Category: Children and young people

Categories
2025 Children and young people Children's rights/best interests Domestic court Right to a healthy environment Right to health South Africa

African Climate Alliance and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others

Summary:

In African Climate Alliance and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others, the High Court of South Africa considered a landmark challenge to the government’s continued reliance on coal energy in its national electricity plan. The applicants (a coalition of youth-led and community-based environmental justice organisations) opposed the inclusion of 1,500 megawatts (MW) of new coal-fired power in the 2019 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP 2019). They argued that this decision was unconstitutional, irrational, and disregarded both the worsening climate crisis and the rights of the most vulnerable – especially children and future generations.

The applicants challenged three specific decisions:

  1. The adoption of IRP 2019, which made provision for new coal power.
  2. A subsequent ministerial determination under the Electricity Regulation Act to implement this plan.
  3. The concurrence or approval by the National Energy Regulator of South Africa, which is legally required to agree to such decisions before they can proceed.

The applicants argued that these decisions were unconstitutional, primarily infringing upon the rights to a healthy environment and the well-being of children.

Claim:

The applicants claimed that the government’s decisions to procure 1,500 MW of new coal power violated multiple constitutional rights—primarily Section 24, which guarantees the right to an environment that is not harmful to health or well-being, Section 28(2), which protects the best interests of the child, and the rights to life, dignity, and equality.

They emphasised that coal-based energy generation not only accelerates climate change but also exposes communities—especially poor and historically marginalized ones—to high levels of toxic air pollution. Children, due to their physiological vulnerability, are at greater risk of suffering long-term health consequences. The state, they argued, had a positive duty to consider these human impacts, especially where irreversible environmental harm and intergenerational injustice were at stake.

The applicants further claimed that the process leading to these decisions was procedurally flawed, lacking meaningful public participation, transparency, and adequate consultation with those most affected. They framed their challenge as a matter of environmental justice, climate accountability, and the protection of constitutional rights, particularly for those who bear the brunt of environmental degradation without benefiting from its economic returns.

Judgment:

On 4 December 2024, Judge Cornelius van der Westhuizen ruled in favor of the applicants, declaring the government’s plan to procure 1,500 MW of new coal-fired power unconstitutional, unlawful, and invalid. In a significant affirmation of rights-based climate justice, the court found that the government had failed to consider the harmful impacts of coal on health, the environment, and children’s rights. It highlighted that the best interests of children were not given paramount importance, in breach of Section 28(2). It also criticized the lack of adequate public participation and failure to assess cleaner and less harmful energy alternatives.

The court emphasized that the Constitution demands not only the avoidance of environmental harm, but also active promotion of sustainable development and intergenerational equity. It ordered that the coal provisions in the IRP and associated implementation decisions be set aside, and directed the government to pay the applicants’ legal costs.

This ruling sends a powerful message: government policy cannot be separated from its human rights consequences. It reinforces that climate change is not only an environmental issue, but a profound justice issue, affecting the lives, health, and futures of millions—especially the youngest and most vulnerable South Africans.

Document:

The case documents are available here and here.

Suggested citation:

African Climate Alliance and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others (56907/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1271 (4 December 2024).

Status of the case:

Decided.

Last updated:

20 March 2025.

Categories
Children and young people Children's rights/best interests Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Estonia Fossil fuel extraction Gender / women-led Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment

Fridays for Future Estonia vs. Environmental Board

Summary:
On 25 June 2024, Fridays for Future Estonia, a youth environmental movement, announced that it had filed two cases against the continued operation of a state-owned fossil fuel (shale oil) plant. The Estonian Environmental Board had granted a state-owned company, Enefit Power, a permit to operate until 2035. Fridays for Future Estonia filed two complaints to challenge the permit: one was brought by MTÜ Loodusvõlu, an NGO established in 2019 by Fridays for Future Estonia with the goal of managing the financial side of the movement, and the other by a young activist within the movement named Elo-Lee Maran.

The case follows on a separate set of proceedings concerning a 2020 decision to award Enefit Power’s parent company 125 million Euros to construct a shale oil plant. MTÜ Loodusvõlu filed a lawsuit in the Tartu Administrative Court to revoke the construction permit, which was upheld in October 2023 by the Supreme Court, which annulled the construction permit. Two months later, the municipality of Narva-Jõesuu issued a new construction permit for the plant.

