ORIGINAL ARTICLE
NETO, Geraldo Miranda da Silva [1], OLIVEIRA, Ana Paula Salviano [2], PINTO, Gilberto de Andrade [3]
NETO, Geraldo Miranda da Silva. OLIVEIRA, Ana Paula Salviano. PINTO, Gilberto de Andrade. The civil liability of the State for environmental damage in cases of omission in inspection. Revista Científica Multidisciplinar Núcleo do Conhecimento. Year 05, Ed. 05, Vol. 13, pp. 51-68. May 2020. ISSN: 2448-0959, Access link: https://www.nucleodoconhecimento.com.br/law/environmental-damage
ABSTRACT
Being and living in an ecologically balanced environment is, among others, a fundamental right provided for in the Federal Constitution of 1988, and it is a duty of the State and the community to preserve and prevent the environment in which we live for present and future generations. From this context, it is possible to note the importance of the topic, as it is an essential and indispensable right for human beings and an obligation of citizens and the State to act in the prevention and repair of environmental damage. This article aims to analyze in the legal system state responsibility in recurring cases of environmental damage, as the public authorities seek to exempt from any responsibility several times, leaving the entire population helpless. Thus, for the development of the theme, it was extremely important to explore, analyze and make an intense study of laws, doctrines and jurisprudence about the civil liability of the State for omission in the inspection of environmental crimes, making, then, the use of the Deductive method. It was necessary to understand and elaborate concepts about environmental damage, understand the guiding principles of Environmental Law, as well as studies about the two kinds of civil liability: objective and subjective. In addition, it was found that both species are responsible for the acts performed and, if any of them causes any damage, it is up to the causer to repair. Based on this assumption, the civil liability of the State, in these cases, is objective. However, from the study carried out, it is understood that the State has the duty to inspect and, it is clear that the omission or non-action sufficiently to prevent an environmental crime, it is up to Him to be responsible for his action or omission of objective manner, regardless of proof of guilt or willful misconduct, it being sufficient only for the occurrence of such damage and the causal link.
Keywords: Objective civil liability, Environmental Law, Environmental damage, Environmental crime, Omission in inspection.
1. INTRODUCTION
The Federal Constitution of 1988 provides in its art. 225 the fundamental rights related to the environment, being, among them, a duty that is incumbent on the Public Power and the community to defend and preserve it. Through supervisory bodies – municipal or state -, the Public Power manages to preserve the environment for present and future generations, guaranteeing an ecologically balanced environment and ensuring society a healthy quality of life. But, when there is an omission of inspection by the latter, causing some damage or environmental crime, is it correct to say that the Public Power is responsible for objective civil liability?
For the development of the theme, it was necessary to explore, analyze and make an intense study of laws, doctrines and jurisprudence about the civil liability of the State for environmental damage in cases of failure to supervise, with an understanding of the guiding principles of Environmental Law in which was indispensable for the elaboration of concepts and opinions throughout the theme.
However, it was understood that the State has the duty to inspect, and the omission or failure to act sufficiently to prevent an environmental crime, it is up to Him to hold such act accountable in an objective way, regardless of proof of guilt or the intent, just the occurrence of such damage and the causal link.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Environmental Law is a very modern branch of law, as it was part of Administrative Law and from the enactment of Law No. Federal Constitution of 1988, its autonomy was consolidated. In addition, it is multidisciplinary, that is, it addresses other topics in addition to Law, such as Biology, Engineering, among others. For Wellington Pacheco Barros
o direito ambiental é um ramo do direito público e este, segundo conceituação clássica, se constitui no conjunto de normas que organizam o poder soberano e a ordem política e, no ponto que interessa, regulam o funcionamento, as relações e os interesses do Estado entre os seus agentes e a coletividade (BARROS, 2008, p. 41).
Environmental Law aims to protect the environment and man, because there is no life where there is not a preserved environment with minimal resources to live. Therefore, it is a branch of Public Law that seeks to alleviate the problems in the relationship between man and the environment.
