Janot questions Code in opinions

 The three cases contradict the right to property to the balanced environment, and the first, according to the PGR, can not be seen as absolute. To the attorney general, relevance, complexity and socioeconomic scope of the issue, public hearings on the matter should be held. Minister Luiz Fux is the rapporteur of the lawsuits filed in the Supreme and were initiated by federal prosecutors.

ADI 4901 – The action attacks the provisions of Law 12,651 / 2012 in violation of the Constitution because foresee undue reduction of legal reserve areas. According to Rodrigo Janot, there are unconstitutional, the law, the exemption from legal reserve on developments of public water supply and sewage treatment in areas acquired or expropriated by a holder of a concession, permission or authorization for hydro potential exploitation, in which work projects of power generation, substations or they are installed transmission lines and electricity distribution, and acquired or expropriated areas in order to deploy and expand highways and railways (Article 12, paragraphs 6 8 of the law). The opinion also considers unconstitutional the reduction of the legal reserve for the existence of indigenous lands and protected areas in the municipality (Article 12, paragraphs 4 and 5.); the possibility of including in the legal reserve, cover crops that are already permanent preservation areas (art. 15); and the planting of exotic species permit to restore legal reserve (art. 66, para 3). The attorney general also found unconstitutional the possibility of compensation of the legal reserve without ecological identity and lease or donation area in conservation unit to the government (Article 48, paragraph 2, and 66, paragraphs 5 and 6. º) and the consolidation of deforested areas before the changes in the percentage of legal reserve, especially those that occurred from 1996ADI 4902 – In the second action, the attorney general’s office points unconstitutionality of Law 12,651 / 2012: authorization to further deforestation of owners and land holders in which there has been unauthorized removal of vegetation before July 22, 2008, regardless of repair damage (Article 7, paragraph 3); the determination of suspension of activities in the legal reserve only to later irregular deforestation to July 22, 2008 (Article 17, paragraph 3); and the prohibition of punishment of illegal removal of vegetation in permanent preservation areas (APPs) and legal reserve areas and restricted prior use the July 22, 2008 for the simple adhesion of the offender to the Environmental Regularization Program (PRA) and the fines conversion in preservation services, improvement and recovery of the environment (Article 59, paragraphs 4 and 5). According Janot, they are unconstitutional even the suspension of criminal liability for environmental crimes by mere signing of term sheet for land regularization or rural office before environmental agency (art. 60); the consolidation of environmental damage caused to APPs arising from violations of environmental legislation by 22 July 2008 (Articles 61-A to 61-C and 63.); the establishment of authorization for legal reserves below the legal standards in areas of up to four fiscal modules (art. 67); and rural credit allowed the owners not registered rural properties in the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) for five years after the publication of the law (art. 78-A). In practice, environmental crimes committed before July 22, 2008 would not suffer sanctions and their authors, second Rodrigo Janot, would benefit. Also according to the PGR, the treatment distinction undermines the principle of equality. “The impediment to obtain new permits for removal of vegetation in environmental conservation area should achieve, without exception, all those that have committed environmental damage and not repaired,” maintains the PGR.ADI 4903 – This direct action, the opinion points unconstitutional, the law, the broad permission interventions APPs for public use and social interest (Article 3); aquaculture activities in APP permission (Article 4, paragraph 6); intervention in mangroves and salt marshes for the implementation of housing projects (Article 8, paragraph 2); the agricultural use of wetlands outside of traditional communities (Article 4, paragraph 5); and environmental setback in the protection of springs and water holes (arts. 3 and 4). Finally, Janot considers unconstitutional environmental setback in APPs discipline in the vicinity of artificial reservoirs (4 art.); environmental setback in the legal treatment of PPAs in the vicinity of artificial reservoirs for water supply and power generation (Articles 5 and 62.); environmental setback in areas with slope protection (Art. 11); environmental setback in the protection of APPs along waterways (3 art.); and the equalization of family agriculture and family rural areas and properties up to four fiscal modules (art. 3, sole paragraph). The move sees the new law, in art. 3, allowed expansion of possibilities of intervention in PPAs, which were exceptionally admitted in cases of public utility and social interest. For PGR, there is reasonable justification to allow degradation of permanent preservation areas for recreational activities, it is always possible to find suitable alternatives. It is also unreasonable intervention in APP for waste management, ie for the installation of landfills. In all actions,