Contrary to common perception, environmental crimes are not limited to large-scale deforestation or extensive environmental damage. Brazilian Law No. 9,605/1998, known as the Environmental Crimes Act, also criminalizes the destruction, damage, or injury of ornamental plants, including in isolated and everyday situations.
Article 49 of the Environmental Crimes Act expressly defines as criminal conduct the act of destroying, damaging, injuring, or mistreating, by any means whatsoever, ornamental plants located in public spaces or on another person’s private property, subject to a penalty of detention or a fine. This means that even the pruning or removal of a single tree, as well as damage to foliage, shrubs, or flowers, may constitute an environmental crime in the absence of proper legal authorization or justification.
It is precisely in light of the broad scope of this criminal provision — which extends far beyond large-scale deforestation — that the recent legislative amendment introduced by Law No. 15,299/2025 must be understood.
The Legislative Amendment and the Problem of Administrative Inaction
Law No. 15,299/2025 amended the Environmental Crimes Act to address a recurring issue in practice: the failure of environmental authorities to timely respond to requests for pruning or tree removal in situations involving a real risk of accidents.
Situations in which trees pose an imminent risk of falling onto people, buildings, vehicles, or power lines are not uncommon. Nevertheless, administrative requests for pruning or removal frequently remain unanswered for extended periods. In such circumstances, individuals are placed in an unfair dilemma: either wait indefinitely for a response from the Public Administration, thereby assuming the risk of serious accidents, or act preventively and expose themselves to potential criminal liability.
It was precisely to address this scenario that the legislature introduced paragraph 2 into Article 49 of Law No. 9,605/1998.
What Exactly Changed with Law No. 15,299/2025
The amended provision establishes that pruning or tree removal does not constitute a criminal offense when a formal administrative request has been submitted to the competent environmental authority and is based on the risk of an accident, provided that such risk is duly certified by a qualified company or licensed professional.
In these circumstances, the law considers the authorization to be tacitly granted if the environmental authority fails to issue a reasoned decision within 45 days. Once this period has elapsed without a response, the interested party may, at their own expense, hire a qualified company or professional to carry out the pruning or removal.
Exclusion of Criminal Typicity: No Crime from the Outset
From a criminal law standpoint, the amendment does not operate as a cause for extinguishing punishment, nor does it amount to a post hoc exemption from liability. Instead, it removes the very criminal typification of the conduct, provided that the statutory requirements are met.
It therefore constitutes a statutory hypothesis of exclusion of criminal typicity. By redefining the scope of the offense set forth in Article 49, the legislature has determined that, in specific and objectively defined situations, the conduct is not considered criminal.
In other words, when the legal requirements are satisfied, the crime does not come into existence. There is no need to assess unlawfulness or culpability, as the conduct is atypical from the outset.
Legal Requirements Are Not Mere Formalities
For criminal typicity to be excluded under paragraph 2 of Article 49 of Law No. 9,605/1998, a mere allegation of risk or a subjective perception by the individual is insufficient. The law requires concrete proof of the possibility of an accident, supported by a technical report prepared by a legally qualified professional with appropriate training and technical expertise to assess vegetation-related risks.
Such a report must be signed by an engineer or another duly licensed professional and accompanied by the corresponding Technical Responsibility Annotation (ART), demonstrating that the conclusions result from specialized technical analysis and that formal responsibility is assumed for the information provided. This documentation is not a mere bureaucratic formality, but a central element for the application of the legal exception and the exclusion of criminal typification.
The exclusion of criminal typicity provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 49 does not operate automatically or broadly. It is conditioned upon proper technical evidence of risk, the formal submission of an administrative request, and the environmental authority’s failure to act within the statutory deadline. The absence of a valid technical report, the lack of a qualified professional, or the failure to demonstrate a concrete risk is sufficient to prevent the application of the exception and to bring the conduct back within the scope of the criminal offense under the Environmental Crimes Act.
Accordingly, the new legal framework must be applied with strict technical and documentary rigor. Otherwise, individuals acting outside the established legal parameters may incur criminal liability, in addition to potential administrative and civil consequences.
Conclusion: Balancing Environmental Protection and Legal Certainty
The amendment introduced by Law No. 15,299/2025 does not weaken environmental protection, nor does it trivialize pruning or tree removal. On the contrary, it recognizes that environmental protection cannot operate at the expense of human safety, particularly where the Public Administration remains inert in the face of proven risks.
By excluding criminal typification in specific and well-defined circumstances, the legislature seeks to restore the balance between environmental protection and the protection of life and property, thereby providing greater legal certainty to individuals who act responsibly, based on sound technical assessment and proper documentation.
A correct reading of the new law therefore requires caution. It constitutes a legitimate and narrowly tailored exception, not a broad authorization, and its application outside the statutory limits may indeed result in criminal liability.
