Category: Deciding Body

Categories
2025 Adaptation Belgium Class action Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Just transition litigation Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to life Standing/admissibility Victim status

We Are Nature.Brussels and others v. Brussels-Capital Region

Summary:
In June 2023, an adaptation case was filed in Belgium against the Brussels-Capital Region (RBC) before the Francophone Court of First Instance of Brussels. The case was brought by 1330 individuals and by the NGO We Are Nature.Brussels, a Brussels-based organisation dedicated to protecting biodiversity, natural areas, undeveloped areas, abandoned sites, and living soils within the RBC. The plaintiffs emphasized the right to life in Article 2 ECHR and the right to respect for private and family life in Article 8 ECHR to argue that the region’s government had violated its duty of care to adapt to climate change by failing to adapt to the risks of flooding or urban heat islands. On 29 October 2025, Judge Sabine Malengreau for the Court of First Instance found that the RBC had indeed violated its legal obligations under domestic law, ordering the suspension of further urbanization and soil sealing projects on undeveloped sites larger than 0,5 hectares. Although the case is subject to appeal, it is provisionally enforceable.

The first instance court’s reasoning in more depth:
On the admissibility of the case, the court considered the reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in KlimaSeniorinnen as concerns victim status and standing. The RBC’s government had invoked this judgment to argue that, like in the ECtHR proceedings, the individual applicants in the present case also lacked victim status because they had failed to demonstrate that they were personally and directly affected by the violations they alleged. The court rejected this argument. It held that this reasoning from the ECtHR was not relevant to the case before it given that the ECtHR determines victim status based on the autonomous conception of that term under Article 34 ECHR, whereas the conditions for liability under Belgian law “may validly differ from the conditions for the admissibility of an application filed within the framework of a system of remedies and procedures designed to ensure the ECtHR’s oversight of compliance with the ECHR.” It went on to declare the claims by the individual plaintiffs, all residents of Brussels, admissible.

In her reasoning, which noted the judgment in Belgium’s Klimaatzaak mitigation case, Judge Malengreau established a violation of the RBC’s duty of care because of its failure to act with the prudence and diligence required by Article 1382 of the former Belgian Civil Code. Previously, in the Klimaatzaak, two successive instances of the Belgian judiciary had already established that the RBC’s climate policy violated Articles 2 and 8 ECHR given that it had failed to take appropriate and reasonable measures to do its part in meeting the minimum requirements for reducing GHG emissions between 2013 and 2020.

Building on this reasoning, as well as obligations under the Paris Agreement and under EU law, the court noted (own translation from the original French):

  • RBC’s failure resulting from its inadequate goals and results in terms of mitigating GHG emissions;
  • the lack of an updated estimate of the capacity of natural sinks to absorb GHG emissions at the regional level;
  • the steady increase in urbanization and soil sealing;
  • the inadequacy of current regulatory tools;
  • and this, in a context where, for more than fifteen years, the RBC was aware of the certain risk of climate change that is dangerous to the region’s population and of the urgency of preventing the inevitable harmful effects of this climate change.

The court went on to find that:

Indeed, the aforementioned findings do not support the conclusion that RBC took the necessary measures to maintain and strengthen the capacity of natural sinks to absorb GHG emissions, even though it knew, as early as 2017, that, as things stood, the absorption capacity was largely insufficient relative to direct GHG emissions and that it was essential to strengthen natural sinks both to mitigate climate change and to adapt to its adverse effects.

In terms of establishing damage, the court held that:

None of the individual plaintiffs is immune to the negative effects (heat waves, droughts, floods, etc.) of climate change, which, in one way or another, is manifesting itself throughout the Brussels region.

It is also established that, regardless of efforts to mitigate the causes of global warming, its harmful effects will continue to multiply and worsen in the short and medium term.

To remedy this violation, the plaintiffs sought a moratorium on development and soil sealing on undeveloped sites larger than 0.5 ha.
The court noted that this would have the effect of regulating the use of land belonging to public and private actors, which would constitute an interference with property rights as guaranteed by Article 16 of the Belgian Constitution and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR. It was accordingly not within the court’s authority to limit the exercise of the right to property by a broad and undefined range of public or private entities that were not parties to this case. Specific measures were accordingly left to the discretion of the RBC, which was ordered to take the necessary measures to suspend development and soil sealing of undeveloped sites and parcels of land larger than 0.5 ha within its jurisdiction, until the adoption of the PRAS amendment, or (as a back-up deadline) 31 December 2026.