According to Fridays for Future, Elo-Lee Maran’s case represents the first climate case brought by an individual in Estonia. The case argues that exacerbating climate change is a threat to human rights, including the rights of children under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. No only does the plant’s operation hinder the achievement of the targets set out in the Paris Agreement and the National Energy and Climate Plan. It also, so it is alleged, violates Elo-Lee Maran’s right to a healthy environment under domestic and international law. Depleting Estonia’s share of the ever-smaller carbon budget will require Estonia to limit people’s basic freedoms intensely in the future, which is not in the best interests of a child.

The case will be heard by the Tallinn Administrative Court in December 2024.

More information:
For more information, see this overview from Fridays for Future.

Last updated:
29 November 2024

Categories
Children and young people Children's rights/best interests Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Fossil fuel extraction Just transition litigation Norway Participation rights Private and family life Right to life

Greenpeace Nordic and Nature & Youth v. Energy Ministry (North Sea Fields Case)

Summary:
This case originated in a challenge to a series of administrative decisions by the Norwegian government granting corporations leave to operate new petroleum (oil and gas) fields in the North Sea (in Breidablikk, Yggdrasil, and Tyrving). The challenge was brought by two NGOs, Greenpeace Nordic and Natural og Ungdom (Nature & Youth). The case was heard in civil court, and challenged the petroleum fields

Claims made:
The three petroleum fields in question were subject to impact assessments by the corporate licensees. However, these impact assessments did not include combustion emissions from the oil and gas produced. The contested issue in the case concerned whether there was a legal requirement to include combustion emissions in this impact assessment (as per Norwegian and EU law). It was not argued that the impact assessments contained deficiencies with regard to other matters. The plaintiffs argued that combustion emissions should have been subject to an impact assessment. The Ministry of Petroleum and Energy argued that it was sufficient that combustion emissions were assessed at a more general level by the Ministry, and that there is no requirement for this to be included in the specific impact assessments.

Additionally, the plaintiffs argued that the administrative decisions breached the government’s positive obligations under Articles 2, 8 and 14 ECHR. They also also argued that the decisions were flawed because they did not have due regard for the best interests of the child, in breach of Section 104 of the Norwegian Constitution and Articles 3 and 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In addition, they argued that the decisions were based on an incorrect assessment of the facts.

The plaintiffs applied for a temporary injunction.

Ruling of the Oslo District Court:
On 18 January 2024, the Oslo District Court found the approvals of all three oil and gas fields had been invalid and issued an injunction forbidding the state from granting any new permits concerning these fields. the Court held that the contested decisions were unlawful because they had failed to include combustion emissions in the impact assessments conducted in advance, in violation of domestic and EU law, and highlighted procedural problems in the approvals process, especially the lack of adequate public participation. However, anticipating a ruling from the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in its then-pending climate cases — including three involving Norway, namely Duarte Agostinho, Greenpeace Nordic and the Norwegian Grandparents case –, the District Court refused to rule on the issue of compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court also concluded that there was no legal obligation for children to be heard or for the best interests of the child to be investigated and assessed in connection with decisions to approve plans for the development and operation of petroleum activities. The decisions were therefore not in conflict with Section 104 of the Norwegian Constitution and Articles 3 and 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The government was ordered to compensate the plaintiffs for their legal costs.

Proceedings at the Appeals Court in Oslo:
On 16 May 2024, the Oslo Appeals Court split the case into two parts. The State’s appeal against the Oslo District Court’s ruling in the injunction case of 18 January 2024 was to be heard during the appeal hearing regarding the main case. However, the right to enforce the District Court’s temporary injunction was suspended to await the Court of Appeal’s ruling.

Case documents (in Norwegian):
The case documents are available via ClimateCaseChart.com.

Suggested citation:
Oslo District Court, Greenpeace Nordic and Nature & Youth v. Energy Ministry (The North Sea Fields Case), case no. 23-099330TVI-TOSL/05, 18 January 2024.

Oslo Court of Appeals, Greenpeace Nordic and Nature & Youth v. Energy Ministry (The North Sea Fields Case), case no. LB-2024-36810-2, 16 May 2024.

Last updated:
29 November 2024.

Categories
Children and young people Domestic court Elderly Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Ireland Private and family life Right to life Vulnerability

Community Law and Mediation Centre and others v. Ireland

Summary:
In September 2024, an Irish NGO — the Community Law and Mediation Centre (CLM) — and three individual plaintiffs were granted leave to proceed with a climate case against the Irish government. The plaintiffs argued that the government’s Climate Action Plan 2024 (CAP24) violated legislative targets as set out in the Climate and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, did not comply with the country’s carbon budget, and violated the fundamental rights of the three individual plaintiffs — who are, respectively, a grandfather, a youth climate activist, and a toddler — as well as of the vulnerable groups represented by CLM and of future generations. The plaintiffs invoked the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as concretized in the KlimaSeniorinnen judgment, alongside constitutional rights under the Irish Constitution and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It also builds on the 2020 judgment of the Irish Supreme Court, in the Friends of the Irish Environment case. There, the Court quashed the first Irish mitigation plan because of its inadequate level of detail.

