Category: Emissions reductions/mitigation

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

Citizen (Mario Peña Chacón) vs. Costa Rica

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last updated:
24 June 2026.

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

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

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

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

As well as that:

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

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

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

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

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

Last updated:
24 June 2026.

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

Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v. Total

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The court ruled that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case documents:

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

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

Links:

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

Last updated:
25 June 2026.

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

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

Summary:

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

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

Last updated:

17 March 2026.

Links:

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

Categories
Australia Disability and health-related inequality Emissions reductions/mitigation Evidence Fossil fuel extraction Human Rights Committee Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to culture Right to life

Poelina et al. v. Australia

Summary:
On 20 June 2026, a communication against Australia was filed with the UN Human Rights Committee. The authors of the communication, who live in five Australian states, argue that Australia’s continued licensing of fossil fuel projects violates their rights under several provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), namely the right to life (Article 6 ICCPR), the right to privacy, family, and home life (Article 17), and the right to culture (Article 27). Drawing on the International Court of Justice’s 2025 climate advisory opinion, as well as the ECtHR’s 2024 KlimaSeniorinnen judgment and the IACtHR’s 2025 climate advisory opinion, they submit that they have experienced several rights-impacting events, all of which were “made substantially more likely and severe by anthropogenic climate change, to which Australia materially contributes through its production of fossil fuels for export.” This includes extreme heat, bushfires or wildfires, flooding, and toxic algal blooms. The authors build their claims on past extreme events that impacted several authors’ Aboriginal culture and lands, which have been flooded and face toxic algal blooms destroying traditional food sources and ways of life. Two authors also risked their lives fighting the 2019-2020 bushfires, with one losing his home to the flames and another volunteering as a firefighter. Other authors live with disabilities or health conditions that place them particularly at risk from heat waves or floods.

Relying on scientific reports and expert evidence (especially the Anderson and Calverley report), the authors submit that current levels of GHG emissions mean that “there are less than two years remaining to ensure warming is limited to 1.5°C”. They also argue against models that tolerate overshooting 1.5°C, arguing that States cannot rely on unproven carbon removal technologies to return below that level of warming and that technologies to remove or sequester carbon, notably carbon, capture, and storage (CCS) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR), remain unproven and ineffective.

The core of the communication is the argument that Australia has failed the “stringent due diligence” standard, which the ICJ has interpreted as requiring states to “use all means at their disposal” to prevent significant harm to the climate system by aligning their actions with a global pathway that limits warming to 1.5°C. In an illustrative list of internationally wrongful acts, the ICJ listed “fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies” (para 427). Based on this finding, the communication argues that Australia’s ongoing conduct relating to fossil fuel exploration, production and subsidies violates the authors’ ICCPR rights.

The authors note that Australia is “one of the world’s leading historical and current producers of fossil fuels for export” (as of 2024, the second largest global exporter of coal, and the third largest exporter of liquefied natural gas, with ca. 80% of Australia’s total fossil fuel CO2 footprint coming from fossil fuel exports as of 2022). Despite its international obligations to act on climate change, the authors submit, the Australian government’s policy “remains to maximise fossil fuel exports, and Australia continues to subsidise and approve fossil fuel projects that will export fossil fuels for decades to come, in some cases into the 2070s.”

To make this argument, the authors submit that due diligence to prevent significant environmental harm must be informed by the precautionary principle; that due diligence requires Australia to regulate third parties within its jurisdiction and control; that due diligence requires assessment of the cumulative effects of activities within Australia’s jurisdiction or control; that due diligence requires adopting mitigation measures that reflect best available science; that due diligence requires adopting mitigation measures that reflect best available science; that a State’s failure to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in ways consistent with due diligence is conduct attributable to that State that may violate human rights; that a State’s failure to regulate its export of fossil fuels, consistent with due diligence, is also attributable conduct that may violate human rights obligations; that there is a sufficient causal nexus between Australia’s non-compliance with human rights and the specific harms experienced by the authors; that legal standards of causation for individual harm in the context of climate harms are flexible, as demonstrated by various courts; that there is a sufficiently direct and certain causal nexus to satisfy the ICJ’s approach to causation when assessing injury; that Australia’s fossil fuel exports are a material contribution to climate change and have caused, and will foreseeably cause, harm to the authors; that continued fossil fuel production means that Australia is not taking the necessary measures to prevent harm to the climate system; and that these acts and omissions are violating ICCPR rights.

Attribution science (the Thiery, Watkins, Cook and Crisp reports):
The Communication extensively details the concrete impacts faced by the applicants, and is accompanied by several expert reports that attribute the harms experienced to the impacts of climate change. The “Thiery report” concerns overall climate attribution, including heatwaves, bushfires, ocean warming, severe storms, drought, algal blooms, and sea-level rise; the “Watkins Report” concerns flooding; and the “Cook Report” concerns toxic algal blooms. The authors also submitted two reports by Dr George Crisp on climate-related health impacts for two of the authors.

