A responsabilidade civil do Estado frente às limitações ao direito de propriedade nas áreas de preservação permanente, às margens de rios urbanos

Abstract

The present study intends to examine if the limits to construction or reconstruction of real estate ventures in permanent preserving areas at river banks in an urban area, as a way of conserving the environment, brings about the civil responsibilities of the State for any possible harm suffered by the third party as the Federal Constitution of 1988 claims. It empowers the analysis made from bibliography research, the Brazilian Legislation, the theoretical concepts brought about by the doctrine and the positioning of the Brazilian courts. It has been clear that the industrialization process started at the Industrial Revolution changed cities into urban agglomerations which can cause irreversible impacts onto the environment. The technological era reached its limits, making it necessary to rethink the man s attitude in relation to the environment for the conservation of the existing natural resources. The legislation has evolved throughout history in the means of environmental protection. The peak is reached when the Federal Constitution of 1988 assigns constitutional status to the environment, entitling it as the fundamental right and property for common use among the people. Being knowledgeable of that constitutional prevision (article 225) also at the fundamental rights level, it is found the right of property (article 5th) demanding a legal analysis of the prevailing of collective and diffused rights over the individual ones. It is understood through the constitutional exegesis added by the legal analysis of the City Statute that the right of property is made up of the social environmental functions, so much that the property gets empty of subject when its use generates environmental damages. However, there are situations when the legislator, trying to protect the environment set areas of permanent conservation, as it is established in the 2nd Article of the Forest Code and, furthermore, it specifies limits in the Urban Land Parceling and Resolutions Law of CONAMA. It occurs that there are many enterprises which have already been built, others are licensee and some sites without any construction plan are located in permanent preserving areas at urban river banks. Under the constitutional support and the principle logic focus, priming for the environmental conservation, without emptying the right to property, they are presented as possible solutions for real estates located in permanent preserving areas, at the urban river banks: a) to the owner of unused plot of land and without construction license there is no right for compensation; b) the owner who has the license issued before the advent of the Urban Land Parceling Law (1989), but has not built the enterprise yet, it will not be allowed to build it, however, he has the right for compensation due to the harms suffered; c) the owner of consolidated building, who, because of administrative limits will not be allowed to remodel, extend or demolish the constructed area, will be reimbursed, in the terms of indirect dispossess. However, the compensation or reimbursement is not presented as an economically possible solution for the municipalities, being thus the transaction through elaboration of adjusting terms of procedure more adequate to make it possible for the owners of the consolidate real estates which are located in areas of permanent conservation a pecuniary compensation or onerous warrant of environmental re-qualification.