Federal Supreme Court forms majority and decides that fines for environmental crimes are imprescriptible

O Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) formou maioria para decidir que a obrigação de reparar danos ambientais não prescreve, mesmo quando convertida em indenização por perdas e danos (Tema 1.194).

The Federal Attorney General's Office (AGU) and the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) obtained a majority in the judgment of Extraordinary Appeal with Interlocutory Appeal No. 1.352.872, which discusses the imprescriptibility of environmental damage reparation, even when converted into losses and damages, in the executive phase. The case, which has general repercussion recognized under Theme 1.194, is being examined in the virtual plenary session of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) which ends this Friday (28/3).

The court of first instance recognized, in favour of the convict, the statute of limitations of the enforcement claim, i.e. the loss of the right to enforce an obligation by the expiry of five years, on the grounds that, when converted into damages, the obligation to fully recover a degraded preservation area, located in the municipality of Balneário Barra do Sul, in the state of Santa Catarina, became a pecuniary debt subject to the intercurrent statute of limitations. This position was upheld by the Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region.

Appeal to the STF

The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) appealed to the STF, arguing that the debt was not time-barred and that the defendant should bear the costs generated by the environmental damage. In the case, the defendant was ordered to remove a wall and embankment built in an environmental preservation area, although it failed to do so, claiming it could not afford it. The MPF was ordered to comply with the obligation at the debtor's expense, which the municipality partially did. As a result, a pecuniary payment was made so that the person responsible for the damage would reimburse the treasury for the service.

He therefore asked for the judgment to be overturned, since the conversion of environmental reparation into compensation does not remove the unavailable and collective nature of the environment, falling within the rule of imprescriptibility, according to the STF's understanding in Theme 999.

Amicus Curiae

The Federal Government joined the case as “amicus curiae”, which is when a body or entity collaborates with the court, providing information and subsidies for the judgment, without necessarily being a party to the case.

Based on the STF's own case law, the AGU argued that, although it is the rule to stipulate a statute of limitations for compensation claims, the constitutional protection of the environment imposes the recognition of the imprescriptibility of the claim for compensation for civil environmental damage.

“Recognizing the incidence of prescription in such cases would mean imposing on future generations the burden of bearing the consequences of past environmental damage. Thus, the imposition of limitation periods in favor of individual interest, in this case, is at odds with the very nature of the legal asset being protected,” said the AGU in an excerpt from the brief sent to the Court.

The Federal Attorney General's Office also warned that “recognizing the statute of limitations in this case will mean that anyone who causes environmental damage will be able to remain inactive until the obligation is declared extinguished by the statute of limitations.”

Relevance of the issue

By requesting entry into the case, the Federal Government demonstrated that the position to be adopted by the STF is extremely relevant, given that, according to a report presented by the Federal Attorney General's Office (PGU), in 2022 the federal entity and its autonomous agencies were plaintiffs in almost 13,000 lawsuits related to the issue under discussion. The sum is equivalent to a financial impact of more than R$1 trillion, and more than 1,500 of these cases were already in the executive phase.

The issue also remains in evidence in another section. Between January 2021 and March 16, 2025, the Federal Government was at the center of 166 lawsuits related to environmental issues, equivalent to a financial impact of approximately R$1.3 billion. Of this amount, there are 26 lawsuits referring specifically to environmental crimes, which total more than R$833 million.

The judgment

The rapporteur of the case, Justice Cristiano Zanin, agreed with the arguments of the AGU and the MPF, voting to uphold the appeal and overturn the TRF4 ruling. In his vote, he stressed that “environmental civil liability and the indispensability of repairing environmental damage are based on the Constitution of the Republic, which dedicates an entire chapter to protecting the environment”, article 225.

Zanin reinforced that, recently, when judging Theme 1.268, the STF decided that the claim for compensation that has an undeniable and inseparable relationship with damage caused to the environment attracts the imprescriptibility regime.

“The fact that the case is in the execution phase or that the obligation to repair the damage has been converted into damages does not change the transindividual, transgenerational and unavailable nature of the fundamental right being protected, which is the basis for imprescriptibility,” said the justice.

At the end of his vote, Cristiano Zanin proposed the following judgment thesis for theme 1.194: “The executory claim is imprescriptible and the inter-current statute of limitations is inapplicable in the execution of reparation for environmental damage, even if it is later converted into compensation for losses and damages.”

Art. 225. Everyone has the right to an ecologically balanced environment, which is a common good and essential to a healthy quality of life, and the public authorities and the community have a duty to defend and preserve it for present and future generations.

Source: Gov.br