Export emissions (the Anderson and Claverly report):
The Communication challenges Australia’s plans to produce fossil fuel for export on the basis a report by Anderson and Claverly. The report evaluates whether the estimated carbon budgets compatible with ‘achieving around a 50% chance of not exceeding 1.5°C and around 83% chance of not exceeding 2°C’ of global warming can accommodate emissions from Australia’s projected coal and LNG exports. The authors of the report conclude that ‘under assumptions favourable to Australia,’ the evidence is unequivocal that Australia’s planned export pathways are not compatible with the Paris Agreement’s temperature goals.

Admissibility (the Peel Report):
On the admissibility of the communication, concerning the absence of proceedings on the domestic level, the authors argue that they have satisfied the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule because Australian law does not offer redress for the harms at stake and the rights violations invoked.

To support this argument, they submit a report authored by Prof. Jacqueline Peel, who together with two co-author shows that there are no effective remedies available to the Authors to redress their alleged harms to the standards set out previously by the Committee, as there are no effective judicial or administrative avenues to compel Australia to align its production of fossil fuels for export with pathways for 1.5°C of warming. This is due to the fact, in particular, that Australian courts cannot compel the government to align fossil fuel exports with a 1.5°C pathway; that there is no constitutional or national-level statutory bill of rights in Australia; that existing statutory frameworks do not provide an effective remedy; and that there is no common law duty of care owed to the Authors in this context. In doing so, the report reflects the Committee’s own reasoning in Daniel Billy and Others v. Australia (2022), where the Committee found that the communication was admissible because no effective remedy was available to the Authors.

Relief sought:
The authors seek for their ICCPR rights to be upheld and note that the violation of these rights cannot be addressed only through mitigation of emissions released in Australia or through adaptation measures. Instead, they argue, exported (“Scope 3”) emissions from Australia’s fossil fuel exports materially contribute to climate harms. They seek for the Committee to:

  • Declare that the Australian government’s acts and omissions related to fossil fuel production for export, and its failure to adequately regulate the public and private operators involved, violate its human rights obligations to prevent a global average temperature increase of 1.5°C above preindustrial levels.
  • Establish violations of the authors’ rights to life; privacy, family, and home life; and culture under the Covenant.
  • Recommend the creation of a domestic process to review the compatibility of Australia’s fossil fuel exports with pathways to limit warming to 1.5°C.
  • Recommend an urgent phaseout of production of fossil fuels for export, including ceasing relevant public subsidies.
  • Recommend that Australia pause approvals for fossil fuel production projects for export.

Case documents:
The communication in this case can be downloaded below.

unhrc-poelina-et-al-v-australia-20-06-2026_redactedDownload

Suggested citation:
UN Human Rights Committee, Anne Poelina, Barry Traill, Brendon Donohue, Catherine, Jack Egan, Latishamarie Francis, Pamelarose Francis, Melissa Fisher, Sama Youhana and Rikki Dank v. Australia, Communication of 20 June 2026.

Categories
Canada Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Indigenous peoples' rights Participation rights Participation rights

Maltais et al. v. Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Nature and Attorney General of Canada

Summary:
On 15 June 2026, an application for judicial review was brought in Canadian Federal Court against the Canadian Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Nature and the Attorney General of Canada. The applicants are Marie Maltais, Sophia Mathur, Shirley Barnea, the NGO Environmental Defence Canada and the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, supported by Ecojustice. The second applicant in the case was also an applicant in the earlier case of Mathur et al. v. the Queen in Right of Ontario.

The application alleges that the Minister failed to amend Canada’s Emissions Reductions Plan (ERP) for 2030 in ways that bring it into compliance with legal obligations under the Canadian Net Zero Accountability Act (CNZEAA). The case thus primarily concerns compliance with the targets set out under a domestic climate law, but also involves a procedural rights element given that amendments to an ERP require public and Indigenous consultation under domestic law. This refers to the fact that the CNZEAA allows the Minister to amend the ERP, but in doing so must provide interested persons, Indigenous peoples and others to make submissions.

Application:
The full text of the application can be downloaded below.

Maltais_2026-06-15-Issued-Notice-of-Application-T-2843-26Download

Further information:
The applicants held a press conference concerning the application on 16 June 2026, which can be watched here.

A press release on the case is available here.

Suggested citation:
Federal Court of Canada, Maltais et al. v. Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Nature and Attorney General of Canada, file no. T-2843-26, filed 15 June 2026 (pending).

Last updated:
22 June 2026.

