Due to environmental damage, the STJ confirmed the prohibition of a motocross circuit in Huergo

The Superior Court of Justice confirmed the environmental amparo ruling that prohibited the operation of a motocross circuit on a farm in Ingeniero Huergo. The ruling ratified what the amparo judge of Villa Regina had decided, within the framework of a lawsuit filed against the municipality, which authorized the activityand against the organizer of motorcycling competitions and training.

The case had already reached the STJ in 2019, when it was resolved by majority that the collective environmental amparo was the appropriate procedural route “to determine whether or not there is alteration of the environment and the ecological balance derived from carrying out motocross races in the area of ​​irrigated farms dedicated to fruit and vegetable production, where a community of eleven families resides”. Now, the file came back to the Superior Court for the appeal presented by the organizer of the competitions, who was dissatisfied with the ruling of the judge from the region who considered the damage proven and prohibited the activity on the farm.

The Superior Court validated the expertise that certified the environmental damage and ruled out, as late, the objections made by the businessman against those reports. He also pointed out that from the beginning of the process “the producer of the denounced activity” was the one who was in an ideal position to demonstrate to the judge that motocross did not cause environmental damage, but he did not.
Although it is true that in order to obtain the permit for the circuit, the businessman submitted an environmental impact study (EIA) that was approved by the Municipality, the experts verified that that report was incomplete, that it tried to “minimize” the effects of motorcycles on the environment and also that it did not meet all the legal requirements.

Finally, the comprehensive expertise verified that the activity actually caused “medium and high intensity negative impacts” that could be measured “on the ground, water, air, biota, vegetation, social environment, climate, sound pressure and visual basin”, all of which is defined as environmental damage according to the General Environmental Law of the Nation No. 25,675.
The first instance judge recalled that, as defined by the law, environmental damage is “any relevant alteration that negatively modifies the environment, its resources, the balance or collective assets or values.”

appeal rejected

The STJ stressed that the businessman, in his appeal, tried to “discredit the environmental expertise practiced.” He reminded her, however, that “said measure was not challenged in due time and form” when it was first presented in the file, so it was validated as central evidence.

“It deserves to be highlighted that the owner of the enterprise did not distort the considerations of the expertise outlined above, given that – needless to reiterate – he did not opportunely challenge the test measure carried out, nor did he bring together probative elements such that they allow to counteract the deficiencies of the EIA indicated, or else accredit the proclaimed innocuousness of the activity, as referred to in the contested pronouncement”, said the STJ.

On the other hand, the Superior Court validated the decision of the first instance judge, Claudia Vesprini, by affirming that her ruling “does not prohibit the practice of sport” but rather the operation and exploitation of that particular motocross circuit, as a result of the accredited damages.
“Once the environmental damage has been verified, the prohibition imposed in the ruling constitutes a measure conducive to paralyze the disvaluable consequences indicated in the ruling,” he concluded.