The demandant sough judicial review of the decision that assessed the validity of the penalty imposed to the defendant. The Higher Court upheld that the fine was issued in accordance with the law and, thus, the demandant was responsible for burning 600 hectare of pasture without authorization. Justice Benjamin argued that the phenomenon of climate change justifies a restrictive interpretation of the exceptional permissive rules of fires contained in the federal legislation. He also stated that the burnings, especially in agroindustrial or agricultural business activities, are incompatible with the objectives of environmental protection established in the Brazilian Constitution and in the infraconstitutional environmental norms.

Source:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/litigation/maia-filho-v-ibama-environmental-federal-agency/