Categories
Adaptation Climate-induced displacement Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Imminent risk Loss & damage Switzerland

Tétaz v. Canton of Valais

Summary:
On 27 May 2026, a case was brought against the Swiss canton of Valais concerning its liability for the Blatten landslide disaster, which took place one year previously, on 28 May 2025. On that date, the collapse of the Birch glacier destabilized the mountainside above the village, the Petit Nesthorn, causing a landslide of ice, mud, and debris that buried 90% of the village of Blatten in Valais’s Lötschental valley. Although the residents of the village were evacuated, the events resulted in one death. In addition, 130 houses as well as the local church were swept away and buried under debris 200 m thick.

One year after the disaster, legal collective “Avocat.e.s pour le Climat” brought a case on behalf of Jean-Marc Tétaz, a philosopher and theologian who lost his home and his life’s work, a library comprising 5000 sources, as well as ongoing research work and handwritten family memoirs, in the disaster. In a conciliation request filed with the municipal court of Sion, he claims the balance of damage not covered by liability insurance, including for the loss of his books, manuscripts, and work notes, as well as lost earnings from publishing projects that cannot be completed. The damage claim amounts to 211,900 Swiss Francs.

The case reportedly argues that the canton of Valais failed act to avoid the disaster or provide information to the public despite having been aware of the risks since 2022, when an “imminent danger” was identified, with a collapse deemed “very likely”, by scientists from the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, who modeled the potential consequences of a landslide at the Petit Nesthorn. According to the plaintiff in this case, the canton of Valais dismissed the scientists’ finding and failed to inform local residents of the dangers, which would have allowed him to relocate his library.

The plaintiff links the glacial instability and permafrost thaw that caused the Blatten disaster with climate change, citing scientific studies that identify climate change as having a role in the disaster. He argues that the cantonal government negligently ignored the risks given its lack of an ambitious climate policy.

More information on this case, and its legal foundations, will be added when it becomes available.

Suggested citation:
Municipal court of Sion, Tétaz v. Canton of Valais, conciliation request filed 27 May 2026.

Last updated:
30 May 2026.

Categories
Business responsibility / corporate cases Class action Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Fossil fuel extraction Imminent risk Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to life The Netherlands

Milieudefensie et al. v. Shell Plc (No. 2)

Summary:
On 21 April 2026, the Dutch NGO Milieudefensie delivered summons to oil and gas giant Shell Plc, in its second collective legal action against the company following the first Milieudefensie case (decided on appeal in 2024). This second case, under Section 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC), is brought on behalf of current and future generations of Dutch citizens after the corporate actor moved its seat from the Netherlands to the United Kingdom. Milieudefensie summoned Shell to appear at a hearing to be held at the District Court of Amsterdam on 29 July 2026.

In its 273-page summons, Milieudefensie covers issues of jurisdiction, the requirements for a collective suit under Section 3:305a DCC, the scientific evidence underpinning its case, the risk of reaching climate tipping points for Europe and for the Netherlands, international climate policy and the global 1.5-degree temperature target, the important role played by non-state actors and their corporate responsibilities to respect human rights, the inhibiting influence of the oil and gas industry, including Shell, on infrastructural carbon lock-ins, including through its historical undermining of climate science and strategies to delay climate action, as well as its lobbying against the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or CS3D) of 13 June 2024.

Milieudefensie sets out the framework for assessing Shell’s responsibility under Sections 3:296 and 6:162 DCC, fleshing this out by invoking the societal duty of care under domestic law, as well as the doctrine of hazardous negligence, human rights law (particularly Articles 2 and 8 ECHR, the rights to life and respect for private and family life), international customary law, international soft law, and legal principles including the precautionary principle, the climate law principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR), and the principle of intergenerational justice. In particular, the summons argues that

“[s]ince the Urgenda judgment, it has been widely recognised in court judgments that dangerous climate change leads to human rights violations. Not only the ECHR, but also the IACtHR and the ICJ have recently found this. Numerous (supreme) national courts have independently reached the same conclusion. Within Europe, for example, reference can be made to the case law of the [German] Bundesverfassungsgericht and the Court of Appeal in Brussels. Outside Europe, the situation is no different. For example, the Lahore High Court in Pakistan, the Supreme Court of Colombia, the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court, the District Court of Montana (United States) and the Supreme Court of India have all ruled that human rights can be relied on in order to be protected against the effects of climate change. In view of the above, there can be no misunderstanding that human rights (indirectly) have a horizontal effect when the unwritten duty-of-care standard is fleshed out. Nor can there be any debate about the fact that dangerous climate change leads to human rights violations and that human rights can be relied on for protection against dangerous climate change. The only question that remains is what assessment framework needs to be applied here. “

Milieudefensie argues that Shell bears a share of the responsibility to prevent dangerous climate change, discussing its level of knowledge and the foreseeability of harm by arguing that Shell has long known about the fact that fossil fuels cause climate change, with serious consequences for people and the environment, has known that it is making a substantial contribution to climate change and that it needs to take (precautionary) measures. It sets out Shell’s two-pillared obligations: first, a reduction obligation for Scope 1, 2 and 3 CO2 emissions, and second, an obligation not to develop new oil and gas fields.

