Direct damage, collective moral damage and losses to individuals: which damag...

nurejannatnuria

The position that seems to be more reasonable, which should be the subject of future judgments, is that only direct damage is imprescriptible. Thus, pecuniary compensation for collective moral damage and direct losses caused to individuals would not be protected by the mantle of . And, finally, it would only be up to the polluter to restore the environment to its previous state as far as possible. This position is defended by Paulo de Antunes [1] . It is important to highlight that the very foundations for the of environmental civil liability lead to this interpretation. After all, if the objective is to protect an essential good that presupposes a healthy quality of life, it is the restoration of this good that must be an eternal obligation, and not the punishment for the offender, which will prescribe.

Compensation for collective moral damages due to authorized deforestation The Superior Court of Justice recently judged No. 1,612,887, in which it reaffirmed that environmental civil liability Albania Phone Number is objective and guided by the theory of integral risk, in order to rule out causes that exclude liability for breaking the causal link. One specific case, however, has a peculiarity that is worth highlighting. Granting of illegal license for deforestation A gas station was installed after obtaining the relevant environmental licenses, including a license for deforestation of the Atlantic Forest area issued by the state environmental agency with the consent of IBAMA.



The legality of the license was questioned in court, which ruled that the authorization for deforestation was, in fact, illegally granted and ordered the company to repair the environmental damage (reforest the area) and pay compensation in the amount of R$300,000.00 (three hundred thousand ) as collective moral damages. The company then appealed to the Superior Court of Justice and claimed in its defense that the deforestation resulted from an error made by the environmental agency, which constituted a third party act and broke the causal link necessary for liability. Removal of the exclusionary cause of causality The Superior Court of Justice upheld the conviction by dismissing the exclusionary cause, in view of objective liability guided by the theory of integral risk.