Multa ou replantio? Estudo comparado de duas decisões do Tribunal de Justiça do Amazonas sobre reparação ambiental à luz da natureza como sujeito de direitos

Abstract

This dissertation investigates the effectiveness of environmental sanctions applied by the Court of Justice of Amazonas (TJ-AM) in repairing damage arising from deforestation, through a comparative analysis of two decisions rendered by the Court: cases n.º 0002516-66.2013.8.04.3100 and n.º 0601018-34.2022.8.04.5600. Both rulings combine the obligation of in natura restoration with pecuniary compensation, but in different ways — in one case, the fine operates residually, covering only what cannot be restored; in the other, as a fixed and autonomous amount. The research starts from the hypothesis that this difference reveals a risk of "pricing" environmental damage, whereby monetary compensation may be absorbed as an operating cost of the degrading activity, even when restoration is also ordered. Grounded in the paradigm of Ecological Constitutionalism and the distinction between the validity and the effectiveness of legal norms, the dissertation examines the two Amazonian cases in light of precedents from the Superior Court of Justice and Latin American experiences recognizing the rights of nature. It concludes that in natura restoration already finds sufficient grounding in current Brazilian law to be treated as the priority sanction, with pecuniary fines playing a subsidiary and exceptional role, and that the main remaining challenge lies in judicial practice rather than in a lack of legal instruments.