2.1 ENVIRONMENT CONCEPT
The concept of the environment is quite broad and, many times, much discussed. Law No. 6938, of August 31, 1981, which provides for the National Environmental Policy, its purposes and formulation mechanisms, provides, in its art. 3, I, the following:
Art 3º – Para os fins previstos nesta Lei, entende-se por:
I – meio ambiente, o conjunto de condições, leis, influências e interações de ordem física, química e biológica, que permite, abriga e rege a vida em todas as suas formas.
For the indoctrinator Toshio Mukai, the environment is defined as “a set of norms and legal institutes belonging to various branches of law brought together by their instrumental function for the discipline of human behavior in relation to their environment” (MUKAI, 2007, p. 10).
And, for Édis Milaré, it is defined as “The complex of principles and coercive norms that regulate human activities that, directly or indirectly, may affect the health of the environment in its global dimension, aiming at its sustainability for present and future generations”. (MILARÉ, 2011, p. 1062).
The caution that both give to the characterization of the concept of the environment is remarkable, since, as it is a primordial right and so little discussed, the vast reduction or extermination of the environment ends up extinguishing all the means of life known until then and, consequently, existing laws across the global dimension.
2.2 MAIN PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
The principles of Environmental Law are important guidelines on which to find support in cases of gaps in the application of the laws that deal with them. Based on this assumption, the main principles are:
2.2.1 PRINCIPLE OF PRECAUTION
The Precautionary Principle was created by the United Nations – UN – conference on development and the environment in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, through principle 15.
Princípio 15 – De modo a proteger o meio ambiente, o princípio da precaução deve ser amplamente observado pelos Estados, de acordo com suas capacidades. Quando houver ameaça de danos sérios ou irreversíveis, a ausência de absoluta certeza científica não deve ser utilizada como razão para postergar medidas eficazes e economicamente viáveis para prevenir a degradação ambiental.
Thus, we have that this principle is related to the protection of the environment in which we live and the safety of the integrity of human life, seeking an act in advance of the occurrence of environmental damage, that is, it is an uncertain risk. Some scholars point out that this should be seen as a predecessor principle to prevention precisely because its concern is not to avoid environmental damage, but to avoid any risk of damage to the environment.
Furthermore, it should be noted that this principle is found in art. 225, §1, IV, of the Federal Constitution and, concomitantly, in art. 10, §1, of Law No. 6,938/81, ensuring that the effectiveness of this right is incumbent on the Public Power to carry out some acts, such as the requirement of prior studies of environmental impacts in activities that may cause significant degradation to the environment and environmental licensing , both with extensive publicity.
It remains clear to say that the precautionary principle is not a discretionary act of the Public Power, but a rule provided for by law, in which it is necessary to have a prior study of the environmental impact, due inspection and licensing, and the State cannot be exempted from this obligation.
2.2.2 PRINCIPLE OF PREVENTION
Different from the above-mentioned principle, this one arises from the verification of some risk, that is, it is a certain risk and when there are certain elements to affirm that a certain activity is effectively dangerous. In practical terms, once the previous occurrence of an activity that presents risks of damage to the environment is known, it cannot be developed, since the prevention of this damage is more advantageous than the remediation itself, because, if it occurs such degradation activity, that environment will no longer be the same, losing its characteristics, structures and benefits that it had before the activity that ended up destroying it, not managing, finally, that environment to return to what it was, being reparation for the damage caused is impossible. Thus, based on this evidence, it is the State’s duty to seek the best ways to solve the problem.
Provided in art. 225, VI, of the Federal Constitution, is expressed in the text of the caput, making it clear that it imposes on the community and on the Public Power the duty to protect and preserve the ecological balance, for present and future generations.
It is not a discretionary act of the Public Power as it is merely an obligation, once it is aware that a certain activity presents risks of damage to the environment, it cannot be carried out, because, if any environmental damage occurs, its repair is practically null.
2.2.3 INTEGRAL REPAIR PRINCIPLE
This principle points out that the degradation caused to the environment in the event of an incident, its recovery must be as wide as possible, in some cases, regardless of the financial condition of the causer, and may exceed its purchasing power. According to Law No. 7,347/85, in its art. 13, if reparation is not possible, cash compensation will be due, reverted to a defense fund.
