| Basic information | Substance of the ruling | Accessibility of the case and further relevant links | |||||||
| Date | Name of the case (or case number) | The body delivering the decision | Keywords, topic | Executive part | Brief summary | Full text | Page at the website of the issuing court | Page in other databases | Unofficial materials, press communications |
| 08. 06. 2020 | ADPF 690 MC | Supreme Court of Brazil | Epidemiological data, Right to information, freedom of expression | Claim partially upheld | Claimants have reported that there have been three delays in the release of the new coronavirus outbreak figures in one week. The applicant brought an action for breach of a fundamental principle in respect of measures restricting the publicity and transparency of data relating to COVID-19. It argued that the withholding of information on the numbers of the Covid-19 outbreak had a negative impact on the planning and control of the outbreak. According to the Supreme Court, the delay and control of the publication of Covid-19 data may also have an impact on the implementation of public measures to combat the pandemic. The Supreme Court recognised the importance of ensuring full access to information for society as a whole. The principles of openness and transparency were enshrined in the federal constitution, and therefore the federal government and other public authorities were obliged to provide basic information to society. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/sites/default/files/node-case/2022-01/braziladpf6908-june-2020.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/brazil-federal-supreme-court-adpf-690-mc-2020-06-08 | ||
| 06. 06. 2020 | Ação Cível Originária (ACO) 3.393 Mato Grosso. Min. R. | Supreme Federal Court of Brazil | Right to health | Claim partially upheld | In an action brought to resolve conflicts between federal bodies, the Court analysed a case in which the federal government sought the repurchase of some lung ventilators previously purchased by the State of Mato Grosso to counteract the complications of the pandemic. Faced with the State's request for the annulment of the above-mentioned act and the return of the equipment, the Court held that the ventilators were public goods which could not be the subject of a repurchase, except in circumstances not covered by the case. According to the Supreme Court, the autonomy of federal bodies is essential. Because of the health emergency and the shortage of supplies, the federal government should have coordinated the procurement of equipment instead of focusing on availability and distribution. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/sites/default/files/node-case/2021-11/brazilsupreme-federal-court6-june-2020.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/brazil-supreme-federal-court-acao-civel-originaria-aco-3393-mato-grosso-min-r-o-b-2020 | https://www.conjur.com.br/2020-mai-29/stf-rejeita-pedido-mt-mantem-divisa-inalterada | |
| 26. 05. 2020 | Medida Cautelar na Suspensão de Segurança | Federal Supreme Court of Brazil | Scope of powers of public authorities, Right to education, Freedom to conduct a business | Claim upheld | The Supreme Court analysed the action authorising the resumption of the activities and operation of a high school. According to the Ministry, although the federal regulations included the activity of the gymnasium among the public services and essential activities, these measures were not in line with the worsening situation of the pandemic. This forced the municipality of Osasco, São Paulo, to order the suspension of these activities. Furthermore, according to the Ministry, the measure violated the administrative order and caused numerous damages. In its analysis, the Supreme Court focused on the state of emergency and necessity. It stressed that although the federal norm included these facilities as an essential activity, local autonomy should have prevailed when the local order was relevant, always respecting Brazilian federalism. | https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/jurisprudencia/stf/861456977 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/brazil-brazilian-supreme-federal-court-medida-cautelar-na-suspensao-de-seguranca-5389 | https://summumiuris.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/A-resposta-do-direito...-1.pdf | |
| 21. 05. 2020 | Case No. 2-20-EE, Judge-rapporteur: Ramiro | Supreme Court of Brazil | Scope of powers of public authorities | Claim upheld | Authorities must observe technical and scientific criteria of medical and sanitary entities when carrying out their actions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their actions are subject to the principle of prevention and of precaution. This means that if there is any doubt as to the effects of any measure, authorities should not apply it; self-restraint must guide the Administration. | ||||
| 16. 05. 2020 | HC 184828 | Supreme Court of Brazil | Freedom of movement of people, Equality, Right to bodily integrity | Claim upheld | An act issued by the president of the Republic that disaccredits Venezuelan diplomats is valid, since it falls within his private and non-delegable competence. However, the 48-hour deadline given to the diplomats to leave the national territory is not reasonable considering the current circunstances of the pandemic. Court stated the act was valid, but its validity is suspended until the declaration of a pandemic status is in force. The merits of this action have not yet been analysed and decided by the Supreme Court and the injunction is still in force. | https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/jurisprudencia/stf/842988775 | https://www.estadao.com.br/blogs/blog/wp-content/uploads/sites/41/2020/05/hc-184828-mc-1_160520200848.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/brazil-federal-supreme-court-hc-184828-2020-05-16 | |
