Publications

Category: Environmental

Brazil is considered a country with natural characteristics favorable to agribusiness. With its 8.5 million square kilometers, it is the largest country in South America, the fifth largest in the world, and it has the potential to expand its agricultural capacity without the need to harm the environment. In addition, it has different types of climates, good soil conditions, water, relief, and sunlight, aspects that contribute to its position as the second largest producer of biofuels in the world.

According to data recently released by the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas, and Biofuels (ANP), production by sugar and ethanol plants reached the unprecedented mark of 4.29 billion liters throughout 2017.

In this scenario and considering Brazil’s advances in relation to renewable energy sources initiatives, Law No. 13,576, which created the National Biofuels Policy (RenovaBio), was approved on December 27 of last year. Corresponding regulations were enacted by Federal Decree No. 9,308, published on March 16.
RenovaBio’s aim is to stimulate the production of biofuels, such as ethanol, biodiesel, biogas, biomethane, and bio-kerosene, through tax incentives and targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The energy sector believes that, with RenovaBio, Brazil will create favorable conditions for private investment, thereby favoring Brazil's energy efficiency and development potential. In addition, the policy encourages conservation of the environment, as it seeks to balance the pillars of sustainability by means of an adequate energy efficiency ratio and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the production, selling and distribution, and use of biofuels, including life cycle assessment mechanisms.

It is worth remembering that, on September 21, 2016, Brazil ratified the Paris Agreement, which was approved by the 195 members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and committed itself to reducing emission levels by 37% for greenhouse gases (GHG) by 2025 and by 43% by 2030 (based on 2005 levels).

In this context, the implementation of RenovaBio will be guided by the decarbonization targets to be stipulated by the government and promised for the second half of 2018. The objective is to improve the carbon intensity of the Brazilian fuel framework over a minimum period of ten years. The annual mandatory goal will be broken down into individual goals for each current year. They will be applied to all fuel distributors in proportion to their participation in the sale and distribution of fossil fuels in the previous year.

These goals will dictate the pace of expansion of the biofuels market and how financial agents will respond to the stimulus to generate new domestic investments.
Law No. 13,576/2017 also provides fines of up to R$ 50 million for fuel distributors that do not comply with what was established. Verification of compliance with the individual targets will be done through the presentation of decarbonization credits (CBIOs) by the distributors.

CBIOs are generated based on the production of qualified renewable fuels: the lower the carbon emission in relation to large-scale renewable energy productivity, the more producers and distributors will be rewarded with these credits, which can be used as compensation for greenhouse gas emission surpluses in compliance with the mandatory targets. In this way, CBIOs serve as a stimulus to the production of biofuels, guiding a mechanism to improve the RenovaBio framework.

The law also created a certification for biofuels, which is a condition for the generation of a CBIO and will be granted to both producers and importers that meet the parameters related to the reduction of GHG emissions. These parameters take into account the biofuel’s entire life cycle and its differential in relation to fossil fuels.

The trend is that, throughout 2018, the metrics for the implementation of the policy as a whole will be regulated, thereby increasing the participation of the various sectors related to the generation and destruction of biofuels. It is hoped, therefore, that the strengthening of RenovaBio will help Brazil meet the targets set out in the Paris Agreement.

Category: Real estate

The deadline for submitting contributions to the bill proposed by the City of São Paulo to review the Law on Land Partitioning, Use, and Occupancy - LPUOS (Law No. 16,402/16, known as the Zoning Law) ended March 30. The City announced it received more than 2,500 suggestions for the text published on the website Gestão Urbana SP as of last December 15.

The draft of the bill is quite comprehensive and addresses issues ranging from specifics for certain regions in the city to various technical adjustments. The purpose of the revision, according to the city government, is to promote adjustments in the Zoning Law in order to adapt the existing legal provisions to the actual city, without changes to the land uses, the densification coefficients, and the principles proposed by the Master Plan (MP).

Among the proposals of the bill, it should be highlighted the temporary discount of 30% granted over the value of the onerous grant (“outorga onerosa”), which is a financial compensation for developers to construct buildings beyond the basic building potential and up to the limit of the maximum utilization coefficient. The goal is to encourage such developments in the city and, as framed by the municipal executive, raise the gross revenue of the Urban Development Fund (Fundurb), whose funds are intended for urban improvements in the most vulnerable areas of the city.