In turn, Álvaro Luiz Valery Mirra, a magistrate in São Paulo, taught that this principle should lead the environment and its respective society to situations in measures equivalent to those of beneficiaries if the damage had not occurred. Therefore,
A reparação integral do dano ao meio ambiente deve compreender não apenas o prejuízo causado ao bem ou recurso ambiental atingido, como também, na lição de Helita Barreira Custódio, toda a extensão dos danos produzidos em consequência do fato danoso , o que inclui os efeitos ecológicos e ambientais da agressão inicial a um bem ambiental corpóreo que estiverem no mesmo encadeamento causal, como, por exemplo, a destruição de espécimes, habitats, e ecossistemas inter-relacionados com o meio afetado; os denominados danos interinos, vale dizer, as perdas de qualidade ambiental havidas no interregno entre a ocorrência do prejuízo e a efetiva recomposição do meio degradado; os danos futuros que se apresentarem como certos, os danos irreversíveis à qualidade ambiental e os danos morais coletivos resultantes da agressão a determinado bem ambiental. (MIRRA, 2002, p. 314, 315)
Finally, such repair must consider all the dimensions of degradation suffered by the environment, being current or future, material and immaterial, not admitting limitation to repairability.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME AND ITS CIVIL RESPONSIBILITY IN THE LEGAL ORDER
Currently, there is a vast environmental degradation – extinction of animal and plant species, climate change, among others – to meet new needs of society when it comes to quality of life. With this, it was necessary, in addition to other reasons in common, that Criminal Law act in the face of the criminalization of “anti-ecological” conduct.
In the criminal sphere, when dealing with such matter on legal responsibility, the principle of minimum intervention is used, approached as the ultima ratio, which guides and limits the State’s power to incriminate, always analyzing that, it will only be applied if the other forms of sanctions or other means of social control become insufficient, leaving, then, the command of the penal area.
In this sense, the indoctrinator Édis Milaré (2016, p. 293) raises questions regarding the framework in the criminal sphere, as follows:
Mesmo quando, no mundo dos fatos, houver indícios da ocorrência de uma determinada conduta, que o Direito Penal qualifica, a priori, como criminosa, o hermeneuta, à luz do princípio da intervenção mínima, deverá avaliar as circunstâncias do caso concreto e a efetiva periculosidade da situação que se lhe apresenta, antes de, com açodamento, pretender simplesmente enquadrá-la na letra fria da lei.
In this way, the hermeneutic should consider all the circumstances of the act, aiming at other corrective means, thus concretizing the principle of minimum intervention.
The principle of cooperation is also observed in the Federal Constitution, which according to Nogueira “Our Federal Constitution delegates to the public power the protection of the environment, but also to the whole community (caput, 225), so for us the sense of cooperation is a duty everyone to prevent” (NOGUEIRA, 2007, p. 16).
In this sense, observing the principle, it is noted that it is the duty of the State and the community to protect the environment, safeguarding this obligation in our Magna Carta, opening the way for the accountability of those who fail to comply with it.
4. CIVIL RESPONSIBILITY
The State has prerogatives in its action due to the supremacy of the public interest over private interests, applying the principle of isonomy, inherent to the constitutional legal system, when facts arise in which, for the benefit of a society, the State causes lawful damage for a particular individual or a small group of individuals, in which they will be compensated as a way of promoting such benefit and, intensifying and repairing such inequality caused by state action. And, it occurs in the same way when the State causes an unlawful damage to an individual, a group of individuals or a society, generating a duty to repair the damage.
Furthermore, currently, this duty of reparation for damages caused by the Public Administration is, therefore, peaceful, both in the Brazilian legal system, as in doctrine and jurisprudence.
4.1 CONCEPT
Civil liability expresses the idea of reparation, that is, when the public entity causes damage to third parties, it is incumbent upon it to pay compensation for such damage caused.