| 14.05. 2020 | ADI 6359 MC-REF | Supreme Court of Brazil | Election, Political activity | Claim rejected | The established deadlines for the municipal elections shall remain in force, despite the state of pandemic caused by COVID-19. According to the Plaintiff, the pandemic had an impact on the electoral calendar, which set strict rules for citizens to join political parties, withdraw from contracts incompatible with registering as a candidate, and so on. The Supreme Court found that the reasoning was not sufficient to suspend or postpone the electoral calendar, which expresses a fundamental democratic right. | https://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/detalhe.asp?incidente=5884990 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/brazil-federal-supreme-court-adi-6359-mc-ref-2020-05-14 | ||
| 13. 05. 2020 | ADI 6357 MC-REF | Supreme Court of Brazil | Scope of powers of public authorities, Right to good administration | Claim upheld | A direct action for unconstitutionality has been brought before the Federal Supreme Court, seeking the annulment of certain provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act and the Budget Directives Act. The aim was to implement and extend programmes to prevent Covid-19 and, as a consequence, to protect the population. The applicant therefore argues that the articles containing such requirements must be interpreted in accordance with constitutional rights. The requests to disregard the requirements of the aforementioned legislation because of the need to increase unforeseen and necessary expenditure to combat COVID-19 became moot by the enactment of a new Constitutional Amendment that deals with the same subject. | https://www.stf.jus.br/arquivo/cms/noticiaNoticiaStf/anexo/ADI6357MC.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/brazil-federal-supreme-court-adi-6357-mc-ref-2020-05-13 | ||
| 08. 05. 2020 | ADPF 672 MC | Supreme Court of Brazil | Scope of powers of public authorities | Claim partially upheld | The applicant reported that a law had imposed health measures such as enforcing isolation measures, quarantine and restrictions on certain outdoor gatherings. The law also authorised, simplified and streamlined procedures for ordering goods, inputs and services to support and strengthen the functioning of the health system. It was said that although the federal government had the means to respond to the crisis, most of the measures adopted were not health emergencies. According to the petitioner, the measures taken so far have influenced the governance of the country and endangered the lives of Brazilians. The petitioner therefore brought an action for breach of fundamental principle. The Supreme Court of Brazil concluded that the judiciary cannot replace the executive in its power to establish public order. It cannot therefore prohibit the executive from issuing such rules. Court concluded that the federal government must respect the jurisdiction of the states and municipalities when they establish public policies in their own jurisdiction. | https://redir.stf.jus.br/paginadorpub/paginador.jsp?docTP=TP&docID=754239592 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/brazil-federal-supreme-court-adpf-672-mc-2020-05-08 | ||
| 07. 05. 2020 | ADI 6387 MC-REF | Supreme Court of Brazil | Data protection | Claim upheld | A decree obliged telephone companies to provide a Foundation with a list of the names, telephone numbers and addresses of their customers. The applicants questioned the constitutionality of that presidential decree, which allowed telecommunications companies to share data with the Foundation in support of official statistics during the public health emergency resulting from pandemic COVID-19. The Supreme Court found that the sharing of data violated the right to intimacy and privacy. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/brazil-federal-supreme-court-adi-6387-mc-ref-2020-05-07 | |||
| 07. 05. 2020 | ADI 6387 | Supreme Federal Court of Brazil | Data protection, right to privacy, right to private life | Claim upheld | The Supreme Federal Court of Brazil stayed the implementation of a provisional measure that mandated telephone carriers to share all data of their subscribers with the Brazilian statistics agency. due to the lack of protective measures and transparency, as well as the overbroad scope of the challenged measure. | https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/OAB-v-Bolsonaro.pdf | https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/federal-council-of-the-brazilian-bar-association-v-president-bolsonaro/ |
https://edpl.lexxion.eu/article/EDPL/2020/4/21; https://www.accessnow.org/brazilian-supreme-federal-court-rules-in-favor-of-privacy/ |
|
