The Supreme Court of is asked to review the constitutionality of Articles 2 and 3 of the law 515 / 94. Applicants understand that these articles violate Articles 14, 46, 47, 48, 86, 87, 107, 108, 114 and 176 of the Constitution.
The challenged rule aims to stop the deforestation in the Eastern Region. The defenders of the law argued that the interests of the individual should be subordinated to the national interest to protect the remaining forest, in accordance with Articles 7 and 8 of the Constitution, in which is established the right of everyone to live in a healthy and balanced environment, and the obligation of the state to regulate the activities likely to cause environmental alteration, restricting or prohibiting those qualified as dangerous.
On the basis of this argumentation, the Court interpreted that the fact the state seeks the protection of the forest does not deny the possibility of development for the farmers. This law seeks to regulate the land use, since the amount of timber extracted exceeds the productivity of the forest. For these reasons, the Court found constitutional the challenged Articles.