Compensation value maintained for man whose tractor was seized by IBAMA

The Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (Ibama) is expected to reimburse R$66 to a 63-year-old man, resident in Cascavel (PR), whose tractor was seized by the municipality in 2001. The 4th Panel of the Regional Court Federal District of the 4th Region (TRF4) ordered the return of the vehicle, but as the asset had already been auctioned, payment remained. In the appeal judged, the amount to be compensated was discussed; the owner wanted R$10 more, the amount stipulated by the legal expert, but the amount defined in the first instance was maintained. The unanimous decision of the collegiate was handed down in a telepresence trial session.

According to the author of the case, he was fined by Ibama for destroying native forest, and the tractor was seized. He stated that, even after paying the fine that had been set by the municipality, his vehicle was not returned. The agronomist then filed a lawsuit requesting the return of the property, which was rejected in the sentence by the first degree court.

The man appealed to TRF4, which decided to return the tractor. The case ended up becoming unappealable. Ibama then announced the impossibility of returning it, due to the auction of the vehicle. Therefore, a procedure was initiated by the enforcement court to determine the value of the asset, to ensure correct compensation.

The author argued that the amount should be R$62 to R$66 thousand, referring to the market price of the tractor. Ibama argued that the correct amount would be that allocated at the time of the seizure, around R$32 thousand. In view of the divergence, it was decided to carry out an examination. The expert report indicated that the vehicle had a value of R$76.800,00.

The enforcement court ordered the municipality to pay R$66, as the author had initially requested, and the compensation should be adjusted monetarily by the IPCA and added with interest equivalent to the official savings remuneration since September 2018.

The man filed an appeal with the TRF4, requesting that the compensation amount be the same as the value assessed by the expert. He also claimed that monetary interest would have to accrue from the event of seizure of the asset.

Based on the jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), the rapporteur of the case at the Court, federal judge Luís Alberto D’Azevedo Aurvalle, accepted the appeal in relation to interest and monetary correction. However, he maintained the compensation defined by the execution court.

“The author is protesting against the decision that accepted the value expressly indicated in the initial statement as the amount to be executed. However, in addition to the court having adequately explained the reasons why it did not accept the value attributed to the vehicle in the report, it appears that it is very close to what was indicated by the author in the initial report”, highlighted the judge.

The ruling received the following summary:

ADMINISTRATIVE. INSTRUMENTAL APPEAL. COMPLIANCE WITH SENTENCE. DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF THE DEBIT EXECUTED. ATTRIBUTION OF VALUE TO THE GOOD IN THE SEIZURE TERM. PERFORMANCE OF EXPERTISE. POSSIBILITY. LEGAL ADVICE. APPLICATION OF PRECEDENTS 43 AND 54/STJ. 1. In the absence of adequate individualization of the asset, at the time of inspection, and in the face of the presentation of quotations at values ​​different from those intended by IBAMA, it is possible to assign a value different from that established in the Seizure Agreement. 2. Even though the administrative act has a presumption of legality and veracity, the need to motivate the Administration's acts must also be considered. 3. Incidence of Precedents 43 and 54 of the Superior Court of Justice, regarding legal consequences. (TRF4, AG 5005264-60.2020.4.04.0000, FOURTH PANEL, Rapporteur LUÍS ALBERTO D'AZEVEDO AURVALLE, added to the file on 04/08/2021)