By Redação PortalPortuario
The Federal Public Ministry (MPF) has filed an appeal against a Federal Court ruling considered contradictory by the ministerial body. The court decision annulled the environmental licenses for the construction of a port terminal on the banks of Lake Maicá, an area of extreme ecological and social importance in Santarém (PA). However, it denied the requests for the demolition of the already built structures and for the condemnation of the company for collective moral damages.
In the appeal to the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region (TRF1), the MPF requests a partial modification of the sentence. The Federal Prosecutor Felipe de Moura Palha argues that the collective moral damage is established and that compensation is necessary. “The irregularities were not mere formal failures, but a true pattern of continued violation, which included fraud in the classification of the cargo to be transported and suppression of vegetation,” he emphasizes.
For the MPF, this conduct violated essential values of society, such as the dignity of traditional peoples and communities and the right to a balanced environment, justifying a conviction with a punitive and pedagogical function. “Without the inhibition generated by an adequate pecuniary conviction, nothing will prevent the defendants – or other economic agents – from repeating similar practices, reproducing the same pattern of disrespect for environmental norms and the rights of traditional communities,” argues the Federal Prosecutor.
Furthermore, the appeal maintains that, once the licenses were declared null, the works became illegal from their origin. Therefore, for the MPF, demolition is a “necessary legal consequence” for the full reparation of the environmental damage and to reestablish the legal order, preventing the offender from benefiting from their own irregular conduct.
The MPF’s appeal directly contests the Court’s argument that demolition would be an “extreme” measure. For the Federal Prosecutor, the removal of the structures is an essential instrument for the effective reparation of the damage. The appeal text emphasizes that, since the licenses were annulled, the constructions are the result of an illegal act and, therefore, have no legal basis to remain on site.
Maintaining the works, according to the MPF, would grant an “undue benefit to the offender” and would frustrate the very judicial order that declared the nullity. The appeal reinforces that removal is essential not only to restore the physical environment but also to restore the legal and moral order shaken by administrative fraud and the disregard for the collective rights of participation and information.
The partially contested sentence was issued in September in two lawsuits filed by the MPF and the Public Ministry of the State of Pará (MPPA). The decision recognized that the licensing process, conducted by the Secretariat of State for the Environment, Climate and Sustainability of Pará (Semas), disregarded essential legal requirements.
The sentence concluded that the process was irregular for not conducting the Environmental Impact Study (/Rima), mandatory for ventures with the potential for significant degradation, and for omitting the Prior, Free and Informed Consultation (CPLI) with the potentially affected traditional peoples and communities, a requirement of Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO).
Based on these irregularities, the Court declared the nullity of the Preliminary and Installation Licenses, ordering the immediate suspension of all works and the prohibition of new licenses until the process is regularized.
However, the Court denied the request for compensation for collective moral damages, arguing that there was no evidence of a “serious, unjust and intolerable injury to the fundamental values of the community.” The demolition of the works was also denied, being considered an “extreme and difficult-to-reverse measure,” it said.
