Category: Keywords

Categories
Adaptation Biodiversity Finland Human Rights Committee Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Loss & damage Minority rights Non-discrimination Private and family life Right to culture Self-determination

Muddusjärvi Reindeer Herders’ Cooperative v. Finland

Summary:
On 24 June 2025, a communication was brought before the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) against Finland by 33 members of the Muddusjärvi Reindeer Herders’ Cooperative (MPLK), an indigenous Sámi community in northern Finland. The MPLK has practiced nature-based traditional herding techniques in Northern Finland for centuries, and this practice is a core part of Sámi culture.

The communication alleges multiple breaches of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), namely Articles 27 (right to enjoy one’s culture), 26 (non-discrimination), 17 (privacy and family life), and 1 (self-determination). It alleges that the Finnish State violated these rights in light of the impacts of climate change and forestry on Sámi traditional practices, given its failures to support and compensate the herding communities during recent exceptional winters, when the loss of lichen-rich old-growth forests and changes to snow conditions have impacted reindeer food sources.

The communication draws on the HRC’s earlier Daniel Billy and Others v. Australia Views, where it found that Australia had failed to discharge its positive obligation to implement adequate adaptation measures to protect the authors’ home, private life and family, and found a violation of Article 17 ICCPR.

Status of the case:
Pending.

More information:
Case documents in this case have not been made available. A summary of the communication has been provided by the applicants’ counsel.

Suggested citation:
UN Human Rights Committee, Muddusjärvi Reindeer Herders’ Cooperative v. Finland, Communication filed 24 June 2025.

Last updated:
25 August 2026.

Categories
2026 Business responsibility / corporate cases Domestic court Fossil fuel extraction Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Just transition litigation Participation rights Participation rights Right to a healthy environment Right to culture South Africa

Sustaining the Wild Coast v. Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, South Africa

Summary:
On 14 August 2026, the Constitutional Court of South Africa issued a ruling concerning climate change, human rights, environmental protection, cultural rights, economic development, and sustainable development in the Sustaining the Wild Coast case.

The immediate question before the Constitutional Court concerned the appropriate remedy following unlawful administrative action. However, the judgment has broader constitutional significance. At issue is the Wild Coast, a roughly 250-kilometre stretch of coastline in the Eastern Cape province of South Africa with exceptional ecological, cultural, and economic importance. The area supports customary fishing practices, spiritual practices, and the livelihoods of coastal communities, while also providing habitat for endangered marine and bird species. The area enjoys protection as a recognised protected area in terms of South African national environmental management laws.

In 2013, Impact Africa applied for and was granted an exploration right to undertake seismic exploration for oil and gas. This right was renewed in 2017 and 2021. In 2021, Shell acquired a 50% participating interest in the exploration right. Shell then announced its intention to undertake a 3D seismic survey along the Wild Coast. The seismic survey involved the use of airguns to generate soundwaves directed towards the seabed in order to identify possible oil and gas deposits.

The applicants in this case, who are both non-governmental organizations and individuals, approached the High Court to prevent the respondents from conducting the seismic survey and set aside the decisions granting the exploration. The matter was heard in the High Court, which ordered an interdict preventing the seismic survey from proceeding pending review proceedings. The respondents then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which set aside the High Court’s order pending the application for the renewal of the exploration right. The applicants then appealed to the apex Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court situated the dispute within the interconnected relationship between people, the environment, and socio-economic development. In doing so, it considered the constitutional environmental right in section 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996; the rights of affected communities to participate in decisions affecting them; cultural and spiritual rights; dignity; livelihoods; intergenerational equity; and the state’s responsibilities in the context of climate change.

The environmental right in section 24 requires decision-makers to look beyond immediate consequences and consider future environmental conditions: it ‘requires an educated peek into the future with all the attendant uncertainties to safeguard the environment for those who will come after us’. The Court rejected an understanding of environmental protection and economic development as mutually exclusive, and warned against reducing cultural, spiritual, and environmental interests to interests that simply compete with economic development on equal terms. The Court stressed that economic development cannot be pursued without having regard to environmental consequences, while environmental protection cannot automatically prevent all forms of economic activity.