The CLM stated that:

Ireland’s emissions are not decreasing rapidly enough to stay within the confines of the State’s own legally binding 2025 and 2030 carbon budgets and successive Climate Action Plans have fallen short on implementation. Low income and marginalised groups, the groups CLM has represented since its establishment almost 50 years ago, stand to be disproportionately impacted by climate change but have least opportunity to protect or vindicate their rights. In taking this case, CLM seeks to serve as a vehicle for collective recourse for these communities and future generations.

Status of case:
Pending

More information:

Last updated:
29 November 2024

Categories
Children and young people Children's rights/best interests Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Fossil fuel extraction Private and family life Public trust doctrine Right to culture Right to health Right to life Sea-level rise United States of America Vulnerability

Sagoonick et al. v. State of Alaska II

Summary:
On 22 May 2024, a group of young people supported by the NGO ‘Our Children’s Trust’ filed suit against the U.S. State of Alaska arguing that statutory requirements to develop and advance the Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Project violate their public trust rights as well as their rights to substantive due process, life, liberty and property, and the right to protected natural resources for “current and future generations” under the Alaskan Constitution. They argue that this project will cause “existential harms to the lives, health, safety, and cultural traditions and identities of Alaska’s youth, and substantially limit their access to the vital natural resources upon which they depend.”

The case follows on an earlier case against Alaska, Sagoonick et al. v. Alaska I, which was rejected in 2022 by a divided Alaskan Supreme Court.

Claims made:
The case challenges legislation creating the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation, a state agency created to pursue building a new LNG pipeline. 

According to the plaintiffs, Alaska is “already in a state of climate disruption” and the contested project “would ensure continuing and substantially elevated levels of climate pollution for decades, locking in increasing and worsening harms to Youth Plaintiffs”. They argue that the youth plaintiffs are “uniquely vulnerable to climate change injuries and face disproportionate harms”. Arguing that climate pollution is already causing dangerous climate disruption in Alaska, injuring the plaintiffs in this case, they cite the following climate-related impacts:

  • temperature increase, heatwaves, and other heat-related changes;
  • thawing permafrost;
  • changing precipitation patterns, extreme weather events and droughts;
  • loss of sea, river, and lake ice;
  • ocean acidification;
  • melting glaciers and sea level rise; and
  • increasingly frequent and severe wildfires and smoke.

The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the contested provisions of State law violate their public trust rights to equal access to public trust resources and to sustained yield of public trust resources free from substantial impairment. They argued that the state of Alaska has a duty under the public trust doctrine to ensure “the continuing availability of public trust resources for present and future generations”.

In addition, they sought a declaration that they have a fundamental right to a climate system that sustains human life, liberty, and dignity under the Alaskan Constitution, which is being violated by the contested statutory provisions.

The youth plaintiffs also petitioned the court to enjoin the defendants from taking further actions to advance or develop the Alaska LNG Project. They sought costs and expenses as well as “such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.”

Recent developments:
In October 2024, it was reported that the state of Alaska had asked the Court to dismiss the case.

2024.05.22.AK+LNG+ComplaintDownload

Last updated:
14 November 2024

Categories
2022 Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Imminent risk Indigenous peoples' rights Public trust doctrine Uncategorized United States of America

Sagoonick et al. v. State of Alaska I

Summary:
In 2017, sixteen children and young people — including some who were members of Alaskan Indigenous peoples — filed suit against the U.S. State of Alaska arguing by the state’s climate and energy policy violated their constitutional rights. Because the policy in question authorized and facilitated activities producing greenhouse gas emissions, the plaintiffs alleged violations of their due process rights to life, liberty, and property under the Alaskan Constitution, as well as their right to a stable climate system. The argued that the state government and relevant agencies had, “knowingly and with deliberate indifference”, created a dangerous situation for them, in violation of their constitutional rights. The plaintiffs also made an equal protection claim and alleged a violation of Alaska’s public trust doctrine.

