Clipping of news on Brazilian Culture, Law and Citizenship
06/04/2016
This article was translated by an automatic translation system, and was therefore not reviewed by people.
transparent image
Official trade
The Second Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) decided that correios (ECT) will have to compensate a transport company in São Paulo for the theft of 392 envelopes of Sedex (Order Service Express). The envelopes containing vouchers transport, which were being transported in a vehicle owned ECT. In case the vehicle was robbed and had all the stolen cargo. The company, owner of the transport vouchers, filed a claim for damages against the Post Office for reimbursement of losses caused by theft.
The understanding of the São Paulo Court of Justice (TJ-SP) is that responsibility was the Post Office, on the grounds that "the contract of carriage, the liability is a result, there is no way to characterize the theft as a cause extintiva of responsibility of the contracted carrier, since it is highly likely that cargo carriers are targeted by burglars, especially in the face of high transported values. "
In the Supreme Court, however, the understanding was another. The rapporteur, Minister Humberto Martins, said that "the jurisprudence of the Court is to the effect that there is no contractual provision establishing the need for the load to be protected by private security, not demonstrated the participation of the carrier's agents in crime or possible guilt, there is no way to blame the post office by load loss. " The Panel unanimously concluded that, without demonstrating that the carrier had failed to adopt the minimally reasonable precautions, cargo theft is force majeure, able to fend off the Post liability.
environmental demands
In the trial sessions scheduled for today and Thursday, the First and Second Superior Court of the class will consider a number of actions related to the environment. Among the processes in question, there is the case of a group of Paraná farmers who claims to have suffered many losses after the artificial lake of the Binational Itaipu Dam. Due to the microclimate changes caused by the lake, farmers claim that the properties located on the shore of the reservoir had decreased agricultural production capacity. The soybean crops, wheat and corn have been affected by temperature increase, impacting even in seed production.
In the first instance, the application of the authors was rejected. The ruling noted that there was prescription period of twenty years to propose the indemnity action. The Itaipu lake was formed in 1982, but the process was introduced only in 2004. The prescription, however, it was dismissed in the judgment of the Federal Court of the 4th Region (TRF-4). Federal 2nd degree understood that the term judges to propose action began when they were perceived damage to the crop, and not when the Itaipu Lake filling occurred. The feature comes to the court will be judged by the First Panel. The Rapporteur is of the minister Sergio Kukina.
The Second Panel also discuss civil action of the Public Ministry of Mato Grosso (MP-MT) and Chapada dos Guimarães Prefecture (MT) against the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (Ibama). In action, the MP-MT and the city claim that the growing real estate speculation and the tourist demands in Chapada dos Guimarães have threatened the natural heritage of the region. The parties argue that the Ibama built a visitor center in permanent preservation area, near a waterfall, threatening the river sources on site.
The judgment condemned Ibama to destroy the buildings next to the waterfall and the reconstruction of the natural vegetation of the protected area. The decision was upheld by the Federal Court of the 1st Region (TRF-1). In the Supreme Court, the special feature of Ibama has as rapporteur Minister Benjamin Herman.
Still in the Second Chamber, the Minister Herman Benjamin is the special feature of rapporteur civil action in which the Federal Public Ministry (MPF) sought to prevent construction company to build a permanent environmental preservation area. According to the MPF, the real estate development company invaded Atlantic Forest preservation area in Marilia (SP). The ministerial body claimed that, pursuant to Law 4,771 / 65 (Forest Code, subsequently repealed), the construction should have respected the limit of 100 meters from the protected area, but it was built 30 meters from the preservation area.
Still in the first instance, the MPF and the builder entered into a conduct adjustment agreement (TAC), which was approved in court. However, the government appealed to the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region (TRF-3) to cancel the agreement, understanding that he had accomplished in step with environmental legislation. The same request was signed by Ibama on appeal. However, the TRF-3 kept the agreement approved in the first instance. The court held that the terms set out in the TAC (recovery of degraded areas and planting of native species) were those that addressed the issue in the best way. Both the Union and Ibama appealed to the court.
Source: Jornal do Commercio
Our news are taken in full of our partner sites. For this reason, we can not change their content even in cases of typographical errors.
This article was translated by an automatic translation system, and was therefore not reviewed by people.