The judgment:
The full text of the first-instance judgment (in the original French) is available below.

20251029-jugement-WAN-RBC-sans-annexesDownload

More information:
Additional information on the case, including press releases, are available here.

Suggested citation:
Francophone Court of First Instance of Brussels, We Are Nature.Brussels and others v. Brussels-Capital Region, case nr. 24/885/A, judgment of 29 October 2025.

Last updated:
23 July 2026.

Categories
Adaptation Children and young people Costa Rica Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment

Citizen (Mario Peña Chacón) vs. Costa Rica

Summary:
On 16 June 2026, it was reported that the Constitutional Court of Costa Rica had ruled in a climate change-related amparo appeal concerning environmental impact assessments (EIAs) on climate-related impacts of development projects. The case, filed in 2024 by attorney and environmental law professor Mario Peña Chacón, aimed to compel government ministries to assess the climate risks and impacts of activities and construction projects subject to the EIA process.

The petition alleged a violation of the right of present and future generations (under the Costa Rican constitution and the Inter-American human rights system) to enjoy a safe climate as part of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, noting that the ministries had failed to issue guidance on EIAs concerning projects generating climate-related risks and impacts. It argued that these effects should be analyzed throughout the lifecycle of a project, from selection and siting, to planning and design, to implementation, closure, and decommissioning. To make this argument, the case cited Costa Rica’s obligations under international instruments such as the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement, and the Central American Convention on Climate Change. It also drew on reports about Costa Rica’s vulnerabilities to extreme hydrometeorological events (hurricanes and tropical storms) as well as on recent findings by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the International Court of Justice, and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, as well as the Constitutional Chamber’s own case-law regarding a healthy environment, EIAs, the prevention of environmental damage, and climate change.

In its ruling, the Chamber ordered the two ministries to coordinate their efforts to incorporate to examine the climate risks and impacts of activities and projects falling under the domestic regulatory framework governing EIAs (the 2022 Regulation on Environmental Assessment, Control, and Monitoring). In doing so, it set an 18-month time limit within which the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) and the National Technical Secretariat for the Environment (SETENA) are required to incorporate the assessment of climate risks and impacts into environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedures. In addition, the order requires project developers to implement climate mitigation and adaptation measures. The Constitutional Chamber also warned the respondent authorities that failure to comply with the order may result in criminal liability under Article 71 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction. The state was also ordered to pay costs, damages and expenses.

There were several third-party interventions in this case, including from the UN Special Rapporteur on the human right to a healthy environment, Astrid Puentes Riaño, as well as the NGOs AIDA, World’s Youth for Climate Justice, Justicia para la Naturaleza, the Fidélitas University Legal Clinic on Climate Change, Interculturality, Environment, and Human Rights, Pro Natura, and APREFLOFAS, as well as from academics: Álvaro Sagot Rodríguez, Allan Astorga Gatgens, and David Anderson Lambert.

Suggested citation:
Constitutional Court of Costa Rica, Citizen (Mario Peña Chacón) vs. Costa Rica, ruling 2026-022147, June 16 2026.

Categories
2021 Adaptation Biodiversity Domestic court Pakistan Right to development and work

D.G. Khan Cement Company v. Government of Punjab

Summary:
On 15 April 2021, the Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled in a case challenging a decision to bar the construction of new or expanded cement plants in environmentally fragile zones by the government of Punjab. The owner of a cement company challenged the decision based on the constitutional right to freedom of trade, business, and profession under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Supreme Court upheld the government’s decision, based on evidence concerning risks to groundwater and other environmental impacts. The Court emphasized the role of the precautionary principle in applying the rights to life, sustainability, and dignity of communities, as well as the need to protect the rights of nature itself.

The Court emphasized the link between water resources and climate change, noting:

According to our National Climate Change Policy, 2012 water resources are inextricably linked with climate; this is why the projected climate change has such serious implications for Pakistan’s water resources. Freshwater resources in Pakistan are based on snow and glacier-melt and monsoon rains, both highly sensitive to climate change.