Such accountability is regulated by the Federal Constitution, as observed in art. 37, §6:
Art. 37. A administração pública direta e indireta de qualquer dos Poderes da União, dos Estados, do Distrito Federal e dos Municípios obedecerá aos princípios de legalidade, impessoalidade, moralidade, publicidade e eficiência e, também, ao seguinte:
(…)
§ 6º As pessoas jurídicas de direito público e as de direito privado prestadoras de serviços públicos responderão pelos danos que seus agentes, nessa qualidade, causarem a terceiros, assegurado o direito de regresso contra o responsável nos casos de dolo ou culpa.
In the same sense, the Civil Code, in its art. 43, establishes the configuration of accountability of the public entity, in litteris:
Art. 43. As pessoas jurídicas de direito público interno são civilmente responsáveis por atos dos seus agentes que nessa qualidade causem danos a terceiros, ressalvado direito regressivo contra os causadores do dano, se houver, por parte destes, culpa ou dolo.
Based on this premise, the indoctrinator Maria Sylvia Zanella di Pietro adds the following: “Civil liability is of a patrimonial nature and stems from article 186 of the Civil Code, which enshrines the rule, universally accepted, according to which anyone who causes harm to others is obliged to repair it” (DI PIETRO, 2010, p. 611).
Therefore, it is emphasized that the civil liability of the State in relation to third parties is not excluded, provided that it has occurred in a negligent or willful manner for the damage then caused.
4.2 OBJECTIVE CIVIL RESPONSIBILITY
Strict civil liability is a species defined as liability without fault, focusing on the damage caused and not on the failure of certain human behavior that led to the then event. In other words, such liability does not require proof of guilt in relation to the harmful fact, arising as a result of lawful – or even unlawful – facts, as long as the interested party confirms the causal relationship between the fact and the damage.
In the same perspective, Carvalho Filho (2014, p. 572) adds the following:
A responsabilidade objetiva é um plus em relação à responsabilidade subjetiva e não deixa de subsistir em razão desta; além do mais, todos se sujeitam normalmente à responsabilidade subjetiva, porque essa é a regra do ordenamento jurídico. Por conseguinte, quando se diz que nas omissões o Estado responde somente por culpa, não se está dizendo que incide a responsabilidade subjetiva, mas apenas que se trata da responsabilização comum, ou seja, aquela fundada na culpa, não se admitindo então a responsabilização sem culpa.
Thus, considering civil liability, it is noted that if subjective liability were adopted, it would be very difficult to prove the fault of the person causing the damage. In strict liability there are several theories about it, among them the theory of risk.
Analyzing such theories, Washington de Barros Monteiro, in his modest understanding, enumerated them, in a more authentic and precise way, in their respective understanding, teaching that:
A responsabilização objetiva desenvolveu-se em várias teorias sendo a primeira delas a do risco integral. Esta diz que a obrigação de reparar o dano nascerá do exercício de qualquer atividade, desta forma, para tal teoria, o direito à indenização decorrerá da existência de um dano ligado a uma atividade. A segunda teoria é a do risco proveito, a qual determina que a pessoa que exercer uma atividade e que dela obtém proveito ou vantagem estará obrigada a reparar os danos decorrentes do exercício desta atividade. A terceira é a teoria dos atos normais e anormais, que leva em consideração a média praticada pela sociedade. A quarta teoria é a do risco criado, segundo a qual a obrigação de reparar o dano nascerá simplesmente do exercício da atividade ameaçadora de risco. (MONTEIRO, 2001, p. 510).
Therefore, it is enough for the interested party to prove causality between the activity carried out and the damage caused, even though the harmful activity is in fact lawful, and it is not necessary to prove guilt, thus creating the obligation to indemnify all those who were somehow affected.
4.3 OBLIGATION TO INDEMNIFY
According to Sergio Cavalieri Filho (2010, p. 3) “The civil code, in the title above its art. 927, categorizes the duty to indemnify as an obligation. That is to say, among the existing types of obligation (to give, to do, not to do), the code included one more – the obligation to indemnify”.
