Draft:ADI 6200
Asbestos case in the Supreme Court of Brazil
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
- President:
- Justices:
- ...
| ADI 6200 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Supreme Federal Court |
| Full case name | Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade 6200 (Associação Nacional dos Procuradores do Trabalho (ANPT) v. Governor of the state of Goiás) |
| Started | 22 July 2019 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting |
|
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | de Moraes |
| Concurrence | Marques, Mendes |
| Dissent | Fachin, Weber |
| Keywords | |
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 what was unconstitutional was the exception carved out for white asbestos in the 1995 law, and that the state laws were constitutional.[5] For the latter point, 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 legislation
In July 2019, Ronaldo Caiado, the governor of the state of Goiás, promulgated State Law 20,514, which again authorized extraction and processing of white asbestos in the state, with the caveat that all the extracted mineral must be exported.[8][9]
The sole asbestos mining operation in the country is located in the state of Goiás, at the Cana Brava mine in Minaçu.[9]
https://periodicos.ufba.br/index.php/geotextos/article/view/26548
https://www.nexojornal.com.br/externo/2025/07/01/cidade-goiana-passado-futuro-mineracao
https://www.brasilmineral.com.br/noticias/brasil-e-o-terceiro-maior-exportador-mesmo-com-banimento
Votes
Alexandre de Moraes
Nunes Marques
Gilmar Mendes
Edson Fachin
Rosa Weber
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
- The full case name is Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade 6200, which translates to Direct Action of Unconstituionality 6200