REURB and the Liability of Public Managers: Municipal Omission, the Role of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and Judicial Actions for Specific Performance

Urban Land Regularization (REURB), established under Law No. 13,465/2017, is essentially an administrative procedure, initiated and carried out under the responsibility of the Municipality.

However, it is not uncommon for municipal officials to omit action: they fail to initiate regularization procedures, resist approving plans, or simply ignore formal requests made by residents and associations.

This omission raises a central question: what is the liability of the Municipality and its officials when they fail to promote regularization? And, more importantly, how can residents react?

1. The Municipality’s Role in REURB

The law is clear: it is the duty of the Municipality to:

·         Identify consolidated informal urban settlements;

·         Classify the modalities of REURB (Social or Specific);

·         Issue the Urban Land Regularization Certificate (CRF);

·         Forward the process to the Real Estate Registry Office.

Thus, City Hall is the central authority in the regularization process.

2. Municipal Omission

Omission may occur in several forms:

·         Absence of local legislation regulating REURB;

·         Excessive delays in processing requests;

·         General refusal to initiate the procedure;

·         Imposition of disproportionate requirements that make the process unfeasible.

Practical example: residents of a building request initiation of REURB, but City Hall fails to respond for years, leaving everyone in an irregular situation.

3. Liability of Public Managers

3.1 Administrative liability

Failure to implement regularization policies may constitute:

·         Political-administrative infraction (administrative misconduct, art. 11 of Law No. 8,429/92);

·         Breach of the social function of the city (art. 182 of the Federal Constitution).

3.2 Civil liability

Residents harmed by omission may claim damages against the Municipality, under art. 37, §6 of the Constitution (strict liability of the State).

3.3 Personal liability of the official

If bad faith, intent, or misuse of authority is proven, mayors and secretaries can be held personally liable in civil or public misconduct actions.

4. The Role of the Public Prosecutor’s Office

The Public Prosecutor’s Office acts as the natural overseer of urban order. It may:

·         File public civil actions to compel the Municipality to initiate REURB;

·         Monitor the implementation of urban and environmental measures;

·         Oversee collective safety, particularly in buildings lacking a Fire Safety Certificate (AVCB).

In several states, Conduct Adjustment Agreements (TACs) have already been signed between Prosecutors’ Offices and Municipalities to compel the implementation of regularization programs.

5. Judicial Action for Specific Performance

When the Municipality fails to act, residents and associations may go to court with:

·         Action for specific performance, requesting that the Judiciary order the Municipality to initiate REURB;

·         Request for urgent relief, where there is immediate risk to the community (e.g., a building without a fire safety certificate in a populated area);

·         Possibility of combining claims for collective moral damages due to governmental omission.

Practical example: an irregular building in an upscale area, without municipal approval and lacking fire safety measures, may obtain a judicial order requiring the Municipality to initiate REURB and enforce minimum safety works.

Conclusion

Liability for REURB does not rest solely with residents or associations: it is a constitutional and legal duty of the Municipality.

When there is omission, it opens the door to:

·         Administrative and civil accountability of public officials;

·         Intervention by the Public Prosecutor’s Office;

·         Judicialization, through actions for specific performance.

In summary: if City Hall fails to act, society can and must turn to the Judiciary to compel regularization, safeguarding not only the right to housing but also collective safety and dignity.