This case concerned a fine imposed by the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) on Transhipping Agenciamento Marítimo Ltda (the appellant), a company acting as the maritime agent of CIA Egyptian National Co (the shipowner), due to a diesel oil spill in Guanabara Bay emanating from the Egyptian-flagged ship Alminufiyah Alexandria, which was owned by the shipowner and operated by the appellant.

The first instance Court held that the appellant was liable because it operated the ship that caused the environmental damage, in accordance with art 9 of Decree no 83,540 of 06/04/1979, which regulated the domestic application of the CLC 1969.

The appellant did not deny the existence of the relevant facts. The first instance Court substantiated the existence of environmental damage related to the oil spill at sea.

Held: Special appeal partially upheld.

Under the STJ's jurisprudence, as a rule, environmental administrative responsibility is subjective in nature, requiring intention or guilt. Regarding this subject, it is highlighted that 'the application of administrative penalties does not follow the logic of objective liability in the civil sphere (to repair the damage caused), but must comply with the systematic theory of culpability, that is, the conduct must be committed by the alleged transgressor, with demonstration of its subjective element, and with demonstration of the causal link between conduct and damage'. IBAMA argued that the appellant represents, in Brazil, the company owning the ship that caused the environmental damage, with regard to liability for any fine or penalty determined by the Brazilian authorities against the vessel or its owners as a result of maritime pollution for which they are responsible, in accordance with art 9 of Decree no 83,540 of 06/04/1979, which implements the CLC 1969 in Brazil, the text of which was approved by Legislative Decree No 74, of 30.09.1976, and promulgated by Decree No 347/1977.

The appellant does not deny the existence of the facts. The first instance Court substantiated the existence of environmental damage related to the oil spill at sea. Thus, since the maritime agent participated in the economic activity related to the transport services carried out by the Egyptian ship responsible for the oil spill, it falls within the definition of a polluter, as defined by art 3.4 of Law 6,938/1981, and is jointly and severally liable for damage caused to the environment.