Clara Leonel Ramos and Bruno de Almeida de Lima vs. State of São Paulo (Families for the Climate and IncentivAuto Program)

This is an Autonomous Action for the Advance Production of Evidence proposed, against the State of São Paulo, by two individuals, both from the Families for the Climate movement, in order to obtain documents on the implementation of the IncentivAuto Program - Automotive Regime for New Investments, instituted by State Decree 61.130/2019. The applicants justify that these documents may subsidize or prevent the filing of a class action. The program provides for the granting of financing to automotive vehicle manufacturers to carry out projects to expand their industrial plants, implement new factories or develop new products. The applicants allege that there is potential illegality for IncentivAuto to finance projects that do not minimize the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in disagreement with the State Policy on Climate Change - PEMC (State Law 13,798/2009) and with the federal polity on climate change - PNMC (Federal Law 12,187/2009). In addition, they are based on the potential harm to the treasury and the environment in view of the use of resources from the Fund for Support to Taxpayers of the State of São Paulo (FUNAC) to finance projects that stimulate polluting actions, without observing the need to make the socioeconomic development with the protection of the climate system. The applicants highlight the vulnerability of children and adolescents to air pollution and the impacts of climate change. Thus, they require the production of documentary evidence referring to projects submitted to IncentivAuto.

The State of São Paulo presented an opposition alleging that the applicants do not have legitimacy to defend the environment or the rights of children and adolescents and states that the claim is too generic. Furthermore, the State of São Paulo argues that the refusal to present documents was legitimate. Thus, the defendant State concludes by (i) lack of legitimacy and interest in the production of evidence, (ii) untying of the protection of the intended right to the objective facts to be proved with the documents and (iii) existence of secrecy in relation to the documents.

There was a decision by the court granting the request for the presentation of part of the information required and the exhibition of documents by the State of São Paulo, and a decision was later handed down dismissing the case.