Draft:ADI 6200

ADI 6200
CourtSupreme Federal Court
Full case name Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade 6200 (Associação Nacional dos Procuradores do Trabalho (ANPT) v. Governor of the state of Goiás)
Started22 July 2019 (2019-07-22)
Court membership
Judges sitting
  • President:
  • Justices:
    • ...
Case opinions
Decision byde Moraes
ConcurrenceMarques, Mendes
DissentFachin, Weber
Keywords

ADI 6200[a] is a case of the Supreme Court of Brazil concerning the extraction of asbestos in the state of Goiás after a 2019 state law allowed the activity if done exclusively for exporting to foreign countries.

Background

Prior state of asbestos legislation

On 1 June 1995, then-Brazilian president Fernando Henrique Cardoso promulgated Law 9,055, prohibiting the extraction, production, industrialization and commercialization of five of the six recognized types of asbestos: actinolite, amosite (brown asbestos), anthophyllite, crocidolite (blue asbestos) and tremolite.[1] Notably, it did not prohibit chrysotile (white asbestos), but instead allowed its extraction, industrialization and sale within given safety parameters.[1]

Throughout the years, multiple states passed legislation prohibiting the remaining type of asbestos within their borders. For example, that was the case of Pernambuco with State Law 12,589 of 2004, of Rio de Janeiro with State Law 3,579 of 2001, of Rio Grande do Sul with State Law 11,643 of 2001, and of São Paulo with State Law 12,684 of 2007.[2][3][4] However, since the 1995 federal law explicitly permitted use of the material, the debate of whether state law could directly contradict federal law on this matter was brought to the courts.[4]

In one such case, for instance, the National Industry Workers' Confederation (Confederação Nacional dos Trabalhadores da Indústria; CNTI) argued to the Supreme Court that the state legislation was unconstitutional, because the Constitution states the Federal Government is solely responsible for determining and inspecting working conditions.[2]

In 2017, while ruling on these cases, the Supreme Court determined that the state laws were constitutional, and instead that the exception carved out for white asbestos in the 1995 law itself was unconstitutional.[5] Minister and case rapporteur Rosa Weber argued that the federal law had established minimum safety parameters, and it was not contradictory for states to legislate over it by being even more cautious.[6]

Following the decision, CNTI appealed to the Supreme Court, requesting a review of the outcome.[7] It argued the court shouldn't have ruled on the unconstitutionality of a separate piece of legislation, when its case was about a state law; thus, had it not submitted a case to the court in the first place, asbestos would have remained legal in multiple states.[7] In February 2023, this appeal was denied by the court.[7]

Goiás visit and legislation

The sole operational asbestos mine in the country – and in the Americas as a whole – is located in the state of Goiás, in the mining town of Minaçu, which was built in 1965 around the recently discovered Cana Brava mine.[8][9][10] Consequently, a non-insignificant portion of jobs in Minaçu – reportedly about 22% between 2007 and 2011 – are attributable to asbestos mining, a fact that is often used as an argument for keeping the mine open.[9][b] Another argument is the financial one, seeing as around 70% of the Goiás' state tax revenue (Imposto sobre Circulação de Mercadorias e Serviços; ICMS) comes from its mining operations, a large share of which is of asbestos.[9]

Senator Vanderlan Cardoso, after the Minaçu visit, speaks to the Senate in defense of reopening the asbestos mine, with a sign saying "#Mourning Workers of Minaçu" (for losing their jobs): "No one from the Supreme Court went to Minaçu to see [...] if it was the kind of asbestos that, according to the WHO, caused cancer. They didn't even go there."

In April 2019, then-Federal Senate president Davi Alcolumbre and six other senators travelled to Minaçu, alongside Goiás state governor Ronaldo Caiado, in a campaign to defend the legalization of asbestos mining operations.[11]

Os trabalhos científicos estão aí mostrando que não existe nenhum problema de– que causa câncer, como foi justificado para [o fechamento da mina]. Então, nós temos a convicção que o Supremo Tribunal Federal vai rever a sua posição, e vai entender que essa mina é fundamental para a população de Minaçu, para Goiás e para o Brasil.
The scientific literature is out there showing there's no problem of– that causes cancer, as has been the justification for [the mine's] closure. So, we are convinced the Surpeme Court will revisit its position, and understand that this mine is fundamental for the population fo Minaçu, for Goiás and for Brazil.

— Senator Chico Rodrigues, in interview to TV Senado.[12]

A few months later, in July 2019, governor Caiado promulgated State Law 20,514, which again authorized extraction and processing of white asbestos in the state until 2029, with the caveat that the totality of the extracted mineral must be exported outside the country.[13][8] A reported lack of oversight has permitted the transport of the material through states with legislation prohibiting it, such as São Paulo.[14]

Supreme Court case

Closely following the promulgation of the Goiás law, the National Association of Work Prosecutors (Associação Nacional dos Procuradores do Trabalho; ANPT) submitted case ADI 6200 in the Supreme Court, arguing the legislation is unconstitutional and goes against the previous decisions of the court, calling it "an affront to the principle of the separation of powers".[15]

Votes

https://www.migalhas.com.br/quentes/443164/com-divergencias-julgamento-de-lei-sobre-amianto-e-suspenso-no-stf

Alexandre de Moraes

Gilmar Mendes

Nunes Marques

Rosa Weber

Edson Fachin

Dias Toffoli

Other votes

In October 2025, minister André Mendonça requested a review of the case, which postpones the trial for up to 90 work days.[16] In late March 2026, that deadline expired, and in early April the trial resumed, only for minister Luiz Fux request another review, again suspending the trial.[17]

High Court decision

Judiciary representation

Supreme Court members Ministers Yes No
Alexandre de Moraes 1 1
Nunes Marques 1 1
Gilmar Mendes 1 1
Edson Fachin 1 1
Rosa Weber 1 1
Total 5 3 2

See also

  • ...