The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief. They sought a declaration that the state had a constitutional duty to protect their constitutional rights, as well as a duty under the public trust doctrine to protect Alaska’s waters, atmosphere, land, fish, wildlife, and other public trust resources. They sought a declaration that the state’s climate and energy policy had violated their rights and placed them “in a position of danger with deliberate indifference to their safety” and had “materially caused, contributed to, and/or exacerbated climate change and discriminated against Youth Plaintiffs as members of a protected class, and with respect to their fundamental rights”. They sought an order for the state to prepare a complete and accurate accounting of Alaska’s GHG emissions and an enforceable state climate recovery plan.

Alaska Superior Court Judgment:
On 30 October 2018, the Alaska Superior Court rejected the case, arguing that it was indistinguishable from previous climate cases based on the public trust doctrine and that it concerned political questions which were not justiciable. The plaintiffs appealed.

Alaska Supreme Court Judgment:
In 2022, on appeal, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the case (see full text of the judgment below). The Court found that the applicants’ claims concerned non-justiciable political questions and found that it could not make “the legislative policy judgments necessary to grant the requested injunctive relief.”

Judge Maassen, dissenting, argued that he was “no longer convinced that nothing can be gained by clarifying Alaskans’ constitutional rights and the State’s corresponding duties in the context of climate change”, and that the public trust doctrine under the Alaskan Constitution provided a right to a livable climate.

Additional developments:
A follow-up case, Sagoonick et al. v. State of Alaska II, was filed in 2022.

Sagoonick IDownload

Suggested citation:
Supreme Court of Alaska, Sagoonick et al. v. State of Alaska I, 28 January 2022, No. 3AN-17-09910 CI.

Last updated:
14 November 2024

Categories
Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Paris Agreement Right to culture Right to development and work Right to health Right to housing Right to life Right to property

Environmental Rights Foundation and others v. Taiwan  

Summary:
On 30 January 2024, Taiwanese environmental groups, along with children and other individual plaintiffs, petitioned the Taiwanese Constitutional Court to demand intergenerational climate justice from the government. Their case challenges the 2023 Climate Change Response Act (氣候變遷因應法) because it does not include short and medium-term national periodic regulatory goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In doing so, the plaintiffs contest the government’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 23-25% compared to 2005 levels, which they considered insufficiently ambitious.

The case was brought by an NGO, the Environmental Rights Foundation, along with individuals who allege that they are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change (including because of their livelihoods related to farming and fishing, by virtue of their Indigenous heritage and culture, or because they are children).  

The plaintiffs argue that the current regulation does not adequately safeguard their right to life, right to bodily integrity and health, right to survival, right to housing, right to work, property rights and cultural rights. They argue that the legislature has forsaken its obligation to ensure an adequate regulatory framework including a cross-generational allocation of greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The 23-25% reductions target does not allow Taiwan to reach net zero by 2050 and is insufficiently protective of fundamental rights. The plaintiffs argue that, under current measures, Taiwan will exhaust its remaining carbon budget for a 1.5°C and 1.7°C world by 2030. In addition, the current measures do not set sufficient interim yearly goals because it lacks goals for the period from 2026 to 2030.

Last updated:
4 October 2024

Categories
2024 Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment Right to life Right to property Right to pursue happiness Uncategorized

Min-A Park v. South Korea

Summary:
In July 2023, a fourth constitutional mitigation case was filed before the South Korean Constitutional Court. This case was consolidated with three previously-filed climate cases, representing a total of 255 plaintiffs, and the Constitutional Court issued its ruling in all four cases on 29 August 2024. This joint ruling was reported as a landmark judgment and as the first finding of its kind in Asia (i.e. the first time that a court in the region found that inadequate mitigation action violates constitutional rights).

In the present case, 51 individuals argued that their constitutional rights were being inadequately safeguarded by the failure to create an adequate implementation plana for South Korea’s 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement (NDC). This makes this case somewhat different from the other three, in the sense that it does not contest the country’s 40% reduction target (by 2030) itself, but argues that domestic measures will not be enough to meet that target. The plaintiffs estimated that current steps envisioned under South Korea’s Carbon Neutrality Plan would achieve only a 29.6% emissions reduction.

As per the complaint document (available, in the original Korean, on ClimateCaseChart), the plaintiffs invoked their rights to life, to pursue happiness, to general freedom, to property and to a healthy environment along with the State’s obligation to protect against disasters and protect fundamental rights.