Therefore, because it is an obligation, it is not up to the agent simply to exempt himself from his responsibility, and he must bear the consequences, seeking to put the injured party in the state he was in before the harmful event, or at least to reduce the damages.
5. THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE STATE FOR OMISSION IN INSPECTION
The civil liability of the State for environmental damage is dealt with in art. 14, §1, of Law No. 6,938/81, in which it is classified as objective civil liability. This law predates the Federal Constitution of 1988, but was approved.
Therefore, art. 225, in its constitutional text, established and determined that the State and its respective collectivity have several duties, such as defending and preserving the environment, so that both can live in an ecologically balanced environment. Thus, §1 and its respective sections impose on the Public Power and on individuals the duty and power to preserve the environment for present and future generations.
It remains clear that it has become the most effective instrument in remedial action, since the institute aims to reconstitute the existing situation even before possible environmental damage occurs.
Based on this premise, Elenise Felzke Schonardie provides the following understanding:
Dessa maneira geral, a conduta omissiva leva ao dever de reparar, pois, nesses casos, a lei exige a realização de determinados atos, que devem ser observados pelo agente estatal. […] A omissão, por exemplo, configura-se quando, no dever constitucional de proteger o meio ambiente (art. 225 da CF/88), o município mantém-se inerte. (SCHONARDIE, 2008, p.88).
Therefore, it is the State’s duty to act preventively, putting into practice its Police Power, and it should be penalized in case of omission, except in fortuitous cases or force majeure.
In this way, any state entity has the legitimacy to hold or be held responsible civilly in the condition of polluter, and it is not up to them to exempt themselves from such responsibility.
5.1 THE ACTS THAT CONFIGURE THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE STATE
According to the Magna Carta, the recognition of civil liability of the state only exists in the presence of three elements: harmful event, action (or omission) of the state and the causal link.
a) The harmful event, according to the majority doctrine, is the result of a sum of activities that, in one way or another, end up producing the degradation of the environment or, then, of one or more of its respective components.
Such an event covers material and immaterial injuries, as provided in art. 1, caput and inciso I, of Law No. 7347/85, with wording given in Law No. 12,529, of 2011, in verbis:
Art. 1º Regem-se pelas disposições desta Lei, sem prejuízo da ação popular, as ações de responsabilidade por danos morais e patrimoniais causados
l – ao meio-ambiente; (…)
Therefore, in the absence of the harmful event, there is no civil liability of the state. In this context, the concept of damage is given in the broad sense, not being restricted to material damage, or moral damage, but both, taking into account that the environment belongs to all of us, and an eventual tragedy can cause psychological and material injuries.
b) The action or omission of the state is the conduct adopted by the state in a certain situation, and it may act or simply not act. This conduct can also be lawful – in accordance with legality and customs or illegal – disregarding legality and customs. In this case, what we take into account is the conduct that, actively or passively, contributes to the occurrence of a harmful event that affects a third party.
c) The causal link is fundamental for the recognition of civil liability, as there can be liability without fault, but there can never be liability without a causal link. According to Sergio Cavalieri Filho (2012, p. 67) “it is the reference element between the conduct and the result. It is through him that we can conclude who did the damage.” The causal link is the link between the action or omission and the harmful event, thus being a fundamental element for the characterization of civil liability.
5.2 THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE STATE IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGES AND CRIMES FOR OMISSION IN INSPECTION
The public administration has the power-duty to protect the environment, through its police power, thus respecting the impositions brought by the Federal Constitution. And as already discussed, about civil liability, whoever causes damage to another has a duty to repair it. In this way, the state does have a duty of reparation in cases of damage to the environment, as it is incumbent upon it to inspect, in accordance with article 225 of the Magna Carta, thus not fitting a complete omission of its police power.
