DF Brasília Brazil
This case involves a petition (PET) filed with the Supreme Federal Court (STF) by Senators Fabiano Contarato and Randolph Frederich Rodrigues Alves, and Representative Joenia Batista de Carvalho, seeking an investigation into alleged misconduct by Ricardo Salles, then Brazil's Minister of the Environment. The petitioners argued that Salles's actions while serving as Minister violated the duty of administrative probity and decorum required of the office, particularly regarding Brazilian climate and environmental policy.
According to the parliamentarians, the Ministry of the Environment has failed to meet Brazil's international commitments, particularly those stemming from the Paris Agreement, by not adopting effective policies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or adequately combat illegal deforestation in the Amazon. They also pointed to budget cuts at IBAMA (the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) and ministerial decisions that allegedly weakened environmental oversight. Based on these facts, they requested that the practice be recognized as a crime of negligence, with the consequent loss of office and an eight-year ban from holding public office.
Justice Edson Fachin, acting unilaterally, dismissed the petition, finding that the members of parliament lacked standing to initiate such proceedings. Based on Supreme Federal Court jurisprudence, he affirmed that crimes of responsibility committed by ministers of state, when not connected to crimes committed by the President, are criminal in nature and can only be prosecuted by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, not by private individuals or members of parliament. He also noted that the reported events, while serious, did not present sufficient plausibility to warrant opening a case of this nature.
The complainants filed a Regimental Appeal, insisting that Law 1079/1950 allowed any citizen to file a complaint against a Minister of State. However, before the final ruling, Ricardo Salles was dismissed from his post (June 2021). In light of this, the Rapporteur decided that the appeal had become moot, since the prerogative of forum and the possibility of receiving the complaint only exist while the Minister holds office. With the Supreme Federal Court's loss of jurisdiction, the appeal was declared abandoned and the case definitively closed.
In the petition submitted to the STF, the parliamentarians argued that Ricardo Salles' actions as Minister of the Environment represented a serious violation of the climate commitments assumed by Brazil, constituting conduct potentially classified as crimes of responsibility.
The central argument regarding climate change is that the Ministry, under Salles's leadership, failed to comply with binding international obligations, especially those stemming from the Paris Agreement, ratified by Brazil and fully in force domestically. The complainants asserted that the Agreement imposes duties related to mitigation, preservation of key ecosystems for climate regulation, and the progressive reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, all of which were allegedly ignored or contradicted by ministerial policy.
According to the lawsuit, the Salles administration was characterized by a lack of effective initiatives to meet Brazil's climate goals, including the Brazilian Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). They stated that the Ministry not only failed to act proactively in the face of the climate crisis, but also promoted measures that favored increased emissions, especially through the deliberate weakening of environmental oversight and regulatory deregulation.
One point of emphasis was the growth of illegal deforestation in the Amazon, considered by the complainants to be one of the main drivers of greenhouse gas emissions in the country. They argued that Salles failed to take effective action to curb deforestation and even obstructed the policy to combat it by promoting budget cuts at IBAMA (the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) and changes to command structures that reduced the state's capacity to respond. According to the complainants, this deliberate omission puts the country at risk of climate regression, since protecting the Amazon is essential for global climate stability.
They also mentioned public policy decisions that allegedly incentivized environmentally harmful activities and, therefore, intensified global warming. All of this, they asserted, constitutes a violation of the constitutional duty to protect the environment (Article 225) and of the probity required of government ministers.
The ruling did not assess these arguments, as the case was dismissed due to issues of legitimacy and loss of subject matter.
Members of Parliament:
- Fabiano Contarato
- Randolph Frederich Rodrigues Alves
- Joenia Batista de Carvalho
- Minister of the Environment, Ricardo de Aquino Salles
This petition for a crime of responsibility does not target a specific territory or community whose direct protection is the central objective of the claim. Unlike environmental or climate actions that seek to prevent damage to a specific ecosystem, this petition is political-administrative in nature and is directed exclusively at evaluating the conduct of the then Minister of the Environment, Ricardo Salles.
The complainants—federal parliamentarians—argued that the ministerial management had weakened the national environmental policy, affecting it broadly:
The Amazon, mentioned only as a general reference to the effects of increased illegal deforestation and its impact on GHG emissions.
Environmental oversight systems, especially due to budget cuts to IBAMA and omissions in the protection of sensitive biomes.
However, the case documents do not identify specific local communities, Indigenous peoples, traditional territories, or municipalities directly affected by the reported conduct. The argument rests on the systemic impact of national environmental policy on the climate, deforestation, and the country's capacity to meet its international climate commitments.
International agreements/treaties
- Paris Agreement
National laws
- Federal Constitution of Brazil (CF/1988)
- Law 1.079/1950 — Law on Crimes of Responsibility
- National Environmental Policy (Law 6,938/1981)
- Legal powers of IBAMA and the Ministry of the Environment
Beginning
- Principle of prevention
This record was created using publicly available information. If you have information about this case or would like to suggest updates or corrections, please click here .