| 06. 05. 2020 | ADI 6343 MC-REF | Supreme Court of Brazil | Freedom of movement, Scope of powers of public authorities, Utilities | Claim partially upheld | Plaintiff alleges that the statutory changes implemented by Presidential Decree would diminish the constitutional ability of states, federal districts, and municipalities to make independent decisions on administrative and health care matters. Therefore, local restrictions aimed at preventing the spread of COVID-19 would only be implemented if they were authorised by the federal government and accompanied by a scientific study supported by the central government to justify the implementation of the measures. According to the applicants, this would result in inappropriate and delayed action by local governments, as they would never receive an adequate and timely response to the urgent and ever-changing needs caused by the pandemic. The Supreme Court overturned part of a law that required states and municipalities to obtain prior approval from the federal government before implementing emergency local measures to mitigate the effects of the pandemic. | https://www.stf.jus.br/arquivo/cms/noticiaNoticiaStf/anexo/ADI6343decisao.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/brazil-federal-supreme-court-adi-6343-mc-ref-2020-05-06 | ||
| 30. 04. 2020 | ADI 6351 MC-REF | Supreme Court of Brazil | Access to information, Freedom of expression | Claim upheld | The applicant brought a direct action for unconstitutionality, seeking a provisional remedy to suspend the President's provisional decree. According to the applicant, this provision established new requirements for access to information from public bodies. The applicant argued that the suspension of the deadlines for responding, as well as the requirement to repeat requests for information and the prohibition of appeals against administrative decisions, constituted a disproportionate, arbitrary and unnecessary restriction on the right to information and publicity. Following the grant of the precautionary measure, the direct action of unconstitutionality has been impaired, due to the supervening loss of its object, thus extinguishing the process without resolution of the merits. This has happened because the Presidential Decree has failed to be converted into law and its validity has expired. | https://redir.stf.jus.br/paginadorpub/paginador.jsp?docTP=TP&docID=753468971 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/brazil-federal-supreme-court-adi-6351-mc-ref-2020-04-30 |
https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/jurisprudencia/stf/919846731/inteiro-teor-919846740; https://www.buscadordizerodireito.com.br/jurisprudencia/detalhes/a6155b0da06d1ad154ad2d039d1fadf4 |
|
| 29. 04. 2020 | ADI 6342 MC-REF | Supreme Court of Brazil | Labour rights, Freedom to conduct a business | Claim partially upheld | The purpose of an order was to attempt to allow jobs and business activity to continue during a pandemic. The provision laid down written agreements between employers and employees to ensure the maintenance of the employment contract, which took precedence over all other rules. The applicant argued that these measures fell within the legislative competence, since their implementation by presidential decree would infringe the separation of powers. He further claimed that the regulation infringed several constitutional rights of the employer. The Supreme Court has concluded that the relaxation of labour rights during a pandemic is constitutional, including the provision on agreements between employers and workers guaranteeing employment contracts and its primacy over other rules. The Court has concluded that there is no unconstitutionality in the new regulations and they are in accordance with the aim of preventing massive unemployment during the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic. The Court has taken into consideration the pandemic while ruling this case, and has concluded that the aim of the decree was settling work’s social values, holding labor bonds, work, and income of workers and their families. All of this within the values of the free initiative, and the preservation of businesses, especially the small and medium ones. | https://redir.stf.jus.br/paginadorpub/paginador.jsp?docTP=TP&docID=754346856 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/brazil-federal-supreme-court-adi-6342-mc-ref-2020-04-29 | ||
| 20. 04. 2020 | ACO 3385 | Supreme Court of Brazil | Scope of powers of public authorities | Claim upheld | The State of Maranhão has requested protection against the mandatory transfer of ventilators to the federal government. According to the Supreme Court, the Union's approach did not respect federal principles and endangered the health of the population of the Member State. | https://www.pucrs.br/direito/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2020/06/2020_06_22-direito-covid-19-ppgd-decisoes-tutela_provisoria_na_acao_civel_originaria_3385-maranhao.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/brazil-federal-supreme-court-aco-3385-2020-04-20 | https://books.google.hu/books?id=D0m7EAAAQBAJ&pg=RA4-PA15&lpg=RA4-PA15&dq=Brazil,+Federal+Supreme+Court,+20+April+2020,+ACO+3385&source=bl&ots=uGv_lk81rK&sig=ACfU3U0cf8_0D8Wfx7WAR6p4rw5WsURyOg&hl=hu&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjx4Lr45M-AAxXO3QIHHQSiChYQ6AF6BAggEAM#v=onepage&q=Brazil%2C%20Federal%20Supreme%20Court%2C%2020%20April%202020%2C%20ACO%203385&f=false | |