According to the city government, the current values ​​of the onerous grants were stipulated during the economic boom in Brazil and no longer reflect market price , therefore, in need to be revised. Civil entities question whether a generalized discount is necessary since the MP already provides economic incentive for the development of projects at specific areas of the City, which are specifically those which the strategy envisioned by the master plan seeks to develop.

Another relevant modification is the exclusion of the height limit for buildings located in mixed areas. It aims in reducing the overall cost of the development, which would be passed on to the final consumer in the form of a reduction in the unit price. The argument is that building a higher single tower instead of two or three lower ones results in savings with the structural part of the building (foundations, elevators, water system, engine room), as well as a better use of the ground floor and underground.

The bill provides for the creation of the institute of the "concept building", which proposes a mechanism that will allow the granting of incentives in the form of discounts the onerous grant for those buildings that adopt sustainable initiatives considered financially feasible and immediately applicable to the projects. The MP currently has the environmental quota mechanism, which, although quite innovative, is still recent and needs further regulations for its effective application. The city government alleges that the fulfillment of the environmental quota has resulted in controversial obligations for the developers, such as the need to construct water retention reservoirs of enormous proportions.

The zoning review proposal also makes relaxes the minimum allocation of percentages of areas constructed under the classification HIS-1 - Social Interest Dwellings in range 1 (from 0 to 3 minimum wages) in Special Zones of Social Interest (ZEIS). Under the current master plan, residential and non-residential developments uses located in ZEIS must allocate a minimum of 60% of their total constructed area to HIS-1 designation. With the proposed change, this minimum can be up to 50% if the entire project is intended for social housing. This will allow greater profitability for developers in projects of this type, thereby stimulating supply for the demand in this market section.

Despite the city government's efforts to speed up the process of revision of the zoning law, which has been criticized by various civic entities that plea for greater participation in the management of the process, there is still a long way before any of these proposals actually come into force.

The contributions received until March 30 must be reviewed by the city and eventually incorporated in the bill, which will then be presented to the City Council for review of admissibility, submission to committees, and voting. If approved, the text will proceed for promulgation by the mayor and enactment, when it will finally take effect.

Category: Banking, insurance and finance

The CVM board confirmed on January 30, 2018, a decision rendered by its technical department (Superintendência de Registro de Valores Mobiliários - SRE) in the sense that the cryptocurrency Niobium Coin should not be characterized as a security. This confirms the understanding that the initial offering of the Niobium Coin (Initial Coin Offering - ICO) is not within the CVM’s scope of jurisdiction and, therefore, does not require registration of the issuer and offering with the local authority.

CVM concluded that the Niobium Coin should not be treated as a security since the acquirers of the cryptocurrency would not receive any type of compensation from a third party, considering the provisions of item IX, article 2, of Law No. 6,385/76 ("when offered publicly, any other securities or collective investment contracts that generate the right to participation, partnership, or compensation, including as a result of the provision of services, whose income comes from the efforts of the entrepreneur or third parties").

Named a utility token, Niobium Coin can be purchased only through bitcoins or ethereums and there is no right to compensation for its purchasers (one of the criteria necessary to be characterized as a security), even if there is an expectation of profit (in the secondary market). Holders of this asset may use it only to pay for services purchased on the cryptocurrency trading platform of the São Paulo Digital Corporate Currencies Exchange (Bolsa de Moedas Digitais Empresariais de São Paulo – Bomesp), when it is developed and implemented.

Confirmation of the understanding of the technical area by the CVM board is very interesting, as it opens space for new initial offers of cryptocurrencies in Brazil and serves as a reference for the market. However, it is important to make it clear that any ICO of these assets, when characterized as securities, may be followed by various undesirable legal consequences, such as criminal punishment of those responsible for the issuance.^[1]

The decision has no other precedents in the world and shows that CVM is following the development and application of new technologies in the capital market. It remains to be seen whether, like equity crowdfunding, new rules and mechanisms will be created in order to enable public offers of cryptoassets that are characterized as securities (such as equity tokens).

Regardless of the current discussions on cryptocurrencies in the Chamber of Deputies (Bill No. 2.303/2015), there is no doubt that the technology behind ICOs can transform the way funds are raised in Brazil, bringing various benefits to the capital market. However, it is necessary to establish clear and effective rules for securities to be offered publicly with the necessary protection for investors (and, of course, without restricting the use of innovative technologies).

