{"id":57890,"date":"2025-12-16T09:12:19","date_gmt":"2025-12-16T17:12:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/?post_type=resource&p=57890"},"modified":"2025-12-29T05:51:05","modified_gmt":"2025-12-29T13:51:05","slug":"brazil-public-civil-action-before-the-9a-vara-federal-de-porto-alegre-amigos-da-terra-preservar-and-associacao-gaucha-de-protecao-ao-ambiente-natural-vs-federal-government-state-government-of-rio","status":"publish","type":"resource","link":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/resource\/brazil-public-civil-action-before-the-9a-vara-federal-de-porto-alegre-amigos-da-terra-preservar-and-associacao-gaucha-de-protecao-ao-ambiente-natural-vs-federal-government-state-government-of-rio","title":{"rendered":"Br\u00e9sil, Action Civile Publique devant la 9\u00aa Vara Federal de Porto Alegre. Amigos da Terra, Preservar et Associa\u00e7\u00e3o Ga\u00facha de Prote\u00e7\u00e3o ao Ambiente Natural contre gouvernement f\u00e9d\u00e9ral, gouvernement de l'\u00c9tat du Rio Grande do Sul, Companhia Riograndense de Minera\u00e7\u00e3o (CRM), Eletrosul et al. (2025)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Ref. # 5050920-75.2023.4.04.7100\/RS. <\/strong>
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 9th Federal Court of Porto Alegre partially upheld claims brought in the context of a structural climate litigation. Three non-profit organizations sued the Federal and State governments, environmental agencies, and coal companies, alleging failure to comply with the National Policy on Climate Change, the Ga\u00facho Policy on Climate Change, and the Paris Agreement regarding the coal extraction and combustion in the Candiota region of Rio Grande do Sul – home to Brazil’s largest coal deposit. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plaintiffs argue that the defendants have ignored binding climate legislation for over a decade. P. 4. Specifically, they contend that the environmental licensing for the Candiota Mine and the Candiota III Thermoelectric Power Plant failed to include a climate component, including assessments of the GHG emissions and their contribution to the climate crisis. P. 7, 10. Among other remedies, they sought the suspension of the licenses for both the mine and the power plant, the development of a just energy transition plan to phase out coal while protecting workers, the elimination of coal incentives, and the restructuring of climate governance bodies to ensure democratic participation. Pp. 10-18.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Separation of powers<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ruling holds that the case does not implies replacing \u201cthe Legislature or the Executive with the Judiciary, but rather examining any state of non-compliance between factual reality and the effective enforcement of rules and executive acts, requiring, if the claim is upheld, that the entities act to remedy this specific stage of non-compliance.\u201d P. 66. The decision further provides a comprehensive analysis of domestic laws, international commitments, and relevant precedents. It cites, for instance, the European Court of Human Rights case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland<\/a> and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) Advisory Opinion on climate change and human rights (OC-32\/25), both noting the complementarity between judicial intervention and democratic processes, as well as the suitability of class actions to safeguard a healthy environment. Pp. 66-67.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The judge also underscored that the ruling applied a conventionality control approach, following recommendations from the National Council of Justice that courts give due effect to international human rights treaties and conventions, and rely on IACtHR jurisprudence, including its Advisory Opinions. P. 85. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Including climate considerations in EIAs and environmental licensing processes<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the first issues examined concerned whether environmental authorities had discretion to omit consideration of the climate impacts generated by the coal mine and power plant. Reviewing the history of Brazilian climate legislation, the judge noted that, at the time of the initial licensing of the Candiota III Thermoelectric Power Plant, Brazil\u2019s national greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets were predominantly voluntary in nature. This meant that the Public Administration had \u201cdiscretion to decide which sectors with significant emissions should be prioritized in actions aimed at reducing greenhouse gases.\u201d P. 109.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Although this Magistrate may personally disagree with the choices made by public managers during that period, it must be recognized that the choices to prioritize deforestation control as a central mitigation policy had normative and interpretative support at the time.  <\/p>\nP. 110.<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

However, the judge held that, at the present moment, environmental licensing authorities no longer have any discretion to omit climate considerations, particularly given the binding normative force of the Paris Agreement and the precedent set by the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court in ADPF 708. Pp. 98, 113, 115, 117. The ruling also refers to the Advisory Opinions of both the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, relying on them not only to illustrate the affirmation of states\u2019 rights and duties in the face of climate change, but also to ground the requirement that climate considerations be integrated into the environmental licensing of coal mines and coal-fired thermoelectric power plants. Pp. 114\u2013115.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