And:

One of the serious climate change threats to Pakistan is the rising temperatures resulting in enhanced heat and water-stressed conditions, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions, leading to reduced agricultural productivity. Notably, the Salt Range has an arid climate characterized by lack of water. According to our National Climate Change Policy, 2012 for Pakistan to continue on a development path, the more immediate and pressing task is to prepare itself for adaptation to climate change. (…) The goal of the Policy is to ensure that climate change is mainstreamed in the economically and socially vulnerable sectors of the economy and to steer Pakistan towards climate resilient development. The [contested measure], in the current facts of the case, is a climate resilient measure and in step with the National Climate Change Policy and the Constitution.

Discussing the role of future generations, the Court held:

Another important dimension of climate change is intergenerational justice and the need for climate democracy. The tragedy is that tomorrow’s generations aren’t here to challenge this pillaging of their inheritance. The great silent majority of future generations is rendered powerless and needs a voice. This Court should be mindful that its decisions also adjudicate upon the rights of the future generations of this country. It is important to question ourselves; how will the future generations look back on us and what legacy we leave for them? This Court and the Courts around the globe have a role to play in reducing the effects of climate change for our generation and for the generations to come. Through our pen and jurisprudential fiat, we need to decolonize our future generations from the wrath of climate change, by upholding climate justice at all times. Democracy, anywhere in the world is pillared on the rule of law, which substantially means rights based rule of law rather than rule based; which guarantees fundamental values of morality, justice, and human rights, with a proper balance between these and other needs of the society. Post climate change, democracies have to be redesigned and restructured to become more climate resilient and the fundamental principle of rule of law has to recognize the urgent need to combat climate change. Robust democracies need to be climate democracies in order to save the world and our further generations from being colonized at the hands of climate change. The preambular constitutional value of democracy under our Constitution is in effect climate democracy, if we wish to actualize our Constitution and the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution for ourselves and our future generations.

As a result, the court rejected all of the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant, dismissing the petition.

Suggested citation:
Supreme Court of Pakistan, D.G. Khan Cement Company v. Government of Punjab, 15 April 2021, case C.P.1290-L/2019.

Last updated:
25 June 2026.

Categories
Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights France Paris Agreement Private and family life

Notre Affaire à Tous v. France (“Fair Shares Trial”)

Summary:
On 4 December 2025, the French NGO Notre Affaire à Tous filed a climate case against the French government, alleging that it was failing to do its “fair share” to mitigate climate change. Drawing on the 2024 KlimaSeniorinnen judgment of the European Court of Human Rights and the 2025 climate advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, the case seeks clarification from the Council of State on France’s equitable contribution to limiting climate change to 1.5°C in light of its historical responsibility and financial capabilities, and a finding that current French climate mitigation plans are insufficient. The case builds on previous litigation by the NGO against France and argues, as concerns human rights, that:

the national court is required to apply Article 8 of the ECHR, concerning the right to respect for private and family life, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, and to set aside any legislative provisions that would be contrary to the Convention (own translation).

The applicants also invoke the State’s international law obligation to exercise due diligence (as clarified by the ICJ climate advisory opinion) and argue that France’s ‘fair share’ of mitigation action should be calculated according to principles of equity among nations, factoring in its historical emissions (since 1990); its imported emissions and net domestic emissions; and its level of economic development in line with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities as enshrined in the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC. This analysis, they argue:

shows that France is far below its equitable contribution to combating climate change, given its real impact. France has already consumed nearly all of its “fair share” of the global carbon budget compatible with the 1.5°C objective.

Case documents:
The petition (in French) and a press release are available for download below.

Press-Release-Fair-Share-Trial-12.2025Download
Requete-PPJ-NAATDownload

Suggested citation:
French Conseil d’État, Notre Affaire à Tous v. France (“Fair Shares Trial”), filed 4 December 2025 (pending).

Last updated:
24 June 2026.