The Court clarified that this approach is relevant to climate change in that fossil-fuel development presents an obvious tension between economic development and environmental protection. This is because extraction may provide economic opportunities while contributing to greenhouse-gas emissions and potentially increasing long-term climate risks. In this regard, it noted that

In the context of extractive industries, the enquiry cannot be reduced to a formal balancing exercise that treats cultural, religious, spiritual and environmental concerns as merely competing interests against economic development. It is also ahistorical to place these interests on equal footing, given the long history of dispossession and marginalisation of coastal communities whose relationships with land and sea have often been subordinated to commercial extraction. Although job creation is a legitimate consideration, it cannot be assumed to be inherently beneficial without asking who receives those jobs, how secure they are and what social, ecological and cultural costs the affected communities are expected to bear. In this context, the communities’ constitutionally enshrined and protected rights are given practical force through procedural duties of meaningful consultation, participation and respect for their cultural and spiritual relationship with the environment. A just and equitable remedy should therefore not allow speculative or corporation-centred economic benefits to outweigh procedural justice where communities’ livelihoods, cultural identity and environmental interests are directly at stake (para. 132).

The judgment does not establish an absolute constitutional prohibition on fossil-fuel development. Instead, it requires these development decisions to be made within a lawful framework that properly considers environmental and climate consequences. The Court therefore understood environmental degradation, often caused by climate change, as potentially producing a cascade of human rights consequences. To this end, the Court permanently terminated Shell’s exploration rights and closed any renewal routes.

This case establishes a broader constitutional vision in which environmental decision-making must account for climate change, scientific uncertainty, community rights, cultural identity, dignity, and the interests of future generations. In this respect, the case strengthens the foundation for a rights-based approach to climate change action in South Africa. This case reaffirms that sustainable development requires genuine integration of environmental protection, human rights and socio-economic interests rather than the prioritisation of one at the expense of others.

Full text of the judgment:
The full text of the judgment is available for download below.

Sustaining the Wild Coast CaseDownload

Date of Decision:
14 August 2026.

Status:
Decided.

Suggested Citation:
Sustaining the Wild Coast NPC and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others; Natural Justice and Another v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others [2026] ZACC 33.

Credits:
This database entry was contributed by Michaela O’Donoghue, LLD Candidate in the Urban Law and Sustainability Governance Chair, Stellenbosch University, South Africa.

Categories
2025 Business responsibility / corporate cases Domestic court Fossil fuel extraction Indigenous peoples' rights Right to a healthy environment Right to culture Right to development and work Right to health Sea-level rise South Africa

Green Connection NPC and Another v. Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and Others

Summary:
On 13 August 2025, the Western Cape High Court (South Afria) delivered a judgment in a successful judicial review application that was brought by two public interest organisations, Green Connection NPC and Natural Justice, against the decisions to grant environmental authorisation to TotalEnergies and Shell for offshore oil and gas exploration drilling in Block 5/6/7, an area which is approximately 10,000km² off South Africa’s South-West coast between Cape Town and Cape Agulhas. The court upheld five of the six grounds of review and declared the decisions unlawful, remitting the matter to the Director-General (“the DG”) of the South African Department of Mineral Resources and Energy,  for reconsideration.

The review application concerned the granting of an environmental authorisation (“the EA”) to TotalEnergies and Shell in terms of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (“NEMA”), for the purpose of conducting exploration drilling to determine whether geological structures contain oil or gas – fossil fuels – in potentially extractable amounts. The application for an EA was lodged with the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy and it was granted by its DG on 17 April 2023. On 24 September 2023, the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment dismissed the applicants’ internal joint appeal against the DG’s decision.

More details on the challenge:
Total and its co-venture partners, Shell and PetroSA, are co-holders of Exploration Right 12/3/224, granted under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 for Block 5/6/7. The block is situated 60-170km offshore at water depths of 700 and 3,200m. Following seismic surveys, Total sought to drill one exploration well and up to four additional wells.