In the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, the binding force of the Paris Agreement was interpreted as requiring compliance with the most ambitious mitigation target (1.5\u00baC) . . . . The International Court concluded that, rather than being entirely discretionary, as some participants argued in their submissions to the Court, the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) must meet certain standards of the Paris Agreement. All NDCs developed, communicated, and maintained by the Parties under the Paris Agreement must, as a whole, the Court stated, be capable of achieving the objectives of the Agreement, as set out in Article 2 (\u00a7 249). <\/p>\nP. 125<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The judge also referred to the parameters regarding the content of NDCs established by the IACtHR [p. 126] and noted that the ICJ was emphatic about the possibility of holding States accountable for failing to act on the production, consumption, licensing, and subsidies of fossil fuels. P. 154. The judge also invoked the Advisory Opinions to highlight that they provide a series of considerations regarding the role of climate impact analysis in environmental licensing. Pp. 128, 130.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision also referred to several decisions from other courts requiring the climate component in EIAs, such as Gray v. Minister of Planning (Australia, 2006)<\/a>, Youth Verdict v. Waratah Coal (Australia, 2022),  Denman Aberdeen Muswellbrook Scone Healthy Environmental Group Inc v. MACH Energy (Australia, 2025), Save Lamu et al. v. NEMA and Amu Power Co<\/a>. (Kenya, 2016), Africa Climate Alliance et al. v. Minister of Mineral Resources & Energy et al. (South Africa, 2024), R (Finch on behalf of the Weald Action Group et al.) v. Surrey County Council et al. (UK, 2024)<\/a>, Greenpeace UK and Uplift v. Secretary of State for the Energy Security and Net Zero and the North Sea Transition Authority (UK, 2025), Friends of the Earth v. Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (UK, 2024), Foreningen Greenpeace Norden and Natur og Ungdom v. Norway (EFTA, 2025).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Based on all of this, the judge concluded that \u201cthere is a clear shift in the level of legal obligation imposed on the conduct of licensing authorities in the present case,\u201d such that the licensing of coal-fired power plants and coal mines in the State of Rio Grande do Sul must include an assessment of the projects\u2019 climate impact. P. 131. In this sense, even just the absence of an analysis of the value chain emissions resulting from coal extracted at the Candiota Mine constitutes, by itself, a violation of the duty to assess the direct and indirect impacts of the project. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ruling also examined from when this duty or requirement would apply. The judge emphasized that Brazilian law allows for the modification of environmental conditions while a project\u2019s operating license is in force, and noted that the current conditions are not in compliance with the rules currently in effect. P. 161. Although the Candiota Mine\u2019s most recent license renewal took place in March 2025, the environmental authority still did not make any considerations regarding the climate impact. P. 164.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ruling stated: \u201cthe emissions from coal combustion are part of the production chain that begins with coal extraction from the mine. . . . The Mine\u2019s by-products only exist because the mine extracts coal to supply the Candiota III Thermoelectric Power Plant.\u201d P. 169. Based on this, it held that the requirements for climate impact analysis, including scope 3, applied in a cumulative and synergistic manner, immediately to the Candiota Mine and the Candiota III Power Plant, and therefore ordered the suspension of the existing licenses. Pp. 169\u2013170, 263\u2013264. Furthermore, it ordered the defendants to include this climate analysis in future coal mine and coal-fired thermoelectric power plant projects with active licenses in the State of Rio Grande do Sul. Pp. 179, 267.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Requirements for a just energy transition plan<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regarding the request for the development of an energy transition plan, the judge examined Brazil\u2019s most recent NDC [pp. 190\u2013191], the decisions gradually adopted under the UNFCCC concerning the promotion of a just energy transition, as well as other elements. She recalled the Advisory Opinions on climate change to emphasize that \u201cthe energy transition, to be effective, must ensure compliance with the 1.5\u00baC temperature target.\u201d P. 194.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