Notes

  1. ^ The full case name is Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade 6200, which translates to Direct Action of Unconstituionality 6200
  2. ^ Though, more recently, rare-earth mineral deposits were discovered in the mines, which have been seen as an off-ramp to transition away from asbestos.[10]

References

  1. ^ a b Cardoso, Fernando Henrique (1 June 1995). "Lei Nº 9.055, de 1 de Junho de 1995" [Law Nº 9.055, of 1 June 1995] (in Brazilian Portuguese). Retrieved 22 February 2026.
  2. ^ a b Souza, Giselle (6 April 2015). "TJ-RJ mantém venda e exploração de amianto proibidas no Rio de Janeiro". Consultor Jurídico (in Brazilian Portuguese). Retrieved 22 February 2026.
  3. ^ Haidar, Rodrigo (24 July 2010). "Lei que proíbe amianto não impede sua exportação". Consultor Jurídico (in Brazilian Portuguese). Retrieved 22 February 2026.
  4. ^ a b "Ações sobre amianto voltam à pauta do Plenário nesta quarta-feira (29)". Supreme Federal Court (in Brazilian Portuguese). 28 November 2017. Retrieved 22 February 2026.
  5. ^ "STF reafirma inconstitucionalidade de dispositivo que permitia extração de amianto crisotila". Supreme Federal Court (in Brazilian Portuguese). 29 November 2017. Retrieved 22 February 2026.
  6. ^ Carneiro, Luiz Orlando; Teixeira, Matheus (29 November 2017). "Em julgamento que proíbe amianto no país, STF inova". JOTA (in Brazilian Portuguese). Retrieved 22 February 2026.
  7. ^ a b c Gimarães, Arthur (23 February 2023). "STF mantém decisão que proíbe extração e comercialização de amianto crisotila". JOTA (in Brazilian Portuguese). Retrieved 22 February 2026.
  8. ^ a b Aliaga, Márcia Kamei López (14 August 2024). "É a hora de banir o amianto". CartaCapital. Retrieved 22 February 2026.
  9. ^ a b c Pietrafesa, Pedro Araújo; Bueno, Elielda Aparecida Carvalho; Bueno, Léia Soares (December 2018). "O amianto e seus impactos no município de Minaçu" [Asbestos and its impacts on the city of Minaçu]. GeoTextos (in Brazilian Portuguese). Federal University of Bahia. doi:10.9771/geo.v14i2.26548. Archived from the original on 4 August 2022. Retrieved 23 April 2026.
  10. ^ a b Seta, Isabel (1 July 2025). Girardi, Giovana (ed.). "Brazil's last asbestos miners are switching to rare earth minerals. Can they offer a brighter future?". Agência Pública and The Guardian. Retrieved 23 April 2026.
  11. ^ Guadagnin, Claudia (10 April 2024). Carrano, Pedro (ed.). "Brasil é o terceiro maior produtor de amianto para exportação no mundo" [Brazil is the third largest producer of asbestos for export in the world] (in Brazilian Portuguese).
  12. ^ "Senadores visitam trabalhadores de mineradora em GO" [Senators visit mine workers in Goiás] (in Brazilian Portuguese). TV Senado (via YouTube). 29 April 2019. Retrieved 24 April 2026.
  13. ^ Caiado, Ronaldo Ramos (17 July 2019). "Lei Nº 20.514, de 16 de Julho de 2019" (in Brazilian Portuguese). Retrieved 22 February 2026.
  14. ^ "Brasil é o terceiro maior exportador, mesmo com banimento". Brasil Mineral. 10 January 2025. Retrieved 24 April 2026.
  15. ^ "Associação questiona lei goiana que permite extrair amianto para exportação" [Association questions Goiás law that allows asbestos extraction for export] (in Brazilian Portuguese). 23 July 2019. Retrieved 23 April 2026.
  16. ^ Lacerda, Victoria (27 October 2025). "STF: André Mendonça pede vista e julgamento sobre exploração de amianto é suspenso" [STF: André Mendonça requests review and trial of asbestos exploration is suspended]. Jota (in Brazilian Portuguese). Retrieved 24 April 2026.
  17. ^ Gonçalves, Caroline (16 April 2026). "STF suspende novamente julgamento sobre extração de amianto em Goiás" [Supreme Court again suspends trial of asbestos extraction in Goiás]. CBN Goiânia (in Brazilian Portuguese). Retrieved 24 April 2026.


Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.