Concerning the first pillar of obligations, Milieudefensie argues that “Shell must make an equitable contribution (a “fair share”) to preventing dangerous climate change and limiting global warming to 1.5°C by reducing its emissions.” In doing so, it invokes UN reports to argue that:

  • companies must demonstrate maximum ambition to achieve (net) zero CO2 emissions as quickly as possible, but by 2050 at the latest;
  • companies must set ambitious and credible interim targets for the short and medium term on the road to the above-mentioned goal of net zero CO2 emissions that represent a fair share of the global reduction target; and
  • the (interim) targets should cover all Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions and should aim for absolute CO2 emission reductions.  

It also submits that “Shell can be considered to be an influential Western company in several respects; it has both substantial emissions and large transition capabilities and a large historical responsibility. These are all relevant circumstances under the above-mentioned climate protocols (as evidenced by e.g. the reference to the CBDR principle and the need to take on a fair share of the global target) for asking Shell to take on an above-average responsibility and requiring it to reduce its emissions faster than the global average.”

As concerns the second pillar of obligations, Milieudefensie argues that Shell’s obligation not to pursue new fossil fuel projects is “based on the doctrine of hazardous negligence, human rights law, the legal principles discussed, soft law and other objective points of reference, is that Shell must cease the development and production of new oil and gas fields. After all, the carbon budget with a 50% probability of 1.5°C is already exceeded with the operation of the existing fossil-fuel infrastructure alone, and new oil and gas fields are therefore incompatible with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C by the end of this century. “

Milieudefensie concludes that Shell is breaching its societal duty of care under domestic law, and seeks the following provisionally enforceable remedies:

  • Emissions reductions, covering annual Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, as per the table below;
  • A prohibition of achieving these reductions through divestment, i.e. through transfer of shares or assets;
  • To prohibit Shell from making use of carbon credits for the purpose of achieving the emission reductions described;
  • To order Shell to achieve that the Shell Group ceases, continues to cease and does not start the production of new oil and gas from fields.

More information:
The full text of the summons (translated into English by Milieudefensie) is available below. For more information on the case, see here.

Summons Milieudefensie v. Shell (No. 2)Download

Suggested citation:
District Court of Amsterdam, Milieudefensie et al. v. Shell Plc (No. 2), summons issued 21 April 2026.

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

Call4 et al. v. Japan

Summary:
On 18 December 2025 and 4 April 2026, two lawsuits were filed in Japan against the Japanese government’s inaction on climate change. The first suit was filed with the Tokyo District Court on behalf of 452 plaintiffs from all over Japan, including victims of heatstroke, individuals who work in primary industries such as agriculture and fisheries, and children. The second suit, again with the Tokyo District Court, was filed on behalf of 454 additional plaintiffs.

The (in total) 906 plaintiffs in these twin cases summarize their claims as follows:

First, they challenge the legality of the government’s emissions reductions targets, given their inconsistency with the 1.5-degree warming target set out by the Paris Agreement. They challenge the reduction targets set out in the most recent Japanese NDC and the country’s 7th Global Warming Countermeasures Plan, both dated February 2025. Under these instruments, the government’s current targets aim for a 39% emissions reduction by 2030, a 52% reduction by 2035, and a 67% reduction by 2040 compared to 2019 levels, which the plaintiffs argue is incompatible with IPCC science, the 1.5-degree target, and Japan’s obligations as a highly developed nation.

Second, the plaintiffs argue that the government’s failure to enact effective legislation to achieve the 1.5-degree target is unconstitutional. They submit that “currently in Japan, there are no laws that set greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2030 or 2035, nor are there any legally binding emission standards.” They argue that “[t]he right to live peacefully in a stable climate without fear of harm to one’s life, health, or property is a human right that should be guaranteed by the Constitution”, as well as invoking the constitutionally guaranteed right to live peacefully.

In doing so, the plaintiffs draw on IPCC reports and explicitly refer to climate litigation in domestic and international jurisdictions, including the ICJ’s climate advisory opinion.

More information:
More information on the case, as well as case documents, are available here.

The applicants’ submissions in both cases (in Japanese) are available for download below.

Filing in the first caseDownload
Filing in the second caseDownload

Suggested citation:
Tokyo District Court, Call4 et al. v. Japan, filings of 18 December 2025 and 4 April 2026 (pending).