Deciding body (English)
Deciding body (Original)
Type of body
Type of Court (material scope)
Type of jurisdiction
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Further areas addressed
Outcome of the decision
During the Covid-19 pandemic, the executive branch of the Municipality of Joinville, Santa Catarina, issued an administrative act imposing administrative infractions and the possibility of confiscating vehicles used by companies providing public transportation services during the pandemic. In this regard, two companies filed a civil action against the Municipality (“Agravo de instrumento”). Their claim was that the Municipality should refrain from applying sanctions and seizing vehicles. In the first instance, the Local Court prohibited the execution of these measures. The State Public Ministry Office and the Municipality of Joinville filed an appeal against this decision. In the second instance, the Court rejected the first decision. It allowed the Municipality to resume the application of sanctions and administrative measures of apprehension to prevent the spread of the virus.
Facts of the case
During the Covid-19 pandemic, two companies filed an action against the Municipality of Joinville. The claim was that the Municipality would refrain from applying penalties and the administrative measures of apprehension of private collective buses providing public transportation services. In the first instance, the local Court prohibited the execution of such administrative measures. In its decision, it considered it appropriate to provide the transportation service to reduce the financial damage caused by the pandemic. Against this decision, the Public Ministry Office of the State of Santa Catarina filed an appeal so that the Municipality could return to inspecting the companies. The court heard this appeal.
Type of measure challenged
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Type of procedure
Reasoning of the deciding body
First, the Court analyzed the merit of the claim. In this sense, it verified that, in the face of the impossibility of transporting passengers by the public system, the trial court considered the provision of the service to reduce the financial damage caused by the pandemic plausible. Additionally, the Court explained that the financial collection of the charter was justified for mitigating the fare deficit of public transport and, consequently, the subsidy implemented in the transport system by the municipality. It identified that the purpose of the claim was to revoke the first-degree decision so that the municipality could again supervise the companies.
Conclusions of the deciding body
The Court rejected the first decision and allowed that, in addition to the Municipality of Joinville, the municipalities in the north of the State of Santa Catarina could once again apply sanctions and administrative measures aimed at the apprehension of private collective buses during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
- Freedom to conduct a business
- Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
- Right to health, Art. 6, Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988
- Freedom to conduct a business, Art. 5, Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
On the type of procedure: Particular appeal (“Agravo de instrumento”). This appeal aims to prevent severe and irreversible damage to a party from an interlocutory decision. Even if a judge does not hand down a sentence, the decisions he makes during a lawsuit significantly impact the case's resolution. (Civil Procedure Code (Act 1.3105/15) between articles 1.015 and 1.020)