement, receipt and remittance of frauduated forest credit, which are indicative of the heat warning.
The 12th Panel of the TRF 1st Region fully accepted the AGU arguments and dismissed the Warge Warm Warrant, considering that Ibamas supervision was made based on technical information and evidence of irregularities in the commercialization of forest products.
Reference Process: Civil Appeal No. 1002688-23.2019.4.01.3900-TRF-1st Region
Special Advisory of Social Communication of AGU