| 17. 04. 2020 | ADI 6363 MC-REF | Supreme Court of Brazil | Labor law | Claim inadmissible | One of the measures included in a federal decree was the authorisation of an agreement between workers and employers on reduced working hours and wage reductions, and the suspension of employment contracts for a limited period of time. The applicant brought a direct action for unconstitutionality. According to him, wages and working days cannot be reduced. Furthermore, wages can only be reduced by collective agreement, with a corresponding reduction in working time. The Court pointed out that several companies had announced mass redundancies as a result of the epidemic and that the regulation was intended to offer both workers and employers an alternative plan aimed at maintaining employment. A rule by the executive branch authorising the reduction of working hours and salary or the temporary suspension of employment contracts by individual agreement due to the new coronavirus pandemic, regardless of union consent, is constitutional. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/brazil-federal-supreme-court-adi-6363-mc-ref-2020-04-17 | https://www.mpisoc.mpg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/data/Sozialrecht/Publikationen/Schriftenreihen/Social_Law_Reports/SLR_6_2021_Brazil.pdf | ||
| 15. 04. 2020 | ADI 6341 MC-REF | Supreme Court of Brazil | Scope of powers of public authorities, Freedom of movement of people | Claim inadmissible | The Plaintiff filed a direct action for unconstitutionality challenging the reallocation of police powers in health matters introduced by a federal law and a presidential executive order. He alleged that this interfered with the system of cooperation between federal agencies. The applicant also argues that such measures fall within the legislative competence and that their implementation in the framework of the Presidential Decree violates the separation of powers. The contested decree conferred on the authorities the power to adopt, within the limits of their competence, measures of segregation, quarantine and restriction of movement, whether in respect of entry into or exit from the country or of interstate and inter-municipal movement. In several cases, a federal conflict has arisen and the Supreme Court has ruled that the competence to take measures to control the epidemic is shared and falls under the shared competence of the national, regional and local levels of government. | https://redir.stf.jus.br/paginadorpub/paginador.jsp?docTP=TP&docID=754372183 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/brazil-federal-supreme-court-adi-6341-mc-ref-2020-04-15 |
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3866621; https://www.scielo.br/j/sdeb/a/PF9vHkC6tXBpJB8KTSQVnHF/?lang=en |
|
| 03. 04. 2020 | ADPF 662 MC | Supreme Court of Brazil | Utilities, Vaccination | Claim upheld | The debate focused on the financial costs of social benefits, which were raised by a law passed earlier to allow more citizens to join the scheme. One of the main arguments in the case is that the economic crisis caused by the Covid-19 pandemic made it essential to authorise higher financial limits for the scheme and to provide financial support to the population. The Supreme Court annulled the new regulation, which allows more citizens and higher financial costs for the programme.A law that increases the number of people that receive social assistance benefits has a budgetary and financial impact. The national emergency period concerning the novel Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is no sufficient reason for the law not to indicate the source of full funding of the increased number of beneficiaries, especially since it proposes a permanent increase which will have to be paid. | conjur.com.br | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/brazil-federal-supreme-court-adpf-662-mc-2020-04-03 | ||
| 27. 03. 2020 | ADPF 663 MC | Supreme Court of Brazil | Freedom of association, Freedom of expression, Right to information, Remote deliberation | Claim inadmissible | The laws provided for a system of remote deliberation (Remote Deliberation System), which allowed Congress to continue to function during Covid-19. The Applicant argued that this endangered the normal legislative process, in particular the voting procedure on the President's provisional decrees. The Supreme Court agreed that alternative procedures for emergency situations should be established in Congress. | https://static.poder360.com.br/2020/03/ADPF-663.pdf.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/brazil-federal-supreme-court-adpf-663-mc-2020-03-27 | ||
| 20. 03. 2020 | ACO 3.359 DF Min. Marco Aurélio | Supreme Court of Brazil | Equality, Non-discrimination | Claim upheld | In Brazil, the relief programme and the provision of primary livelihoods is a direct income transfer mechanism to address the poverty and vulnerability of families. This programme was essential during the pandemic, as health restrictions made it the only source of livelihood for many families. However, 3% of the benefits were disproportionately allocated to the North East region and 75% to the South and South East regions, showing a disparity in the distribution of benefits between families, which had serious financial implications. According to the Supreme Court, the Union must ensure that the residents of the applicant States and other territories are treated equally. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/sites/default/files/node-case/2021-11/brazilsupreme-federal-courtmarch-20th-2020.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/brazil-brazilian-supreme-federal-court-aco-3359-df-min-marco-aurelio-2020-03-20 | ||