Categories
Access to a remedy Climate activists and human rights defenders Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights Fossil fuel extraction Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Non-discrimination Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to health Right to life Russian Federation

Danilov et al. v. Russia (Russian Climate Case)

Summary:
In August 2023, a group of individuals and NGOs filed a climate application against Russia before the European Court of Human Rights. The applicants, made up of two NGOs and 18 individuals (including Indigenous persons and human‑rights defenders) challenges Russia’s climate policies and (in)actions for violating their human rights, citing Russia’s high per capita greenhouse gas emissions and particularly its high methane emissions. They argue that:

Russia is ranked as responsible for the third largest cumulative emissions since the beginning of the industrial era. Currently, it is the fourth largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world and the second biggest source of global energy-related methane emissions. As of 2021, it was the world’s largest exporter of fossil gas, the second largest exporter of oil, the third largest coal exporter and the largest gas flaring nation. It has the world’s second-largest coal reserves, and its 2020 Energy Strategy plans an increase in domestic coal production annually up to 2035. Russia has no quantifiable methane reduction plans and did not sign up to the COP26 global methane pledge. These factors materially affect global and Arctic climate risk.

As well as that:

Expert evidence shows Russia’s published policy from 2020 and 2021 allows emissions to continue rising to 2030 and only minimally decline thereafter — far above levels compatible with protecting human life and health or with Paris Agreement temperature targets. The Climate Action Tracker assesses Russia’s climate action as ‘critically insufficient’. The case argues that these policies breach constitutional and international human‑rights standards and Russia’s climate obligations. Most recently, Russia has issued a new emissions decree providing for a weaker 2035 emissions target. The new target is about 22% greater than Russia’s reported 2021 emissions.

After being rejected by the domestic courts, the applicants brought their case to the ECtHR, describing it as “the first and only climate challenge by Russian citizens to Russia’s policies at Strasbourg. Given Russia’s withdrawal/expulsion from the Council of Europe and the repressive context for human rights and environmental defenders, this is likely the last such case within a legally binding international forum during the critical climate mitigation window.” In Strasbourg, the applicants argue that the case remains in the Court’s temporal jurisdiction and invoke the rights to life, health, home and family life (Articles 2 and 8 ECHR), as well as the right to an effective remedy (Article 13 ECHR) and that prohibition of discrimination in relation to youth applicants and Indigenous applicants (Article 14 taken in conjunction with Articles 2 and 8 ECHR). They also argue that the Russian Government has sought to undermine the case, thereby interfering with their right to bring the case, in violation of Article 34 ECHR. Notably, it is reported that since the case began, both applicant NGO’s have been dissolved by the Russian courts, one applicant had his citizenship and that of family revoked and individual applicants and their lawyer have been designated ‘Foreign Agents’ under Russia’s Foreign Agent Law.

Further reading:
For a discussion of the case, see Joanna Evans, ‘The Russian Climate Case: A Crucial Test for the European Court of Human Rights’, Völkerrechtsblog, 15 December 2025, https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/the-russian-climate-case/.

More information on the case is provided by the applicants here.

Suggested citation:
ECtHR, Danilov et al. v. Russia, app. no. 9296/24, filed in August 2023.

Last updated:
24 June 2026.

Categories
2020 Business responsibility / corporate cases Deciding Body Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation France Keywords Paris Agreement Rights at stake State concerned Year

Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v. Total

Summary:
On 25 June 2026, the Paris Court of Appeal ruled that TotalEnergies had failed to prepare an adequate vigilance plan under the French Law on the Duty of Vigilance of 27 March 2017, among other things because it had failed to include “scope 3” emissions, those associated with combustion of its fossil fuel products, in its “vigilance plan” required under the law.

The case began in 2019, when along with 13 municipalities and four other NGOs, the French environmental organization Notre Affaire à Tous requested the oil company Total to take measures to prevent human rights and environmental violations. After a meeting with Total in June 2019, the complainants issued a “mise en demeure” (a letter of formal notice) to the oil giant that is responsible for more than two-thirds of France’s greenhouse gas emissions. They granted Total three months to include reasonable greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in its “due diligence plan” before they would file a lawsuit.   

On 28 January 2020, the complainants asked the District Court of Nanterre to order Total to align its practices with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. According to the complainants, Total has not provided sufficient detail in its “vigilance plan” to reduce its emissions and that the company is still not in compliance with international climate agreements, such as the 2015 Paris Agreement. Among other requests, the complainants ask the Court to order Total to reduce its net emissions by 40% by 2040 (compared to 2019).