Relevant developments:
On 12 June 2023, shortly before this case was filed, it was announced that the National Human Rights Commission of Korea had decided to submit an opinion to South Korea’s Constitutional Court to oppose the country’s Carbon Neutrality Act (2021), which it considered to be unconstitutional and in violation of the fundamental rights of future generations because it sets out a greenhouse gas emissions reductions target that was too low. The Act sets out a 40% emissions reductions target by 2030 as compared to 2018 levels. This, the Commission found, did not respect the constitutional principle of equality, because it passed the burden of greenhouse gas emissions on to future generations.

Consolidation with three other cases:
The South Korean Constitutional Court decided to consolidate its first four climate cases (Do-Hyun Kim et al. v. South Korea, Woodpecker et al. v. South Korea (Baby Climate Litigation), Climate Crisis Emergency Action v. South Korea (a.k.a. Byung-In Kim et al. v. South Korea) and Min-A Park v. South Korea (the present case). Public hearings in the cases were held on 23 April 2024 and 21 May 2024.

These cases all alleged that the government’s inadequate greenhouse gas reduction targets violated citizens’ fundamental rights, particularly those of future generations. Together, the four cases comprised over 250 plaintiffs, including civil society, youth and children. The Constitutional Court issued a joint ruling in these cases on 29 August 2024.

Judgment of the constitutional court:
On 29 August 2024, the South Korean Constitutional Court found a violation of constitutional rights in this case and three related cases. In an unanimous ruling, hailed as “the first decision of its kind in Asia“, the court found that the government’s response to the climate crisis was inadequate and threatened constitutional rights, noting that the country lacked legally binding long-term emissions reductions targets for the post-2031 period, which violated the constitutional rights of future generations by shifting an excessive reductions burden to the future. The Court gave government and legislature 18 months (until 28 February 2026) to introduce the relevant targets.

In particular, the Court ruled that Article 8(1) of the South Korean Carbon Neutrality Basic Act was unconstitutional. Previously, the government had pledged a 40% reduction of its GHG emissions by 2030 compared to 2018 levels, but had failed to set any targets since. The Constitutional Court held that this “does not have the minimum character necessary as a protective measure corresponding to the dangerous situation of the climate crisis”, citing the “principle of non-underprotection”, which means that the State must take appropriate measures to effectively protect the constitutional rights of its citizens.

Simultaneously, the Court held that the government’s target for 2030 did not infringe constitutional rights.

See also:
Do-Hyun Kim et al. v. South Korea.

Last updated:
29 August 2024.

Categories
Austria Belgium Bulgaria Children and young people Croatia Cyprus Czechia Denmark Emissions reductions/mitigation Estonia European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights Extraterritorial obligations Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Non-discrimination Norway Paris Agreement Poland Portugal Private and family life Prohibition of torture Right to life Romania Russian Federation Slovakia Slovenia Spain Standing/admissibility Sweden Switzerland The Netherlands The United Kingdom Turkey Ukraine Victim status

Duarte Agostinho et al. v. Austria et al. (“Portuguese Children’s Case”)

Summary:
This case was brought by a group of six young people, acting together as the ‘Youth for Climate Justice’, against 33 Council of Europe Member States. Theirs was the first climate case to come before the ECtHR. In their application, the six applicants, aged between 8 and 21 at the time, argued that the 33 respondent States failed to comply with their positive obligations under Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention, read in the light of the commitments made under the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. They claimed that their right to life (Art. 2 ECHR) was being threatened by the effects of climate change in their home State of Portugal, including through the harms caused by forest fires. Moreover, they claimed that their right to respect for their private and family life under Art. 8 ECHR was being threatened by heatwaves that forced them to spend more time indoors. They also noted their anxiety about their uncertain future, and the fact that, as young people, they stand to experience the worst effects of climate change. They accordingly alleged a violation of Article 14 ECHR (non-discrimination), given the particular impacts of climate change on their generation. According to the applicants, the absence of adequate measures to limit global emissions constitutes, in itself, a breach of the obligations incumbent on States.

This was the first climate application brought before the European Court of Human Rights, and it was brought with the support of the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN). The issues raised here were novel in the Strasbourg context. In addition, in communicating the case, the Court also proprio motu raised an issue under Article 3 ECHR, the prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment.

On 9 April 2024, the Court declared this case inadmissible on jurisdiction and non-exhaustion grounds.

Domestic proceedings:
None: this case was brought directly to the ECtHR. The applicants submitted that, given the complexity of the case and their limited financial means, as well as the limited prospects of success before domestic instances, requiring them to exhaust the domestic remedies in each of the 33 respondent States would impose an excessive and disproportionate burden on them.