---

1. Under the terms of Law No. 7,492 (White Collar Law), the penalty may be confinement of 2 to 8 years and a fine.

Category: Infrastructure and energy

The validity of maritime mortgages registered abroad has been subject to judicial battles for the past few years in Brazil, in the context of the OSX 3 Leasing B.V. case. The debate has finally reached a positive outcome for creditors, represented by Nordic Trustee ASA as the trustee and mortgagor, thanks to a decision issued by the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) on November 17, 2017, and published on February 1, 2018.

In opposition to the decisions rendered by the lower courts, the STJ acknowledged the validity in Brazil of a Liberian mortgage attached to the OSX 3 platform and ranked the claim secured by the mortgage higher than the unsecured claim of Banco BTG Pactual S.A. (later assigned to OSX3 Cayman Limited). Satisfaction of the unsecured debt was already being sought by means of a judicial execution in Brazil.

The members of the STJ session that delivered the decision concurred with the opinion of judge Luis Felipe Salomão, who ruled the Brussels Convention (1926) and the Bustamante Code (1929) applicable to the case, irrespective of whether or not the platform’s flag State (and place of recording of the mortgage) was a signatory of these international treaties. The decision also ruled on the legal status of platforms from a Brazilian law perspective (whether chattel or an immovable asset), despite failing to address other important controversial matters raised during the judicial proceeding.

History of the facts

The judicial battle began as a result of an enforcement lawsuit filed by BTG, an unsecured creditor, against OSX, the foreign owner of the vessel FPSO OSX 3 (FPSO), which is subject to a mortgage in Liberia, the flag State of the FPSO. In order to secure satisfaction of the debt, seizure of the FPSO was ordered.

After becoming aware of the decision that ordered the seizure, Nordic came before the court to report that the vessel was already subject to a mortgage duly registered in Liberia as collateral for the issuance of OSX 3 bonds in the Norwegian capital market, amounting to US$ 500 million. Nordic claimed, acting as the trustee of the bondholders, priority rights over the proceeds from any sale of the asset.

The trial court refused to grant the petition to recognize the validity of the foreign mortgage and ordered the proceeding to continue. Nordic then appealed to the São Paulo Court of Appeals, giving rise to a great debate involving issues of public and private international law.

The case was later taken to the STJ, which granted partial relief to the claim, having recognized the effectiveness in Brazil of the mortgage registered with the registry of the country of the vessel’s flag.

The Dispute

The mortgagor, pleading priority of its claim over the proceeds from any judicial sale of the FPSO, argued that (i) the Liberian mortgage met all legal requirements to be valid; and (ii) due to the impossibility of registering this mortgage with the Brazilian maritime registry (which only registers ownership and liens attaching to vessels flying the Brazilian flag), it was registered in the Registry of Deeds and Documents of Rio de Janeiro as a mere precaution, in order to make it publicly known (and despite the fact that this is unnecessary for the validity or effectiveness of the security). Such arguments brought about a wide-ranging debate regarding the recording of ownership and liens involving foreign vessels. The main issues surrounding the dispute are summarized below.

Registration of the mortgage in the country of registration of the vessel

The mortgagor argued, against the understanding that the maritime mortgage should be registered in Brazil for it to become valid, that such a requirement was impossible to fulfill, since the vessel itself does not enjoy Brazilian nationality and, therefore, cannot be registered in Brazil.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), known as the "constitution of the seas", not only because of the wide range of subjects related to the law of the sea, but also because of its broad international acceptance, established a framework according to which States shall impose the necessary requirements to grant nationality to vessels and maintain a registry of all vessels authorized to fly their flag. In Brazil, where the Convention was ratified in 1987 and entered into force in 1995, the Maritime Tribunal is assigned this registration function.

The requirements for the valid creation of mortgages are therefore usually governed by the country where the vessel is registered. In addition, Brazil is a party to the Brussels Convention and the Bustamante Code, which provide for the extraterritorial effectiveness of liens and mortgaged attached to maritime property, as long as they are duly formalized in their original registry. For this reason, the mortgage validly created in Liberia should be attributed full effect in Brazil.

