Category: Fossil fuel extraction

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

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

Summary:
In August 2023, a group of individuals and NGOs filed a climate application against Russia before the European Court of Human Rights. The applicants, made up of two NGOs (Ecodefense and Moscow Helsinki Group) 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
Business responsibility / corporate cases Domestic court Fossil fuel extraction Right to a healthy environment

Ugandan Farmers v. EACOP Ltd.

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

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

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

Last updated:
24 June 2026.

Categories
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
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
2026 Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Fossil fuel extraction Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Public trust doctrine Right to a healthy environment Right to culture Right to life Separation of powers United States of America

Kaarina Dunn et al. v. Public Service Comission of Wisconsin, et al.

Summary:
On 23 April 2026, a court in the US state of Wisconsin ruled in a youth climate case against the Wisconsin Public Service Commission and the Wisconsin State legislature. The case was filed by fifteen young people ranging in age from 8-17. The youth plaintiffs had challenged the constitutionality of statues governing the approval of fossil fuel-fired power plants because those statutes limit the ability of the first respondent, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, to consider air quality impacts of when issuing permits for such plants. In doing so, they had invoked their rights, under the Wisconsin state constitution, to liberty and to life, as well as the rights to a stable climate system and to access, enjoy and use navigable waters (both of which they considered inherent within the constitution). They also alleged a violation of Wisconsin’s public trust doctrine.

According to the Plaintiffs, climate change has rendered them unable to enjoy Wisconsin’s natural resources, like its rivers and lakes, as well as prevented them from engaging in recreational activities, like swimming and skiing. Some are deprived of their Indigenous cultural traditions, while others have experienced asthma and contracted Lyme disease.

The judge tasked with resolving this case, Judge Julie Genovese, ruled that “[w]hile the court is sympathetic to the youths and admires their willingness to access the courts in their quest to protect the planet, I conclude that the case must be dismissed because environmental policy is a nonjusticiable political question”. The judge discussed Wisconsin’s political question doctrine, which “dictates that courts will not decide questions that require the court to determine what the best or wisest public policy would be”, and “also embodies a practical component, recognizing that matters of economic and social policy are not reasonably “susceptible to judicial management or resolution.””

The judge concluded that:

“by substituting this court’s judgment for the legislature, the court
would be showing a lack of respect for the legislative and executive branches. Plaintiffs do not like these policy decisions. (…) Because Plaintiffs think it is technologically and economically feasible for Wisconsin to be carbon free by 2050, they conclude that by invalidating the statutes and thus their limitations, the PSC will decide to stop approving fossil fuel-fired plants, and Plaintiffs’ carbon free goal will be achieved. While the court may agree with Plaintiffs’ policy preferences, it would show a blatant lack of respect for our elected officials and the agency defendants to substitute my judgment for theirs, and strike the limitations imposed by the legislature and executed by the PSC. Accordingly, because the court concludes that the legislature’s policy decisions represent a nonjusticiable political question, this case must be dismissed.”

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

Decision Wisconsin 2026Download

Submission on behalf of the state:
The submission made on behalf of the state government can be downloaded below.

Filing Legislature’s attorney Ryan WalshDownload
Categories
Belgium Business responsibility / corporate cases Domestic court Farming Fossil fuel extraction Private and family life Right to life

Falys et al. v. TotalEnergies (‘The Farmer Case’)

Summary:

In March 2024, Hugues Falys, a farmer located in Belgium, filed a legal action at the Commercial Court of Tournai (Belgium) against TotalEnergies. He was joined by Ligue des Droits Humains, Greenpeace Belgium and FIAN Belgium.

The objective of the legal action is to claim compensation for damages suffered by Falys as a result of climate breakdown, and to force TotalEnergies to move away from fossil fuels. The plaintiffs argue that Falys’s farm in Lessines (BE) has suffered a number of extreme weather events, including heatwaves and droughts, resulting in major financial losses, extra workload, stress and worry.

The civil liability action is based on articles 1382 and 1383 of the former Belgian Civil Code. In their submissions to the court, the plaintiffs have put forward human rights arguments as one line of interpretation of the relevant provisions, inter alia referring the ECtHR’s judgment in KlimaSeniorinnen multiple times.

Relevant developments:

On March 18 2026, the Commercial Court of Tournai found the action to be admissible, thereby recognising that carbon majors can be held accountable in Belgium for causing climate change even if their headquarters is in another state. With regards to the merits of the case, the Court postponed its judgment to 9 September 2026 to await the decision in a similar case against TotalEnergies in France.

See also:

Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v. Total.

Links:

For the main conclusions of the plaintiffs (in French), see here.

For an unofficial translation of the main conclusions of the plaintiffs (in English), see here.

For the Court’s admissibility judgment of 18 March 2026 (in French), see here.

Last updated:

20 March 2026.