English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The present study aims at analyzing how the special burden of proof is applied in the environmental law, especially after the recent Precedent n. 618 of Superior Court of Justice. Corollary of the precautionary principle, the special burden of proof is yet another instrument to ensure maximum protection of the environment. However, some questions have not yet been answered and the form of their application is not pacified, despite the elaboration of the said Precedent. One of them will be dealt with in this study: is the shift of the burden of proof on issues involving environmental law automatic or does it depend on fulfilling the traditional requirements of hyposufficiency and verosimilitude? Thus, there will be discourses on the origin of the precautionary principle, as gaps left by the STJ's Precedent n. 618 and, finally, an analysis of the application of the shift of the burden of proof will be carried out in other countries.

Inversão do Ônus da Prova no Direito Ambiental: o que mudou após a súmula 618 do STJ?