Relinquishment:
On 29 June 2022, the 7-judge Chamber to which the case had originally been allocated relinquished jurisdiction over it in favour of the Court’s 17-judge Grand Chamber. Relinquishment is possible where a case either (a) raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention or its Protocols, or (b) might lead to a result inconsistent with the Court’s case-law (Rule 72, paras 1-2 of the Rules of Court).

During the course of the proceedings, the complaint against Ukraine was withdrawn by the applicants. The Russian Federation ceased to be a Council of Europe Member State during the course of the proceedings, but this was not an obstacle to considering the application as concerns anything taking place before the end of its membership (on 16 September 2022).

In February 2023, the Court announced that it would hold a public Grand Chamber hearing in this case, along with two other climate cases pending before it (Carême v. France and KlimaSeniorinnen and Others v. Switzerland). It announced that it would adjourn the remaining climate cases pending before it in the meantime. The oral stage in these three cases was staggered: Carême and KlimaSeniorinnen were heard on 29 March 2023, while the hearing in Duarte Agostinho was heard by the same composition of the Grand Chamber on 27 September 2023.

Grand Chamber hearing:
A hearing in this case was held on 27 September 2023. A webcast of the hearing is available here.

During the hearing, the respondent States pooled their submissions to a large extent, with additional arguments from the Netherlands, Portugal, and Turkiye. Third-party interveners also received leave to appear during the oral hearing, namely the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatovic, the EU’s European Commission, and the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI). The substance of the hearing focused largely on admissibility issues, namely victim status, the (non-)exhaustion of domestic remedies and the extraterritoriality of Convention obligations. The judges also asked a number of questions to the parties before retiring to consider the admissibility and merits of the case.

Admissibility:
From the blog post on the case by Ayyoub (Hazhar) Jamali available on our blog

After months of anticipation, the ECtHR delivered its judgment on 9 April 2024. The Court found the case inadmissible on two key grounds. Firstly, it ruled out jurisdiction regarding non-territorial states, narrowing the scope of accountability in this complex legal landscape to applicants’ home states. Secondly, it dismissed the application against Portugal due to a lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies.

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
The Court acknowledged its jurisdiction concerning Portugal but denied it concerning other non-territorial states. It recognized that under Article 1 of the Convention, jurisdiction primarily pertains to territorial boundaries, implying that individuals can only claim Convention violations against the territorial state where they reside. However, the Court reiterated that the Convention’s reach can extend beyond national borders in two main forms: when a state exercises effective control over an area (spatial concept of jurisdiction, or jurisdiction ratione loci), and when there is state agent authority or control over individuals (personal concept of jurisdiction, or jurisdiction ratione personae) (para 170). In the present case, as neither of these two criteria appeared applicable, the Court denied jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 1 ECHR.

Furthermore, the Court rejected the applicant’s argument that there are ‘exceptional circumstances’ and ‘special features’ for establishing the respondent states’ extraterritorial jurisdiction over the applicants within the specific context of climate change. It emphasized that determining whether the ECHR applies extraterritorially requires examining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, indicating that the state concerned is exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction over the applicants. This primarily involves exploring the nature of the link between the applicants and the respondent state.

The Court acknowledged that states have ultimate control over public and private activities within their territories that produce greenhouse gas emissions. It noted their international-law commitments, particularly those outlined in the Paris Agreement, which states have incorporated into their domestic laws and policy documents, as well as their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) under the Paris Agreement (para 192). Furthermore, the Court recognized the complex and multi-layered causal relationship between activities within a state’s territory that produce greenhouse gas emissions and their adverse impacts on the rights and well-being of individuals residing outside its borders (para 193). It emphasised that while climate change is a global phenomenon, each state bears responsibility for addressing it. However, the Court concluded that these considerations alone cannot justify creating a novel ground for extraterritorial jurisdiction through judicial interpretation or expanding existing ones (para 195). It emphasised that the ECHR protection system is primarily based on principles of territorial jurisdiction and subsidiarity.

The Court further denied the applicants’ claim that bringing a case against Portugal alone would be ineffective and that they had no other means of holding the respondent states accountable for the impact of climate change on their Convention rights. It distinguished between jurisdiction and responsibility, which constitutes a separate matter to be examined in relation to the merit of the complaint (para 202).