The complainants argued that Total’s obligation to take measures to prevent human rights and environmental violations stems from the French Law on the Duty of Vigilance. This law obliges a company to establish a detailed “vigilance plan” which identifies and seeks to mitigate the risks to human rights, fundamental freedoms, the environment, and public health that may result directly or indirectly from a company’s activities.

Total claimed that the Nanterre District Court lacked jurisdiction and requested that the case be brought before the Commercial Court. On 11 February 2021, the pre-trial judge rejected this request and confirmed the jurisdiction of the District Court. In order to settle this dispute, the Versailles Court of Appeal confirmed the District Court’s jurisdiction and based its decision on “the legislator’s intention to entrust actions relating to ecological damage to specially designated judicial courts only.”

Voluntary interventions:
Amnesty International France and the municipality of Poitiers voluntarily intervened in the initial proceedings as ancillary parties (‘voluntary intervention’). In 2022, they were joined by voluntary interventions from the City of New York and the City of Paris, both in support of the plaintiffs, arguing that they had a significant interest in climate mitigation.

In its 2024 ruling (below), the Paris Court of Appeal found that Amnesty International and the City of Poitiers lacked an interest in the case, noting with regard to the latter that it had failed to establish that the territory under its jurisdiction is subject to specific harm related to climate change. Likewise, the City of New York had insufficiently demonstrated its authority to intervene voluntarily in these proceedings, rendering the intervention null and void pursuant to Article 117 of the French Code of Civil Procedure.

However, the Court held that the City of Paris had a legitimate interest in preserving its rights by supporting the legal actions brought before the Paris Judicial Court aimed at mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. It declared the City of Paris’s voluntary intervention admissible, noting its engagement with mitigation action.

Dismissal of the preventive suit in July 2023:
On 6 July 2023, a pre-trial judge dismissed the preventive lawsuit on procedural grounds, noting that the plaintiffs’ notice to sue and their claims in the summons were not identical, as well as standing concerns in climate litigation generally.

Appeal:
The plaintiffs appealed the 2023 decision to the Paris Court of Appeal. On 18 June 2024, Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal of the case, meaning that it will proceed to trial. The Court declared the claims by the associations Notre Affaire à Tous, Sherpa, Zéa, and France Nature Environnement admissible. In doing so, it held that claims made in summons may be more expansive than those in a notice to sue, and also that claims under the French Civil Code concerning environmental harm have a different purpose than those brought under the French law on the duty of vigilance, meaning that the former is not displaced by the existence of the latter.

Concerning the standing of the plaintiff municipalities, the Court noted the general competence clause, based on article L2121-29 of the general code of local authorities, that grants them competence concerning the affairs of the municipality affecting a local public interest, with their action being limited to the territories they administer. However, it held that the applicant municipalities had insufficiently shown a specific interest to sue, e.g. specific climate-related impacts on their territory.

Ruling of 25 June 2026:
On 25 June 2026, the Paris Court of Appeal ruled that Total had failed to prepare an adequate vigilance plan, among other things because it had failed to include ‘scope 3’ emissions, those associated with combustion of its fossil fuel products, in the plan.

The court ruled that:

  • 1) the climate risks and impacts to which the company may contribute through its operations fall within the scope of the duty of care law of parent companies and contracting entities.
  • 2) The negative climate impacts caused by the release of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, resulting from TotalEnergies’s operations, must be identified in the company’s risk assessment as part of its due diligence plan, as part of the duty of companies to take action based on their specific circumstances regarding serious risks and harms related to climate change.
  • 3) Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions are considered emissions resulting from the group’s activities under the law, due, in particular, to the inherent link between oil and gas production and the combustion of these products by users. Consequently, TotalEnergies’ due diligence plan, which did not include Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions, is incomplete. The court ordered TotalEnergies to complete its due diligence plan within six months, with provisional enforcement, by including Scope 3 emissions and related measures in its risk mapping.