The EA application triggered listed activities under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations of 2014. Total commissioned technical modelling (drilling discharges, oil spill, underwater noise) and specialist studies (marine ecology, fisheries, socio-economic, cultural heritage, climate change). The Petroleum Agency SA reviewed the studies and recommended an approval. The DG granted the EA on 17 April 2023. The Minister dismissed an internal appeal on 24 September 2023, prompting the review application.

Rights at Stake:

  • Section 24(a) of the Constitution, the right to an environment not harmful to health or well-being.
  • Section 24(b) of the Constitution, the right to have the environment protected through reasonable measures preventing pollution and ecological degradation, promoting conservation, and securing ecologically sustainable development.
  • Interests of the whole community in coastal public property, including future generations and other living organisms dependent on the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act 24 of 2008 (“ICMA”).
  • Rights of small-scale fishers and coastal communities to livelihood and cultural practices.

Claim:
The applicants’ review challenged the final environmental and social impact assessment report (“Final EIR”) prepared on behalf of TotalEnergies and the review grounds may be summarised as follows:

(a) Firstly, the Final EIR failed to properly assess and the state respondents failed to properly consider the socio-economic impact of the proposed project because it did not assess the socio-economic impact which a well blowout and consequent oil spill may cause on the fishing industry and small-scale fishers.

(b) Secondly, the decision-makers failed to consider the factors prescribed by ICMA.

(c) Thirdly, the Final EIR failed to assess and the state respondents failed properly to consider the need and desirability of the proposed project because no consideration was given to the climate change impacts which will be caused by burning any gas discovered by the proposed project.

(d) Fourthly, the Final EIR failed to assess and the state respondents failed to consider the transboundary impacts of the proposed project, both on Namibia and on international waters.

(e) Fifthly, neither the Final EIR nor the Environmental Management Programme Report included TotalEnergies’ Oil Spill Contingency Plan or Blow Out Contingency Plan.

(f) Sixthly, PASA delivered an appeal response report which at face value was submitted on behalf of the DG and was treated as such by the Minister.

Judgment:
On 13 August 2025, Judge Mangcu-Lockwood delivered judgment in favour of the applicants on the first five grounds of review and dismissed the sixth.

First Ground: The court held that once the Final EIR identified a potential blowout and oil spill as a potentially significant impact or risk, it was obliged to assess the consequences and probability of the impact or risk including those with a low degree of probability. The court rejected TotalEnergies’ distinction between a “risk” and an “impact” stating this was “against the spirit and purport of these Regulations. Both are required to be assessed in terms of the legislation, in equal measure.”

Second Ground: The court found that the DG’s decision made no specific mention of ICMA. Even based on a generous reading of the record, the court was unable to conclude that the Final EIR, and by extension the DG, considered ICMA factors. The court held:

“As the applicants point out, ICMA introduces concepts which are not present in NEMA or other aspects of environmental law, by conferring a special legal status on coastal public property, which afforded the environment a particularly high level of protection. It expressly provides that the State holds the coastal public property in trust for current and future generations. It creates the concept of the interests of the whole community, which specifically recognises the need to take into account the interests of other living organisms which are dependent on the coastal environment. As such the ICMA’s requirements cannot be satisfied by generic consideration of NEMA.”

The court found that the DG then failed to consider the ICMA factors and that his decision stood to be reviewed and set aside. The Minister’s decision was described as “woefully deficient” as it did not explicitly identify the ICMA factors to be considered and failed to set out any findings in respect thereof.

Third Ground: The court held there is “no doubt that climate change impact assessment must form part of the assessment to be conducted and considered before the grant of an environmental authorisation.” Regarding the distinction between exploration and production phases, the court stated: “Whilst it is correct that the specific activity for which the EA in this case is granted is exploration and not production… the two processes are intertwined. There would be no point in conducting an exploration activity unless an entity hoped to proceed to the next phase of production.”

Fourth Ground: Applying sections 232 and 233 of the Constitution, which require consideration of customary and international law, the court held:

“There is accordingly an obligation arising from customary international law and international law upon South Africa to not allow its territory to be used in a manner which causes transboundary harm. The duty includes a requirement for an environmental impact assessment to be conducted where an activity such as the present exploration activity, which poses a risk of transboundary harm, is to be conducted.”

