The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) ruled: fines for environmental infractions do not require prior warning. The judgment took place in a repetitive appeal (topic 1.159, RESP 1984746). The thesis reads as follows: "the validity of administrative fines for environmental infractions, provided for in Law 9.605/1998, does not depend on the prior application of the warning penalty".
According to the ruling, in the case under trial, "the individual was charged with the conduct of fishing for uçá crabs during the period of the trip, which conforms to the environmental administrative infraction provided for in article 35, item I, of Decree 6.514/2008, based on legal in art. 70 c/c art. 34, both of Law 9.605/1998".
Andada is the reproductive period in which male and female crabs leave their holes and travel through the mangroves to mate and release eggs. During this period, which occurs annually, crabs are more vulnerable, as they are outside their holes.
The decision has effects on any type of environmental infraction, not just in cases related to crabs.
Minister Regina Helena Costa was the rapporteur. She stated that the law does not establish a hierarchical order between penalties. "There is no legal provision that makes the fine conditional on prior warning", she pointed out. According to her, the gravity of the fact is the decisive aspect. It is up to the competent authority to assess the situation.
The decision aims to ensure the effectiveness of environmental administrative protection. The warning sanctions less harmful transgressions. Provides a deadline for correcting the irregularity. In serious cases, the direct application of the fine is more effective, according to the minister
In cases of serious ecological damage, it makes no sense to give the offender a deadline, he highlighted. The legislator -- when he wants -- establishes gradations between legal hypotheses explicitly.
The ruling received the following summary:
REPETITIVE SPECIAL FEATURE. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 2015. APPLICABILITY. ENVIRONMENTAL LAW. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSES. APPLICATION OF THE FINE PENALTY WITHOUT PRIOR IMPOSITION OF THE WARNING PENALTY. VALIDITY.
I – According to what was decided by the Plenary of this Court in the session held on 09.03.2016/2015/XNUMX, the appeal regime will be determined by the date of publication of the contested judicial provision. In this case, the Civil Procedural Statute of XNUMX applies.
II – There is no hierarchy between administrative penalties for non-compliance with legislation and environmental regulations provided for in art. 72 of Law no. 9.605/1998.
III – The decisive aspect chosen by the law to guide the collection of administrative sanctions for environmental infractions was, a priori, the seriousness of the fact.
IV – Judgment submitted to the rite of art. 1.036 et seq. of CPC/2015, establishing, under the terms of art. 256-Q, from RISTJ, the following repetitive thesis: The validity of administrative fines for environmental infractions, provided for in Law no. 9.605/1998, does not depend on the prior application of the warning penalty.
V – Special appeal of the individual known in part and dismissed.
(Special Resource 1984746 - AL)
Receive the latest agriculture news by email
Receive the latest agriculture news by email
