On 27 September 2023, Brazil's Supreme Court concluded the trial of Extraordinary Appeal No. 1,017,365, which discussed a cut-off date for indigenous occupation as a requirement for demarcation of indigenous lands. Based on a strict interpretation of the Brazilian Constitution, the time limit thesis tried to implement a cut-off date to restrict indigenous land claims, arguing that only indigenous lands occupied on the date of the 1988 Constitution promulgation could be demarcated by the Federal Government. In reviewing the appeal, the Supreme Court not only rejected the time limit requirement, but also established a broad set of criteria covering other relevant aspects to the demarcation of indigenous lands.
Firstly, the Supreme Court defined new circumstances for compensating bona fide private purchasers/owners harmed by subsequent demarcation of indigenous lands. According to the Court's decision, the compensation criteria already provided for in the Constitutional text should also apply when there is traditional indigenous occupation of the land, or a violation of such occupation, contemporaneous to the promulgation of the Constitution. In other cases, where there is no occupation by an indigenous community or a violation thereof on the date of promulgation, landowners should also be compensated in connection with the bare land value, when their resettlement is unfeasible. Also, provided that it is impossible to demarcate the land and return it to indigenous communities, the Supreme Court stated that the Federal Government may create a proportional reserved area on behalf of the indigenous community.
The Supreme Court also ruled that the anthropological report is one of the fundamental elements for the demarcation procedure and is essential for demonstrating the traditional nature of indigenous occupation. Pursuant to the Constitution, only "traditionally occupied" lands can be demarcated on behalf of indigenous communities. In addition, the Supreme Court agreed that demarcated indigenous lands can be resized, provided that there is proof of a serious and insurmountable error in the original administrative demarcation procedure, which can be raised within up to 5 years after the demarcation has been completed.
The final text of the Supreme Court's ruling has not been published yet, but only a few days after the Supreme Court's ruling, Brazil's Congress approved a bill of law validating the 1988 Constitution cut-off date. The validity of the Bill, however, still depends on the President's sanction. The outcome of the Supreme Court's ruling and the sanction or veto of the Bill have the potential to impact hundreds of litigation cases countrywide, which discuss the expropriation of private lands for indigenous land demarcation and relevant compensation in connection therewith, as well as energy, infrastructure, agribusiness and mining projects.
Visit us at Tauil & Chequer
Founded in 2001, Tauil & Chequer Advogados is a full service law firm with approximately 90 lawyers and offices in Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo and Vitória. T&C represents local and international businesses on their domestic and cross-border activities and offers clients the full range of legal services including: corporate and M&A; debt and equity capital markets; banking and finance; employment and benefits; environmental; intellectual property; litigation and dispute resolution; restructuring, bankruptcy and insolvency; tax; and real estate. The firm has a particularly strong and longstanding presence in the energy, oil and gas and infrastructure industries as well as with pension and investment funds. In December 2009, T&C entered into an agreement to operate in association with Mayer Brown LLP and become "Tauil & Chequer Advogados in association with Mayer Brown LLP."
© Copyright 2020. Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. All rights reserved.
This article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.