Fifth Ground: The court found that given more focused information would be provided in the Oil Spill Contingency Plan and Blow Out Contingency Plan in another round of submissions it was “difficult to conclude that there had been a full assessment.” Even more problematic was the lack of public participation regarding these plans.

Sixth Ground: The court dismissed this ground and found that PASA as an organ of state designated under section 70 of the MPRDA to perform public functions was entitled to submit an appeal response.

Remedy:
The court made the following order:

  1. Shell Exploration and Production South Africa BV was joined as the fifth respondent. There were no costs in relation to the joinder application.
  2. The applicants’ late service of the review application was condoned.
  3. The decision taken by the third respondent on 17 April 2023 to grant an environmental authorisation to TotalEnergies to conduct exploratory operations in Block 5/6/7 was reviewed and set aside.
  4. The decision taken by the first respondent on 24 September 2023 dismissing the appeal of the first and second applicants was reviewed and set aside.
  5. The decision of granting an environmental authorisation to TotalEnergies was remitted to the third respondent for reconsideration, which process must provide for the following:
  6. TotalEnergies must be afforded the opportunity to submit new or amended assessments to cure the deficiencies identified in the first to fifth grounds of review.
  7. Public participation must be conducted in regard to the new and/or amended assessments submitted by TotalEnergies before decision is made by the third respondent.
  8. The first to third respondents were ordered to pay the costs of this application, jointly and severally, on a scale C, including the costs of three counsel.

Status of the case:
The High Court judgment has set aside the environmental authorisation and the matter remitted for reconsideration. The State and Shell have filed applications for leave to appeal, either before the Supreme Court of Appeal or a full bench of the High Court of South Africa.

Case Documents:
Judgment of the High Court of South Africa can be found here.

Commentary:

Academic and professional commentary on the cases is available here, here, and here.

Related case:
For related case-law, see:

Suggested Citation:
High Court of South Africa, Western Cape (Cape Town), Division Green Connection NPC and Another v Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and Others, case no. 5676/2024, 13 August 2025, Judge Mangcu Lockwood.

Last updated:
3 August 2026.

Credits:
This database entry was contributed by Camagu Luvo, LLD Candidate in the Urban Law and Sustainability Governance Chair, Stellenbosch University, South Africa.

Categories
2022 Biodiversity Business responsibility / corporate cases Domestic court Fossil fuel extraction Namibia Participation rights Participation rights Vulnerability

Ncumcara Community Forest Management Association v. the Environmental Commissioner of Namibia

Summary:
Reconnaissance Energy Africa is a Canadian oil and gas drilling company which operates in Namibia, Botswana, and Angola exploring for oil and gas. In 2019, Reconnaissance Energy Africa obtained a license allowing them to carry out exploratory oil drilling in part of the Okavango Delta. The Okavango Delta is a large freshwater wetland which supplies drinking water to a drought-stricken region susceptible to adverse climate change effects and is inhabited by diverse plant and animal species. Communities in the Okavango Delta in Namibia (represented by the Ncumcara Community Forest Management Committee) opposed these exploratory drilling practices and contested Reconnaissance Energy Africa being granted the license.

The license was later amended, against which the communities objected in a letter addressed to the Environmental Commissioner on 27 May 2022. This letter went unanswered. The communities then appealed to the Minister of Mines and Energy asking for the decision to grant the oil drilling license be rescinded or reviewed. This complaint went unanswered. The communities then filed a complaint with the Namibian High Court asking the Court to require the Minister to respond and to prohibit further drilling. The case was heard in the High Court on 13 July 2022 during which the communities claimed that their (procedural) human rights were being infringed because of the drilling on community-managed land which was already vulnerable to climate change. The communities further argued that they had not been properly consulted as is required by Namibian law, and that the drilling jeopardises the region’s only source of freshwater by making it vulnerable to pollution and exposes already endangered wildlife to increased risk.

