Category: Indigenous peoples’ rights

Categories
Adaptation African Court on Human & Peoples' Rights Business responsibility / corporate cases Children and young people Children's rights/best interests Climate activists and human rights defenders Climate-induced displacement Deforestation Disability and health-related inequality Elderly Emissions reductions/mitigation Environmental racism Evidence Extreme poverty Farming Gender / women-led Human dignity Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Loss & damage Minority rights Non-discrimination Paris Agreement Participation rights Private and family life Prohibition of torture Renewable energy Right to a healthy environment Right to assembly and association Right to development and work Right to education Right to freedom of expression Right to health Right to housing Right to life Right to property Right to subsistence/food Rights of nature Sea-level rise Self-determination Standing/admissibility Victim status Vulnerability

African Court on Human and People’s Rights Climate Advisory Opinion

Summary:
On 2 May 2025, a request for an advisory opinion on climate change was submitted to the African Court on Human and People’s Rights. The request was submitted by the Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU), in collaboration with the African Climate Platform, and other African Civil society Organizations including the Environmental Lawyers Collective for Africa, Natural Justice and resilient40, and seeks clarification of States’ obligations in the context of climate change.

Submitted under article 4 of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the establishment of an African Court on Human and People’s Rights and Rule 82(1) of the Rules of the African Court on Human and Peoples Rights, the request submits that “[a]cross the continent, Africans are suffering the consequences of climate change, whether from rising temperatures, unrelenting droughts, catastrophic floods, vanishing biodiversity, or threats to livelihoods. Climate change in Africa has had prior, current and will have future consequences that impact the enjoyment of numerous rights.”

The request sets out impacts, disaggregating them region-by-region and in terms of the groups of people most affected by climate change (mentioning women and girls, children, the elderly, Indigenous peoples, and environmental human rights defenders in particular).

The request then goes on to discuss several issues of law, beginning with issues of admissibility and jurisdiction and then relying on a wide range of rights and instruments, namely:

  • a) the Constitutive Act of the African Union
  • b) the African Charter for Human and Peoples Rights (‘Banjul Charter’), especially articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 60 and 61
  • c) African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa (Kampala Convention)
  • d) Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Maputo Protocol)
  • e) The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child
  • f) The Revised African Convention on Conservation of Nature
  • g) Any other Relevant Instrument.

In doing so, PALU invites the Court to consider international climate change law, including the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement as well as the UN Conventions on Combatting Desertification and on Biological Diversity.

Rights invoked in more detail:
PALU submits that “a rights-based climate approach is needed to address the challenges posed by climate change” and that the human rights framework “provides a robust legal framework upon which the Court may rely to define States’ responsibilities and duties in the context of climate change […] because the Charter clearly provides for collective rights and the explicit protection of the right to a healthy environment.” PALU accordingly invites the Court to consider the following provisions of the Banjul Charter:

  • Articles 2 and 3 (equality and non-discrimination)
  • Article 4 (right to life and inviolability of the human person)
  • Article 5 (right to respect for dignity and prohibition of all forms of exploitation and degradation, including slavery and torture)
  • Article 8 (freedom of conscience and religion)
  • Article 9 (freedom of information and opinion)
  • Article 10 (freedom of association)
  • Article 11 (freedom of assembly)
  • Article 12 (freedom of movement, residence and asylum; prohibition of mass expulsion)
  • Article 14 (right to property)
  • Article 16 (right to health)
  • Article 17 (right to education)
  • Article 18 (protection of the family, prohibition of age and gender discrimination)
  • Article 19 (equality of peoples, prohibition of domination)
  • Article 20 (right of peoples to existence and self-determination)
  • Article 21 (right of peoples to freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources)
  • Article 22 (right of peoples to their economic, social and cultural development)
  • Article 23 (right of peoples to national and international peace and security)
  • Article 24 (right of all peoples to a general satisfactory environment favorable to their development)
  • The request also discusses the implied rights to food and shelter.