The court clarified that since climate risks pose a serious, present, and future threat to the enjoyment of human rights—as recognized by the scientific community and international courts—companies must take these risks into account in their due diligence plans, as identifying them is an essential part of preventing serious human rights abuses. It held that the duty of vigilance law is not intended to hold companies liable for the risks related to climate change that result from all human activity on the planet since the Industrial Revolution. Instead, it calls on them to take preventive action, in accordance with their specific circumstances, to address the serious risks and harms to which their activities contribute, in line with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct—which served as the framework for the legal provisions of the French law—by establishing a duty of care that is a duty of means rather than a duty of result. In doing so, it held that since climate risks constitute a serious, present, and future threat to the enjoyment of human rights according to the consensus view of scientists and international courts, companies must take these risks into account in their due diligence plans, as their identification is part of preventing serious human rights violations (citing the ECtHR’s judgment in KlimaSeniorinnen and the ICJ’s climate advisory opinion).

The case was adjourned until 21 January 2027, before the pretrial judge of the 34th Civil Chamber of the Paris Judicial Court, for review of the incorporation of these measures into the due diligence plan.

Suggested case citation:
Nanterre District Court, Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v. Total SA, complaint of 28 January 2020.

Paris Court of Appeal, Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v. Total SA, N° RG 23/14348, Judgment of 18 June 2024.

Paris Court of Appeal, Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v. Total SA, N° RG 23/14348, Judgment of 25 June 2026.

Case documents:

The ruling of 25 June 2026, and related press release (both in French) are available for download below.

Jugement-34e-chambre-25-juin-2026Download
CP-25.06.2026-34eme-chambreDownload

Links:

  • For the full complaint (in French), see here.
  • For an unofficial translation of the complaint (in English), see here.
  • For the order confirming the jurisdiction of the Nanterre District Court (in French), see here.
  • For the 2024 judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal, see here.

Last updated:
25 June 2026.

Categories
2026 Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Finland Private and family life Right to life

Greenpeace Finland & the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation v. Government of Finland

Summary:

Greenpeace Finland and Finnish Association for Nature Conservation have sought judicial review by the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court of the government’s plans for implementation of climate targets under the 2022 Climate Act. These plans are detailed in the Government Report on the National Energy and Climate Strategy and Medium-Term Climate Plan, both of which were issued in December 2025. The plaintiffs argue that the measures envisaged by the government are insufficient to achieve the targets set out in the Climate Act, and alternative pathways towards the achievement of the targets have not been assessed, and thus the government is in breach of its statutory duty.    

The plaintiffs have approached the highest administrative court in Finland directly (rather than via the appellate route), arguing that the impugned government decisions implicate civil rights and obligations as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights in the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen & Others v. Switzerland judgment.

Last updated:

17 March 2026.

Links:

For the press release by the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation, click here.

Categories
Business responsibility / corporate cases Domestic court Fossil fuel extraction Right to a healthy environment

Ugandan Farmers v. EACOP Ltd.

Summary:
In May 2026, it was reported that a group of Ugandan farmers and environmental advocates were preparing a case that would challenge the construction of the nearly-completed East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) in UK courts. The pipeline, which is set to transport crude oil from Uganda to Tanzanian, is operated by a corporate actor registered in the United Kingdom (EACOP Ltd.), with TotalEnergies as a majority stakeholder in the project. The claimants in this case argue that the project threatens their right to a healthy environment, as guaranteed by the Ugandan Constitution.

This case follows other legal efforts to halt the pipeline project by litigating, among others, before the East African Court of Justice in Arusha.

More information on this case will be shared as it becomes available.

Last updated:
24 June 2026.

Categories
Biodiversity Children and young people Deforestation Domestic court Non-discrimination Right to a healthy environment Right to life

Abe Lim et al. v. Malaysia

Summary:
On 28 February 2026, a case was filed at the Kuala Lumpur High Court that challenges Malaysia’s inaction on deforestation, linking it explicitly with the obligation to combat climate change. The applicants, all Malaysian youth, argue that their government’s inaction on deforestation breaches the constitutional rights enshrined in the Malaysian Constitution (MC), namely the right to life (Art. 5(1) MC), which the Malaysian courts have previously recognized as encompassing the right to a healthy environment, and the right to equality (Art. 8(1) MC), given that deforestation disproportionately burdens youths and future generations. They argue that the government breached the expectations of maintaining forest cover that it had consistently created since 1992, and that it was bound to protect forests under the public trust doctrine. They seek a mandatory order requiring the government to take all necessary steps to prevent deforestation by avoiding dips below 50% forest cover, and to report on its progress in this regard. To make this claim, the applicants draw on expert reports, including a report on “50% Forest Cover: Assessing Malaysia’s Compliance with Forest-Climate Commitments” that notes the global and local cooling effect of forests, as well as their capacity for carbon sequestration. The expert report notes that:

Studies from the Amazon suggest that ecosystem degradation above 25% of a total forest area could result in a “tipping point” and cause the entire ecosystem to systematically die out; this not only results in a loss of biodiversity but causes a forest complex to become a net-emitter of CO2 (Gatti et al., 2021). The risk of deforestation causing a Malaysian rainforest to reach this “tipping point”, whether in isolated forest patches or in larger complexes, have not been sufficiently studied and so remains a major threat to Malaysia’s progress in achieving its net-zero target.

Hearing:
On 21 July 2026, a hearing was held in this case before the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

Application document and attached expert report:

1.-Application-for-Judicial-Review–002Download
5.-Applicants–Expert-Affidavit–002Download

Suggested citation:
Kuala Lumpur High Court, Abe Lim et al. v. Malaysia, WA-25-96-02/2026, filed 28 February 2026, pending case.

Last updated:
24 June 2026.

Categories
2026 Biodiversity Class action Deforestation Domestic court Mexico Right to a healthy environment

Community Representative of San Bartolo Coyotepec v. State of Oaxaca

Summary:
On 11 March 2024, a representative of the community of San Bartolo Coyotepec in Mexico’s State of Oaxaca filed an amparo petition with the Ninth District Court of the State of Oaxaca, arguing that the human right to a healthy environment had been violated because municipal, state, and federal authorities had failed to protect Benito Juárez National Park and the corresponding Ecological Reserve and Protected Natural Area. On 20 March 2025, the case was rejected by the Ninth District Court given the failure to demonstrate a concrete, direct, and imminent harm resulting from the alleged failure to protect the designated areas.

The applicant appealed, arguing that the first instance judge had failed to reason his decision, had shifted the burden of proof to his detriment, and had improperly evaluated the evidence concerning the progressive deterioration of the protected natural areas in question.

On 20 October 2025, the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico accepted the case for review. On 24 February 2026, the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of Justice ordered that the case be remanded to the Ninth District Court to amend the ruling that denied constitutional protection, gather evidence and determine whether the applicant’s human right to a healthy environment had been violated. It established that, pursuant to Article 4 of the Mexican Constitution, which enshrines the right to a suitable environment, any person who inhabits or uses an ecosystem and benefits from its environmental services may go to court to demand its protection, without needing to prove direct individual harm.

In doing so, the Court explicitly linked the case to climate change. It noted the interconnectedness of the three aspects of the ‘triple planetary crisis’ (climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution), and held that none of these aspects can be treated in isolation from each other. It noted the applicant’s framing of the territory in question as a carbon sink. It also extensively cited the 2025 advisory opinions on climate change of the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR). It particularly emphasized the IACtHR’s finding that “urged States to maximize the scope of protection of the right to the environment, recognizing that this right protects not only individuals, but also the components of the environment—such as forests, rivers, seas, and other ecosystems—as autonomous legal interests, even in the absence of certainty or immediate evidence of a direct risk to specific individuals” (para. 43). In doing so, it noted that according to the IACtHR climate change poses an imminent risk to life, health, food security, and the balance of ecosystems on a global scale (para. 42), as well as extensively citing the ICJ’s discussion of the right to a healthy environment in its climate advisory opinion (para. 35).

With this decision, the Court reaffirmed the “adjacent environment” doctrine in environmental matters. This means that individuals who live in or use the area of influence of an ecosystem and receive its environmental benefits may file an amparo petition, even if they do not live immediately adjacent to the Protected Natural Area. Furthermore, the Court noted that environmental protection must be analyzed in accordance with the precautionary principle, meaning that the absence of scientific certainty regarding the benefits of the ecosystem in question cannot be used to deny its protection or to disregard the relationship between people and the natural environment.

Suggested citation:
Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico, Community Representative of San Bartolo Coyotepec v. State of Oaxaca, direct amparo petition no. 6714/2025, 24 February 2026.

Amparo ruling:

AR450_2025Download

Last updated:
24 June 2026.