The communities sought an urgent interim junction prohibiting any further drilling in the region. The High Court considered section 50 of Namibia’s Environmental Management Act 7 of 2007 in terms of which appeals against the Environmental Commissioner must be brought before and decided by the Minister of Mines and Energy. The Court therefore held that it did not have jurisdiction, and that its intervention would only be allowed where the Minister refuses to make any decision, or if the Minister has already made a decision. The Minister had not done either, meaning that it was still within the Minister’s jurisdiction to consider the communities’ appeals for the drilling licence to be revoked and the drilling to stop. The High Court therefore rejected the communities’ requests, and Reconnaissance Energy Africa continues to conduct exploratory oil drilling in the Okavango Delta. The communities were ordered to pay the legal costs.

Text of the decision:
The text of the decision can be consulted and downloaded below.

Ncumcara Community Forest Management Committee v Environmental Commissioner – DecisionDownload

Date of decision:
29 July 2022

Status:
Decided

Court:
High Court of Namibia, Main Division, Windhoek Judgment

Suggested citation:
Ncumcara Community Forest Management Association v The Environmental Commissioner (HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN2022/00289) [2022] NAHCMD 380 (29 July 2022)

Last updated:
3 August 2026

Credits:
This database entry was contributed by Michaela O’Donoghue, LLD Candidate in the Urban Law and Sustainability Governance Chair, Stellenbosch University, South Africa

Categories
2005 Business responsibility / corporate cases Domestic court Farming Fossil fuel extraction Human dignity Nigeria Right to life

Gbemre v. Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd. and Others

Summary:
The applicant brought the action on behalf of himself and the Iwherekan community in Delta State in the Niger Delta region. The community had for decades been subjected to continuous gas flaring by the Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) in joint venture with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). The applicant argued that this practice caused severe health problems, degraded agricultural land and water sources, polluted the air, and contributed to broader adverse climate change effects. He contended that the continued flaring of gas violated constitutionally guaranteed rights to life and dignity (in terms of sections 33 and 34 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria) as well as protections under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

The court held that the gas-flaring violated constitutionally guaranteed rights, including the right to a clean, poison-free, pollution-free, healthy environment. Having found this, the court declared the practice unconstitutional in the applicant’s community and ordered Shell and the NNPC to take immediate steps to stop flaring gas there. It also directed the Attorney General of the Federation to initiate amendments to the relevant legislation to align it with constitutional guarantees.

This case constitutionalised environmental protection, embedding it within Nigeria’s fundamental rights framework. Secondly, it recognised that environmental harm, including greenhouse gas emissions and the adverse effects of climate change, can amount to a violation of the rights to life and dignity. Thirdly, it demonstrated judicial willingness to confront powerful corporate and state actors where fundamental rights are implicated. The judgment ultimately situates climate change and environmental protection within the core of human rights law, affirming that the rights to life and dignity necessarily include the right to a healthy and sustainable environment.

Text of the decision:
The text of the decision can be consulted and downloaded below.

Gbemre v Shell (Decision)Download

Date of decision:
14 November 2005

Status:
Decided

Court:
Federal Court of Nigeria

Suggested citation:
Gbemre v Shell Petroleum Development Company
Nigeria Limited and Others (2005) AHRLR 151 (NgHC 2005) (Federal High Court of Nigeria in the Benin Judicial Division, suit FHC/B/CS/53/05, 14 November 2005)

Last updated:
3 August 2026

Credits:
This database entry was contributed by Michaela O’Donoghue, LLD Candidate in the Urban Law and Sustainability Governance Chair, Stellenbosch University, South Africa

Categories
Adaptation Climate-induced displacement Disability and health-related inequality European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights Imminent risk Loss & damage Non-discrimination Paris Agreement Participation rights Private and family life Right to life Right to property Sea-level rise The United Kingdom

Friends of the Earth and Others v. the United Kingdom

Summary:
In July 2025, an application concerning adaptation obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights was filed with the European Court of Human Rights against the United Kingdom. The application builds on domestic proceedings in the reportedly first-ever adaptation case in the United Kingdom, which was brought against the government before the UK’s High Court of Justice. The plaintiffs in this case included Kevin Jordan, a homeowner from Norfolk (UK), who alleged that his home was acutely threatened by coastal erosion, with the road leading up to it having already collapsed into the sea. On 30 November 2023, he was told to leave his home by the local authorities, and it was home was demolished seven days later. Mr Jordan brought his case together with the NGO ‘Friends of the Earth’ and disability rights activist Doug Paulley, a care home resident who alleged that his health conditions were being exacerbated by climate-aggravated heatwaves. Mr Paulley is a wheelchair user who has a number of long-term health conditions. Together, the plaintiffs challenged the UK’s National Adaptation Programme (NAP).