In this aspect, the State may be held liable in two ways, when it acts directly causing the harmful event, or when it fails to fulfill its duty of supervision. For Cavalieri (2006, p. 201):
A chamada responsabilidade por fato de outrem – expressão originária da doutrina francesa – é responsabilidade por fato próprio omissivo, porquanto as pessoas que respondem a esse título terão sempre concorrido para o dano por falta de cuidado ou vigilância. Assim, não é muito próprio falar em fato de outrem. O ato do autor material do dano é apenas a causa imediata, sendo a omissão daquele que tem o dever de guarda ou vigilância a causa mediata, que nem por isso deixa de ser causa eficiente. (…) Não se trata, em outras palavras, de responsabilidade por fato alheio, mas por fato próprio decorrente da violação do dever de vigilância. Por isso, alguns autores preferem falar em responsabilidade por infração dos deveres de vigilância, em lugar de responsabilidade pelo fato de outrem.
In this sense, the state has the duty to protect the environment through inspection to prevent possible damage, leaving no doubt of its objective civil liability.
In addition, the courts have the following understanding:
AÇÃO CIVIL PÚBLICA AMBIENTAL. DEGRADAÇÃO DE ZONA DE PRESERVAÇÃO ECOLÓGICA PELA INSTALAÇÃO E FUNCIONAMENTO CLANDESTINO DE FONTE DE POLUIÇÃO. INFRAÇÕES AMBIENTAIS REITERADAS DURANTE DÉCADAS. PROVA DO DANO. ALEGAÇÃO DE RESPONSABILIDADE OBJETIVA E SOLIDÁRIA DO MUNICÍPIO E DO ESTADO POR OMISSÃO NA FISCALIZAÇÃO. IMPOSIÇÃO DE OBRIGAÇÕES DE FAZER AOS ENTES PÚBLICOS E DE NÃO FAZER AO PARTICULAR. POSSIBILIDADE DE MULTA DIÁRIA POR DESCUMPRIMENTO E DE INVERSÃO DO ÔNUS DA PROVA. SENTENÇA QUE SE TORNOU INEXEQUÍVEL ANTE A FALTA DE RECURSO DO AUTOR. RECURSO OFICIAL, CONSIDERADO INTERPOSTO, E APELAÇÕES DO MUNICÍPIO E DO ESTADO PROVIDAS. APELAÇÃO DO RÉU PARCIALMENTE PROVIDA, APENAS PARA LIMITAR OS EFEITOS DA SENTENÇA À PARCELA DA PROPRIEDADE INSERIDA NOS LIMITES DA SERRA DO ITAPETI.(TJ-SP – APL: 90633578320098260000 SP 9063357- 83.2009.8.26.0000, Relator: Antonio Celso Aguilar Cortez, Data de Julgamento: 20/06/2013, 1a Câmara Reservada ao Meio Ambiente, Data de Publicação: 28/06/2013).
From then on, it is possible to conclude that there is, in fact, a pre-existing obligation of the State to protect the environment, leaving no doubt as to the responsibility of the State entity being objective, due to the State’s omission in an illicit way or by have failed in the face of such a situation, thus not preventing the occurrence of environmental damage.
6. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
The civil liability of the State for omission of inspection in cases of environmental damage covers several forms of defense of the rights of the citizen that are guaranteed by the Federal Constitution of 1988, in which it aims to enable a greater number of actions/omissions that provides a considerable risk of potentially harmful to the environment, with the aim of guaranteeing a certain preservation of a healthy environment for all.
Although little discussed, the matter related to the environment is extremely important for society, because, once there is a great carelessness, it will cause damage that will spread, sooner or later, to the whole world. Therefore, the concern of environmentalists and ecologists, for the permanent destruction of the environment.
The fundamental right of the environment, guaranteed by art. 225, of the Federal Constitution, determines that it must be protected and respected by everyone, from natural persons to legal entities, or also by state entities, since such a right is based on the active participation of the public power and its collectivity.
Civil liability is an institute created to protect and safeguard human rights. Therefore, it presumes damage, a loss to the third party, and, with that, the objective of reconstituting that balance that was violated by the damage, not only the act of indemnity, but also the compensation for the damages caused.