According to the TJSP, the Brazilian legal system, incorporating the Brussels Convention and the Bustamante Code, indeed recognizes the validity of maritime mortgages registered in foreign jurisdictions, provided that the other country is also a member State of these treaties. Thus, since Liberia is not a party to them, the decision disregarded the Liberian mortgage.

However, in a special appeal, the reporting judge expressed his opposition to this understanding, otherwise considering the mortgage valid as per article 278 of the Bustamante Code, according to which "maritime mortgages and privileges established in accordance with the law of the flag State shall have extraterritorial effects even in those countries whose legislation does not recognize or regulate such mortgages or privileges” and article 1 of the Brussels Convention, which recognizes that the mortgages “upon vessels … duly effected in accordance with the law of the Contracting State to which the vessel belongs, and registered in a public register either at the port of the vessel’s registry or at a central office, shall be regarded as valid and respected in all the other contracting countries."

According to the judge, article 248 of the Bustamante Code is clear in establishing the extraterritorial effects of foreign maritime mortgages effected and registered in accordance with the law of the Country of the flag (law of the place where the ownership of the vessel is registered). Thus, recognition of the validity of the mortgage should be irrespective on whether the country of recording is a member of the convention.

 

FPSO’s legal status

Among the most controversial grounds for the TJSP's reasoning is the fact that the court did not recognize the status of the FPSO as chattel for the purposes of applying paragraph 1 of article 8 of the Introduction to Brazilian Law. According to this article, the law applicable to chattel carried with its owners should be that of the owner's domicile. In the case under analysis, OSX 3, owner of the FPSO, was based in the Netherlands. Therefore, Dutch law should apply (which recognizes the validity of the Liberian mortgage).

The polemic understanding of TJSP held that, although Brazilian law recognizes the status of vessels as movable assets (articles 478 of the Commercial Code and 82 of the Civil Code), the FPSO was subject to a 20-year charter under which it would be kept anchored in a stationary position for a long time. This was considered enough for the court to rule out the applicability of paragraph 1 of article 8 of the Introduction to Brazilian Law. As a consequence, this conflict of laws would not be solved by the application of such rule, but rather by the application of the law of the place of the property.

The STJ decision, in turn, expressly recognized that the FPSO is a vessel and, as such, a movable asset, regardless of whether it is destined to be anchored for a long period of time at the same place. However, despite having explicitly addressed the issue, STJ failed to assess the applicability of article 8 of the Introduction to Brazilian Law to the case, having focused its decision on the effects of international treaties in Brazil.

 

Existence of an international custom recognizing extraterritoriality of maritime mortgages

The mortgagor had argued in its favor, further, that there was an international custom sufficient to create a rule of international law (under article 38(b) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice) which should be respected by Brazil. To prove its point, the mortgagor brought before court legal opinions produced with respect to various jurisdictions where the maritime mortgage granted abroad would be recognized. The TJSP, however, understood that the evidence brought by the mortgagor was not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of customary international law.

The STJ’s ruling did not address this issue either, even though it recognized the existence of a custom according to which the financing of maritime property heavily relied on mortgages as security for creditors.

 

Other issues not addressed by the courts

Since the TJSP ruled out the application of article 8, paragraph 1 of the Introduction to Brazilian Law and ordered the application of the law of place of the property, another relevant issue was raised by the unsecured creditor: the fact that the location where the FPSO was anchored was not subject to Brazilian sovereignty and, therefore, to the application of territoriality as a connecting factor to justify the supremacy of Brazilian legislation.

In fact, the unsecured creditor claimed that the FPSO was located in the Exclusive Economic Zone, where Brazil does not exercise sovereignty, but only enjoys sovereign economic rights over its natural resources. This would make it impossible to automatically apply Brazilian law without a closer examination of the rules of conflicts of laws.

However, this issue was examined by neither the TJSP nor STJ in their reasoning.

In addition, the fact that FPSO was flying a flag of convenience was also debated, based on the argument that there was no genuine link with the country of registry. This issue was raised against the mortgagor in order for the vessel to be considered Brazilian for all purposes, since neither the FPSO nor its owner had any connection with the flag State, Liberia. TJSP considered this matter irrelevant for the outcome of the dispute and STJ did not examine it either.