Domestic proceedings:
The UK’s domestic law requires the production of new NAP every five years, and the most recent version — NAP3 — was published in July 2023. The claimants argued that NAP3 is deficient for the following reasons:

  1. Failure to set sufficiently specific objectives;
  2. Failure to conduct and publish information on the assessment of the risks involved in implementing NAP3;
  3. Failure to consider the unequal impacts of NAP3 on protected groups (on the grounds of age, race and disability); and
  4. Violation of Articles 2, 8, 14 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the rights to life, respect for private and family life, non-discrimination and property, respectively), as enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998.

In a judgment issued on 25 October 2024, the High Court of Justice for England and Wales rejected the applicants’ claims. Justice Chamberlain, in his judgment, found that there had been no error of law in this case. His ruling extensively considered the 2024 Verein KlimaSeniorinnen judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, but found that “[u]nlike in the field of mitigation, and subject to the arguments about the effect of the ECHR as interpreted in [Verein KlimaSeniorinnen] (…), there is no internationally binding quantified standard governing how States must adapt to climate change. It would be very difficult to devise any such standard because the risks of climate change differ widely from state to state (and indeed within states). In some places, the main risk may be from flooding, in other places extreme heat or drought. Elsewhere, there may be a combination of risks, which all have to be addressed but some of which are more urgent than others. Moreover, the profile of risks, and the priorities attached to addressing them, may change over time” (para. 92 of the High Court ruling).

Assessing the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen judgment overall, Judge Chamberlain found that while this judgment “represents a significant development of the case law in relation to climate change, not only as regards the standing of associations to bring claims before the Strasbourg Court, but also as regards the scope and extent of the positive obligations of the State and the margin of appreciation to be accorded when assessing whether those obligations have been discharged”, “the significance of the judgment for the UK’s climate change framework should not be overstated.” The Judge noted that KlimaSeniorinnen focused heavily on lacunae in domestic legislation and the targets set out in the Paris Agreement, whereas the law of the United Kingdom does not feature similar lacunae in mitigation target-setting.

Lawyers for the government in this case had sought to dismiss the findings of the ECtHR, as made in para. 552 of KlimaSeniorinnen, as an obiter dictum. This paragraph of the Strasbourg Court’s judgment reads as follows:

Furthermore, effective protection of the rights of individuals from serious adverse effects on their life, health, well-being and quality of life requires that the above-noted mitigation measures be supplemented by adaptation measures aimed at alleviating the most severe or imminent consequences of climate change, taking into account any relevant particular needs for protection. Such adaptation measures must be put in place and effectively applied in accordance with the best available evidence (…) and consistent with the general structure of the State’s positive obligations in this context (…).

Judge Chamberlain disagreed with the government as concerns the nature of this finding, noting the dangers of applying “common law concepts [the idea of obiter dicta] to the judgment of a court most of whose members come from different legal traditions.” Still, Judge Chamberlain noted that the Strasbourg Court’s findings were of a general nature (para. 101). He found that KlimaSeniorinnen “appears to indicate that the positive obligation imposed by Articles 2 and 8 [ECHR] extends to adopting and effectively implementing ‘adaptation measures aimed at alleviating the most severe or imminent consequences of climate change, taking into account any relevant particular needs for protection’”, stemming from the State’s underlying regulatory obligation. He notes that “[w]hat that means in the context of adaptation measures, however, is far from clear” (para. 103), given that adaptation measures were not central to the KlimaSeniorinnen case, and that the international legal framework in this regard is less well-developed than for mitigation measures. He went on to anticipate future rulings from the ECtHR, considering it

(…) likely that, if the Strasbourg Court had in a future case to apply the reasoning in [Verein KlimaSeniorinnen] to the adaptation context, it would say that:
(a) the narrow margin of appreciation in relation to the mitigation aims was justified by reference to the internationally agreed objective of carbon neutrality by 2050 and the impact of one State’s default on other States;
(b) neither of these features applies in the field of adaptation; and
(c) accordingly, in the field of adaptation, States are to be accorded a wide margin of appreciation in setting the relevant objectives and a wider margin still in setting out the proposals and policies for meeting them (by analogy with the margin accorded to the State in setting the means for achieving the mitigation objectives).