Therefore, the civil liability of the State for omission is configured when it had the duty to act and did not do it and, if it did, it acted inappropriately, and therefore, should stop performing the act for the benefit of its servants. As a result, this damage generates some damage to a person or a group of people or a society, and the State must therefore respond objectively, that is, regardless of proof of guilt or willful misconduct, with the occurrence of such damage being sufficient and the causal link. In this sense, the State’s responsibility in the face of failure to inspect its duty is, without a doubt, objective, requiring the application of the principles related to the environment, which are those of preservation, precaution and repair, constituting only one purpose, that a healthy and balanced environment is guaranteed for current and future generations, thus fulfilling the Constitutional text that deals with this matter.
REFERENCES
BARROS, Wellington Pacheco. Curso de Direito Ambiental. 2ª ed. São Paulo: Atlas, 2008.
BRASIL. constituição Da República Federativa Do Brasil De 1988. Disponível em: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm.
BRASIL. Lei nº 10.406, de 10 de janeiro de 2002. Lei de Introdução às normas do Direito Brasileiro. Disponível em: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/2002/l10406.htm.
BRASIL. Lei nº 6.938, de 31 de agosto de 1.981. Política Nacional do Meio Ambiente. Disponível em: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Leis/L6938.htm
BRASIL. Lei nº 7.347, de 24 de julho de 1985. Ação civil pública de responsabilidade por danos causados ao meio-ambiente. Disponível em: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/L7347orig.htm.
BRASIL. Lei nº 9.605, de 12 de fevereiro de 1998. Lei de Introdução às normas do Direito Brasileiro. Disponível em: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9605.htm.
CARVALHO FILHO, José dos Santos. Manual de Direito Administrativo. 26ª. Ed. Rev., ampl. E atual. Até 31-12-2012. São Paulo: Atlas, 2013.
CARVALHO, Matheus. Manual de Direito Administrativo. 3ª ed. Salvador: JusPODIVM, 2016.
CAVALIERI FILHO, Sergio. Programa de Responsabilidade Civil. 10ª ed. São Paulo: Atlas, 2012.
CAVALIERI FILHO, Sergio. Programa de Responsabilidade Civil. 4ª ed. São Paulo: Malheiros, 2006.
CAVALIERI FILHO, Sergio. Programa de Responsabilidade Civil. 9ª ed. São Paulo: Atlas, 2010.
DI PIETRO, Maria Sylvia Zanella. Direito Administrativo. 23ª ed. São Paulo: Forense, 2010.
GONÇALVES, Carlos Roberto. Direito Civil Esquematizado. 8ª Ed. São Paulo, SP : Saraiva Educação, 2018.
MILARÉ, Édis. Direito do Ambiente: a gestão ambiental em foco. 7ª ed. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 2011.
MILARÉ, Édis. Direito do Ambiente: a gestão ambiental em foco: doutrina, jurisprudência, glossário. 6ª ed. rev. atual. eampl. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 2009.
MILARÉ, Édis. Reação jurídica a danosidade ambiental. Dissertação (Dissertação em direito) – PUC-SP. São Paulo, 2016.
MIRRA, Álvaro Luiz Valery. Ação civil pública e a reparação do dano ao meio ambiente. São Paulo: Juarez de Oliveira, 2002.
MONTEIRO, Washington de Barros. Curso de direito civil. 2ª ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2007.
MUKAI, Toshio. Direito Ambiental Sistematizado. 6ª ed. São Paulo: Forense Universitária, 2007.
RIO DE JANEIRO. CONVENÇÃO SOBRE DIVERSIDADE BIOLÓGICA, 1992.
RODRIGUES, Marcelo Abelha. Direito Ambiental Esquematizado. 6ª Ed. São Paulo, SP : Saraiva Educação, 2019.
SCHONARDIE, Elenise Felzke. Dano ambiental: a omissão dos agentes públicos. Passo Fundo: UPF Editora, 2003.
SIRVINSKAS, Luís Paulo. Tutela Penal do Meio Ambiente. 4ª ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2011.
[1] Law graduation.
[2] Law graduation.
[3] Master in Law. Specialization in Public Law. Law graduation.
Sent: May, 2020.
Approved: May, 2020.