Advantages of the STJ’s decision

One of the benefits of the decision delivered by the STJ was to set the precedent that (i) the FPSO is a vessel and, therefore, a movable asset; and (ii) the treaties to which Brazil is a party that stipulate the extraterritorial effects of maritime mortgages make it mandatory for it to recognize the validity of such encumbrances, whenever they are established in accordance with the law of place of vessel’s registration, regardless of whether or not such place is in a State that is a party to the same treaty.

Driven by the expansion of the oil and gas sector, the Brazilian maritime and offshore industry has witnessed, in the recent past, a significant increase in the number of foreign vessels chartered to sail and operate within Brazilian jurisdictional waters. Naturally, the recourse to maritime mortgages has also increased, since it is widely used as collateral for financing contracts and as a key element in asset financing structures.

According to a survey referred to in the same lawsuit discussed in this article, there are approximately 200 vessels in Brazil flying the Liberian flag, and circa 141 of them have a mortgage registered in the country of the flag. Registration of vessels in countries such as Liberia is customary in Brazil, as it provides owners and shipowners with tax, regulatory, and labor advantages. In addition, it is undeniable that this financing structure is widely used worldwide, and there is in fact a global practice put forward by financial institutions to attach maritime mortgages on financed vessels as a key pillar to secure the loans granted.

In this sense, Judge Luis Felipe Salomão also stated that: "it is the tradition of Brazilian law and foreign jurisdictions to admit mortgages for large size vessels, due to the significant amounts financed for their construction and maintenance. Instability and maritime dangers arising from constant transit are compensated by the stability of the registry at their ports of origin." In fact, it seems that refusal to recognize validity in Brazil of vessels’ mortgages effected abroad would cause great uncertainties to creditors, with a great risk of retraction of credit for financing vessels coming to, or whose operation was supposed to take place along, the Brazilian coast.

Therefore, the STJ’s decision, which was also expressly based on an economic rationale, grants important assurance to ship financiers, thereby putting an end to a debate that has been generating a significant crisis of confidence at financial institutions. A positive message has also been sent to the international community, that in this globalized world, Brazil cannot simply turn a blind eye to institutions and rights created beyond its territorial jurisdiction.

Category: Real estate

The good standing of the use of physical spaces in public waters is as important for some enterprises as the good standing of the recording of the ownership of real estate in the respective real estate registry.

Currently, the installation and use of nautical structures in federal public waters in Brazil is regulated by Ordinance No. 404/2012 of the Bureau of Federal Property Management (SPU Ordinance 404). It defines which structures are subject to regularization of possession by means of entering into an onerous assignment agreement with the SPU. Port infrastructures built over water are conceptually included among these nautical structures.

There is much debate about the legality of this ordinance, especially regarding the possibility of charging for the use of public waters, which is already under judicial review by direct unconstitutionality claim ADI 4819, filed by the Brazilian Association of Port Terminals with the Federal Supreme Court. Notwithstanding the judicialization of this issue, the Ministry of Transport, Ports, and Civil Aviation and the Ministry of Planning, Development and Management have sought to organize the procedure to bring into good standing the use of public waters in port projects, which is timidly evidenced by the publication of the Interministerial Ordinance No. 1, of April 18, 2017.

It turns out that, in the reality of Brazilian private port enterprises, obtaining regulations for the procedure for requesting the use of public waters at new terminals is only one of the steps to solve the challenges that port operators face. SPU Ordinance 404 can no longer address the reality of these terminals and, especially, the peculiarities of port and shipping activities.

First of all, SPU Ordinance 404 is not clear as to the amount to be paid for the use of public waters. The normative text refers to a public price list that is difficult to access, which prevents interested parties from identifying in advance the cost of using public waters.

Secondly, SPU Ordinance 404, which is not focused specifically on port projects, but rather on all situations that require the installation of nautical structures in federal public waters, is not clear in its division of what nautical structures are and what structures used merely to support shipping activity are. For example, interested parties who need to build anchoring structures should not only request the approval of the maritime authority, since it is an activity linked to shipping, but also request the onerous assignment of the respective federal public waters to the SPU, even if the installation of structures is carried out to ensure greater safety for shipping and anchor depth of its vessels and other shipping companies that operate in the region.