Accordingly, he found that the current adaptation framework in the United Kingdom appears to “fall comfortably within the UK’s margin of appreciation under Articles 2 and 8 ECHR” and is not “contrary to any clear and consistent line of authority from the Strasbourg Court”. On this basis, he found that there was neither an error of law nor an incompatibility with human rights law evident in this case.

Application to the European Court of Human Rights:
In July 2025, Friends of the Earth announced that the case had been filed as an application before the European Court of Human Rights. In their application, they alleged violations of their human rights by the UK’s failure to put in place the necessary adaptation measures to protect them (and, for Friends of the Earth, the people it represents) from the risks and impacts of climate change. Invoking their rights under Articles 2 and 8 ECHR, as well as Article 1 of Protocol 1 (read with Article 14), they argue that their human rights are engaged by the effects of climate-change, including heatwaves (Mr Paulley) and coastal erosion (Mr Jordan). They draw on findings from the UK’s independent advisory body on climate change, the Climate Change
Committee (‘the CCC), which has stated that the UK is already experiencing a range of significant adverse impacts from climate change, including heatwaves and coastal erosion.

Under Articles 2 and 8 ECHR
Noting that coastal erosion has been accelerated by climate change, they noted that Mr Jordan had in the meantime lost his home to coastal erosion, and that afterwards he was offered little support, whether financial or otherwise. That, along with the lack of meaningful, long-term and effective planning to support coastal communities, left him particularly affected by coastal erosion and associated risks. Mr. Paulley, in the meantime, was room-bound during heatwaves, given the high temperatures that affect the common areas of his care home. This, they argued, severely impacted his physical and mental health.

The applicants drew on studies that document excess deaths during heat waves in the UK, including especially during the summer 2022 heat wave. They drew also on the adaptation-related obligations under the Paris Agreement, as well as case-law from other international adjudicators (Billy) and the ECtHR’s own case-law in cases concerning climate change and other environmental pollution.

They argued that the UK had failed to act with due diligence to protect the applicants. The government’s actions in this regard violated its positive obligations under the right to life in Article 2 (as well as Article 8 ECHR) ECHR given its failure to put in place and effectively apply in practice adaptation measures that are in accordance with the best available evidence and consistent with the general structure of the State’s positive obligations in this context. In particular, they argued that the UK lacked an effective legal framework for ECHR-compliant climate adaptation, and that the NAP3 itself does not effectively protect Convention rights, because it lacked transparency and procedural safeguards, was developed behind closed doors and did not adequately protect vulnerable individuals.

Under Article 1, Protocol 1 ECHR
The applicants alleged that the UK had failed to put in place effective measures to protect Mr Jordan’s property rights. NAP3 failed to set out measures to either ensure that Mr Jordan’s property was not lost to the sea or that, once his home was demolished as a result of managed realignment, he was provided with proportionate compensation, access to reinsurance, or the like. There was no evidence that the government had even considered those things.

Article 14 ECHR, read with Articles 2 and 8
Both individual applicants alleged that they are extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change due to their intersecting and compounding vulnerabilities: e.g., their specific conditions (residing in a care home, or a town subject to coastal erosion and resulting managed realignment, various health conditions, limited mobility and mental health issues.

Redacted application to the ECtHR:
The applicants’ (redacted) application to the ECtHR is available for download below.

2025-07-01 – ECtHR Submissions_Redacted_0Download

Suggested citation:
Friends of the Earth and Others v. the United Kingdom, application before the ECtHR of 1 July 2025 (pending).

Last updated:
27 July 2026.

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 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 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) v. Costa Rica, ruling 2026-022147, 16 June 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.