The Court further rejected the applicants’ claim concerning the reach of the Convention outside of national boundaries by their reliance on a test of ‘control over the applicants’ Convention interests’. It reasoned that, according to its established case-law, extraterritorial jurisdiction as conceived under Article 1 ECHR requires control over the person him- or herself rather than the person’s interests as such (para 204-206). It highlighted that, except for specific cases under Article 2 concerning intentional deprivation of life by state agents, there is no precedent for a criterion like ‘control over Convention interests’ as a basis for extraterritorial jurisdiction (paragraph 205). Consequently, the Court argued that adopting such an extension would represent a significant departure from established principles under Article 1.

The Court stated that otherwise, and given the multilateral dimension of climate change, almost anyone adversely affected by climate change anywhere in the world could be brought within the jurisdiction of any Contracting Party for the purposes of Article 1 ECHR in relation to that Party’s actions or omissions to tackle climate change. It also rejected the suggestion that such an extension of jurisdiction could be limited to the Convention’s legal space. It reasoned that, given the nature of climate change, including its causes and effects, an extension of extraterritorial jurisdiction by reference to that criterion would be artificial and difficult to justify (para 206).

Moreover, the Court acknowledged the significance of developments in international law, particularly with regards to the interpretations provided by bodies such as the Inter-American Court and the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC). It recognised the relevance of these interpretations in shaping the understanding of jurisdiction within the context of human rights treaties. However, the Court noted that these bodies had adopted distinct notions of jurisdiction, which had not been recognised in its own case-law. While the Court considered the insights provided by these international instruments and bodies, it concluded that they did not provide sufficient grounds for extending the extraterritorial jurisdiction of respondent states under the Convention, particularly as proposed by the applicants (para 209-210). Therefore, while remaining attentive to legal developments and global responses to issues such as climate change, the Court found no basis within the Convention for expanding extraterritorial jurisdiction as advocated by the applicants.

In conclusion, the Court found no grounds in the Convention for extending the respondent states’ extraterritorial jurisdiction through judicial interpretation.

Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies
Regarding Portugal, the applicants’ home state, there was no extraterritoriality issue. Here the Court examined whether effective remedies existed within the Portuguese legal system that the applicants were required to use under the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule. Despite the applicants’ argument that broad constitutional provisions alone could not provide effective and certain remedies, the Court disagreed, highlighting various remedies available in Portugal. These included, for example, constitutional recognition of the right to a healthy environment, actio popularis claims for environmental protection, etc (para 217-223). The Court emphasised the importance of affording domestic courts the opportunity to address issues before having recourse to international remedies. Consequently, the complaint against Portugal was found inadmissible. The Court also rejected the suggestion that it should rule on the issue of climate change before domestic courts had the opportunity to do so, reaffirming the principle of subsidiarity and the role of domestic jurisdictions in adjudicating such matters (para 228).

Victim Status
The Court found it challenging to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for victim status as set out on the same day in the KlimaSeniorinnen judgment against Switzerland. The lack of clarity is attributed, in part, to the applicants’ failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The Court found that, in any event, the application was inadmissible for the reasons previously outlined. Therefore, the Court declined to examine further whether the applicants could claim victim status (para 229-230).

Date:
9 April 2024

Type of Forum:
Regional

Status of case:
Communicated by the Court on 30 November 2020. Relinquished to the Grand Chamber on 29 June 2022. Grand Chamber hearing held on 27 September 2023. Decision announced at a Grand Chamber hearing held on 9 April 2024, along with rulings in the two other climate cases pending before the Grand Chamber.

Suggested case citation:
ECtHR, Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Other Member States, no. 39371/20, decision (Grand Chamber) of 9 April 2024.

Links:
For more information on this case, see the following links.

  • For more background on the case and profiles on the applicants, click here: https://youth4climatejustice.org/. 
  • For all of the case documents, including the submissions from the respondent States and the third-party interveners, see here.
  • For analyses of the Grand Chamber hearing, see this post on our own blog by Viktoriya Gurash, or this post on Verfassungsblog by Corina Heri.
  • For the judgment, click here.
  • For the Court’s Q&A on the three climate cases, click here.

Last updated:
9 April 2024

Categories
2023 Children and young people Children's rights/best interests Human dignity Inter-American Human Rights System Peru Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to life

Inhabitants of La Oroya v Peru

Summary:

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) ruled on 27 November 2023 that Peru is accountable for violating various rights of residents living near the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex (CMLO), established in 1992 in La Oroya. The CMLO, dedicated to smelting and refining metals such as lead, copper, zinc, and arsenic, caused severe environmental pollution, contaminating air, water, and soil, and adversely affecting residents’ health and well-being. Consequently, the Court mandated Peru to conduct an environmental contamination analysis, provide free medical care to affected individuals, and adjust pollutant standards, marking a significant victory for the plaintiffs after enduring years of pollution and inadequate governmental response.