It is therefore essential to understand that a just energy transition is the material and procedural way in which mitigation must occur, in the timing and manner deemed essential by science, and endorsed by the normative force of the Paris Agreement. A just energy transition, therefore, is the mitigation pathway advocated as respectful of human rights. A just energy transition involves mitigating GHG emissions in a technical and adequate manner, at the pace considered indispensable, but without overriding all the human rights involved, whether the rights of current human generations, including attention to the most vulnerable, or the rights of future human generations. <\/p>\nP. 198<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In this regard, the judge noted that the current version of the Climate Plan, with mitigation targets for the energy sector, does not include, as priority actions for the next ten years (until 2035), any concrete initiatives aimed at decarbonization or the reduction of emissions from the coal sector, either in Rio Grande do Sul or in other Brazilian states. Read together with Brazil\u2019s current NDC, the judge noted that it is evident that Brazil\u2019s chosen path is to expand renewable energy sources, which is important but insufficient, as a transition plan must include targets and timelines for the decommissioning of fossil fuel sources, including coal mines and coal-fired power plants. \u201cIt is not a transition if one does not move from one model to another, defining the milestones for the closure of the previous model.\u201d P. 203. This omission violates the Constitution, existing legislation, the intergenerational principle, and the understanding of the ICJ and the IACtHR, as set out in the Advisory Opinions. Pp. 199, 201, 209.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ruling noted that it is not the role of the Judiciary to develop an energy transition plan for the coal mining sector in the State of Rio Grande do Sul, but it is the Judiciary\u2019s role to assess the mitigation requirement, which has binding force applicable to both Brazil and the State of Rio Grande do Sul, and to recognize that there is an unconstitutional delay in defining the emission mitigation trajectory for a high-emission sector. P. 214. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For this reason, the court set a deadline for the submission of a just energy transition plan for the coal sector in the State of Rio Grande do Sul [p. 215], which must include, as minimum elements:  a) temporal action milestones; b) detailed actions that go beyond the expansion of renewable energy or investment plans in carbon capture technologies; c) provision of resources and, at the same time, planning for the phase-out of subsidies to the coal sector; and d) adequate participation of civil society in the drafting, monitoring, and implementation of the plan. P. 217.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Public participation<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plaintiffs also requested the institutionalization of mechanisms that ensure public and democratic participation in the implementation and monitoring of climate policies. Although they pointed out gaps in access to essential reports on GHG emissions from the Candiota III Power Plant, the judge found that the licensing process already provides for public hearings and the participation of entities, thereby addressing the plaintiffs\u2019 request in this regard. On the other hand, it was ordered that the State of Rio Grande do Sul, within 30 days, demonstrate the adequacy of the composition of the Plenary of the Ga\u00facho Forum on Climate Change*, increasing the participation of civil society and the scientific community, and ensuring proper parity of representation. Pp. 220, 229, 231, 235, 267.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Damages <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regarding the claims for material damages, the judge ruled that, at this point, it was not possible to assess whether there had been non-compliance with the environmental recovery measures set for the closure of operations, and therefore the damages should be considered as resulting from the regular operation of a coal mine. P. 247. However, the judge emphasized that the ruling does not exclude objective environmental liability, the imprescriptibility of the duty to repair diffuse environmental damage, or the transfer of these obligations to future owners. P. 252.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regarding civil liability for climate damage resulting from GHG emissions in the mine and power plant\u2019s value chain, the judge recalled the parameters for calculating these damages, but noted that, until the date of the ruling, the emissions had been authorized, a scenario that changed with the suspension of licenses. P. 255.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, the judge ruled the claims for collective moral damages as inadmissible. P. 261.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

* an official and participatory committee coordinated by the Rio Grande do Sul Secretariat for the Environment and Infrastructure (Sema) to discuss climate policies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

**Quotes have been unofficially translated from Portuguese.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

*** This ruling was appealed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ref. # 5050920-75.2023.4.04.7100\/RS.  The 9th Federal Court of Porto Alegre partially upheld claims brought in the context of a structural climate litigation. Three non-profit organizations sued the Federal and State governments, environmental agencies, and coal companies, alleging failure to comply with the National Policy on Climate Change, the Ga\u00facho Policy on Climate Change, and the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":31,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","resource-topic":[34,30484,43,190,278,61,62,153,30485,30487,30490,154,86,30489,30488,2052,97,208,109],"resource-type":[528],"resource-category":[30097],"content-for-websites":[30101,30102,30103],"region":[669,541],"class_list":["post-57890","resource","type-resource","status-publish","hentry","resource-topic-access-to-information","resource-topic-advisory-opinions","resource-topic-climate-change","resource-topic-coal-and-gas-power-plants","resource-topic-coal-mining","resource-topic-energy","resource-topic-environmental-impact-assessment","resource-topic-greenhouse-gases","resource-topic-iacthr-ao-32-25-29-may-2025","resource-topic-icj-ao-2025-23-july-2025","resource-topic-just-energy-transition","resource-topic-litigation","resource-topic-mining","resource-topic-ndcs","resource-topic-paris-agreement","resource-topic-pivotal-cases","resource-topic-public-participation","resource-topic-public-participation-1","resource-topic-united-nations-framework-convention-on-climate-change","resource-type-cases","resource-category-legal","content-for-websites-climate","content-for-websites-coal","content-for-websites-notable-cases","region-brazil","region-south-america"],"blocksy_meta":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource\/57890","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/resource"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/31"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=57890"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57890"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"resource-topic","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-topic?post=57890"},{"taxonomy":"resource-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-type?post=57890"},{"taxonomy":"resource-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-category?post=57890"},{"taxonomy":"content-for-websites","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/content-for-websites?post=57890"},{"taxonomy":"region","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/region?post=57890"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}