The major challenge in this context is to have a rule that guarantees legal certainty to entrepreneurs and clearly indicates how much it will cost, which structures are subject to SPU approval, which structures are subject to onerous assignment, and which structures are merely related to shipping activity, for this reason, under maritime jurisdiction. It is also important that the rule should state which cases require public bidding (and when it is not necessary) and the criterion used to assign space to one operator and not another, especially when the terminal is already authorized by the Ministry of Transport, Ports, and Civil Aviation.

In this scenario, the rule that deals with the possession of public waters, which, it is worth reiterating, is as relevant as the possession and ownership of the respective properties, must accompany the reality of the activities it affects. In the case of port terminals, in particular, the major challenge is to clarify the division among competent authorities, which is already enough to justify the promulgation of a specific rule on this topic.

Meanwhile, companies in the industry face serious difficulties in complying with applicable land regulations and operating in a compliant manner, which creates operational uncertainties and legal uncertainty for the sector.

Category: Litigation

The decision issued by the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) relating to Special Appeal No. 1.634.851-RJ presents important definitions regarding the duty of cooperation between retailer and manufacturer in remedying defects in consumer goods. The specific case questioned the policy of a retail company to conduct exchanges of products purchased by the consumer only within three business days after the direct sale. The retail company claimed that, after that period, it would be incumbent on the manufacturer alone to remedy any defect in the product and, therefore, it sought to exempt itself from liability. The STJ reviewed a decision by the Rio de Janeiro Court of Appeals (TJ-RJ), which established the existence of a duty on the part of retailers to receive the products within the legal time limit to try to bring back into good standing the defect indicated by the consumer, thereby sending himself the product for technical assistance. In this sense, the TJ-RJ mentioned the 30-day deadline established by the Consumer Protection Code (CDC) to remedy defects in products. According to the TJ-RJ, joint liability among all members of the consumer chain would also imply the duty of retailers to assist consumers in obtaining the repair of products. In other words, retailers who sell directly to consumers should bear the burden of forwarding the product to the manufacturer for proper service. The STJ dealt with the interpretation of article 18 of the CDC in view of the limitation provided in article 26 of the CDC in order to determine whether retailers have this duty. In conclusion, for the STJ, yes, retailers do have this duty of cooperation, as the burden to repair the product should not fall on the consumer. Even in situations where technical assistance is provided in the very same city, this would not exempt the retailer from the duty to send the product for technical assistance. The opinion also mentioned civil liability for the intolerable unjustified loss of useful time by the consumer, a theory adopted by some legal scholars, who consider traveling to the technical assistance location and time without the consumer good to be indemnifiable damages. Even though the STJ does not expressly accept this theory in the opinion, the mere mention causes a reflex for retailers to be attentive to this topic. In summary, the STJ understands that retailers must intermediate the relationship between consumer and manufacturer, as they have a legal duty to ensure the suitability of the product offered for consumption. In this sense, consumers must choose the alternative to exercise their right: whether directly with the manufacturer or with the intermediation of the retailer. In any case, despite the decision unfavorable to the retail company, the STJ maintained the decision by the TJ-RJ regarding the claim for collective moral damages, which were considered not due. The decision should be understood as a necessity for retailers to foresee such scenarios when negotiating with manufacturers. Whenever possible, supply contracts should provide for: (i) compensation or reimbursement of costs arising from handling products from the retailer to the manufacturer; (ii) the replacement of goods by the retailer when the 30-day deadline for remedying the defect set forth in the CDC applies; or (iii) a provision to hold the retailer harmless in the event of suits brought by the consumer because of product defects that should be remedied by the manufacturer. Relevant articles of the Consumer Defense Code:

Article 18. Suppliers of durable or non-durable consumer products shall be held jointly and severally liable for defects in quality or quantity which render them unfit or unsuitable for their intended use or for their reduction in value, as well as for those defects that arise from a disparity with the description provided on the container, on the packaging, labeling, or advertising message, subject to the variations due to its nature, and the consumer may demand replacement of the defective parts.

Paragraph 1. If the defect is not remedied within a maximum period of thirty days, the consumer may, alternatively and at his discretion, demand: I - replacement of the product with another of the same type, in perfect conditions of use;
II - immediate return of the amount paid, monetarily adjusted, without prejudice to any losses and damages;
III - proportional reduction of the price.

Article 26. The right to complain about obvious or apparent defects expires in:

I - thirty days in the case of provision of non-durable goods and services; (...)