Claim:

The residents of La Oroya brought claims against Peru, asserting that the government’s failure to regulate and address the environmental contamination from the smelting complex violated their fundamental human rights, including the right to a healthy environment, health, and life. They presented evidence of the adverse health effects experienced due to exposure to toxic pollutants emitted by the complex.

Decision:

On 27 November 2023, the IACtHR declared Peru responsible for multiple human rights violations affecting the inhabitants of La Oroya. These violations are rooted in the contamination of the air, water, and soil caused by mining-metallurgical activities in the CMLO. The State’s failure to regulate and supervise these activities exacerbated the situation, leading to violations of the rights to a healthy environment, health, life, and personal integrity of the victims. Furthermore, the Court found that the State failed to fulfil its obligation of progressive development concerning the right to a healthy environment by regressing air quality standards.

The Court also determined that the State neglected children’s rights by not implementing adequate protection measures, considering the disproportionate impact of contamination on the children of La Oroya. It emphasized the critical connection between safeguarding children and addressing the climate crisis, noting that mining and industrial activities, particularly those involving fossil fuels, are significant contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, posing risks to public health and exacerbating climate change. It further acknowledged the vulnerability of children to the impacts of climate change and the long-term consequences they face, as underscored by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in the Sacchi case. Consequently, the Court asserted that states have a duty to protect children and must take decisive action to mitigate health risks from pollutant emissions that exacerbate climate change crisis.

Moreover, the Court concluded that the State violated the right to public participation and adequate information provision to the victims regarding measures affecting their rights. Additionally, it found the State in violation of the right to judicial protection by failing to comply with a decision of the Constitutional Court for the protection of La Oroya’s inhabitants, which was delivered in 2006.

Finally, the Court held the State accountable for not investigating reported acts of harassment, threats, and reprisals against some victims. Based on these findings, the Court determined that the State of Peru violated several articles of the American Convention on Human Rights, specifically articles 26, 5, 4.1, 8.1, 13, 19, 23, and 25, in relation to articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument

Peru was ordered to conduct a comprehensive study assessing contamination in air, water, and soil in La Oroya and to develop an environmental remediation plan accordingly. Furthermore, Peru was ordered to provide free medical care to victims and compensate them individually with amounts ranging between $15,000 and $30,000. This decision emphasizes states’ obligation to safeguard the right to a healthy environment and hold them accountable for environmental harm threatening their citizens’ well-being.

Environmental protection as jus cogens:

In para. 129 of its ruling, the Court made a novel finding: it held that the obligation to protect the environment should be a jus cogens norm. The paragraph in question is translated here in full:

“States have recognised the right to a healthy environment, which carries with it an obligation of protection that is incumbent on the international community as a whole. It is difficult to imagine international obligations of greater significance than those that protect the environment against unlawful or arbitrary conduct that causes serious, extensive, long-lasting and irreversible damage to the environment in a scenario of climate crisis that threatens the survival of species. In view of the above, international protection of the environment requires progressive recognition of the prohibition of this type of conduct as a peremptory norm (jus cogens) that gains the recognition of the international community as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted. This Court has pointed out the importance of the legal expressions of the International Community whose higher universal value is indispensable to guarantee essential or fundamental values. In this sense, guaranteeing the interest of both present and future generations and the preservation of the environment against its radical degradation is fundamental for the survival of humanity.” (para. 129 of the judgment, translated by climaterightsdatabase.com, references removed).

Links:

The case documents are accessible below for download:

Court-statement-about-the-rulingDownload
Full-text-of-the-rulingDownload
Official-summary-of-the-rulingDownload

Status of the case:

Decided.

Further reading:

For further information and analysis of the case, see among others:

  • José Saldaña, ‘People from La Oroya vs Peru, Inter-American Court of Human Rights: How Effective is International Law to Protect the Environment in Extractive Contexts?’, EJIL:Talk Blog, 11 April 2024, available here.
  • Patricio Trincado Vera, ‘The Right to a Healthy Environment in La Oroya v. Peru: A Landmark Judgement of the IACtHR’, OpinioJuris Blog, 25 May 2024, available here.

Suggested citation:

Inhabitants of La Oroya v Peru (Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs), Judgment of November 27, 2023, Inter-Am Ct HR, Series C No 511.

Last updated:

25 March 2024.