Issues for determination:
PALU submits the following issues for determination by the Court (paraphrased):

(a) Whether the Court can be seized with the question of obligations concerning climate change under the Banjul Charter and other relevant instruments?

(b) Whether the Court can interpret and lay down applicable custom and treaty law regarding States’ obligations and duties in the context of climate change?

If these questions are resolved in the affirmative, the Court is invited to further determine:

(a) What, if any, are States’ human and peoples’ rights obligations to protect and safeguard the rights of individuals and peoples of the past (ancestral rights), and present and future generations?

(b) Whether States have positive obligations to protect vulnerable populations including environmental human rights defenders, indigenous communities, women, children, youth, future generations, the current generation, past generations, the elderly and people with disabilities from the impact of climate change in line with the relevant treaties?

(c) What human rights obligations do States have to facilitate a just, transparent, equitable and accountable transition in the context of climate change in Africa?

(d) What are the obligations of African States in implementing adaptation, resilience and mitigation measures in response to climate change?

(e) What, if any, are applicable human rights obligations of States to compensate for loss, damage and reparations?

(f) What responsibilities, if any, do African States have in relation to third parties, including international monopolies, multinational corporations and non-state actors operating on the continent, to ensure that international and regional treaties and laws on climate change are respected, protected, promoted and implemented?

(g) What, if any, is the nature of the obligations on African States to cooperate with other states especially historical emitters to limit global warming to below the 1.5°C threshold, to avert an existential climate crisis for present and future generations on the continent?

Further reading:
For more information on the advisory opinion request, see this post by Yusra Suedi.

Suggested citation:
African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Request for an advisory opinion on the human rights obligations of African states in addressing the climate crisis, filed 2 May 2025 (pending).

Last updated:
23 May 2025

Categories
Brazil Class action Deforestation Domestic court Environmental racism Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Just transition litigation Minority rights Non-discrimination Rights of nature

São Paulo State Public Defender’s Office v. São Paulo State Land Institute Foundation (ITESP) et al.

Summary:
On 31 March 2014, the São Paulo State Public Defender’s Office brought a “Public Civil Action” against the São Paulo State Land Institute Foundation (ITESP), the São Paulo State Foundation for Forest Conservation and Production (Fundação Florestal), and the State of São Paulo. The case sought annulment of the decision to protect biodiversity by creating a new State Park, the Alto Ribeira Tourist State Park (PETAR), despite the fact that the area in question overlapped with a traditional Quilombola territory, or a territory settled by Afro-Brazilian descendants of escaped slaves. The ruling highlights environmental racism as causing the marginalization of this community. The plaintiffs argued that the Quilombola are protectors of nature and have a relationship of mutual dependence with it and requested territorial recognition.

Ruling of 29 December 2023:
On 29 December 2023, a ruling was issued upholding the claim of the Quilombola community of Bombas and invalidating the decision to create the State Park to the extent that it overlapped with the Quilombola territory. The court established that it could review the conformity of domestic law against international human rights norms, finding also that ILO Convention 169 was hierarchically superior to domestic constitutional law. It also highlighted the difficulty of balancing the interests of the Quilombola community and PETAR, noting that both concerned internationally recognised human rights – the Quilombola community given its traditional customs, connection to nature and unique culture, and PETAR as a World Heritage Site at the heart of the Atlantic Rainforest that was home to a number of rare species of flora and fauna.

Exploring the issue of environmental racism, the court found that:

The Socio-Environmental Institute (ISA) recently produced a series of reports recognising that the Bombas community is subject to environmental racism. The issue is linked in the sense that despite the abstraction and supposed generality of the law, when it is applied to a specific case in environmental terms, because it disregards original realities (the way of life of the traditional community from the way of life of the urbanised community), it imposes burdens that make survival almost unbearable, because it creates prohibitions that affect the subsistence of groups that feed themselves, sustain themselves, produce minimal income and extract essential elements for their maintenance from the environment. Not that this isn’t also the case in urbanised society, after all, there’s no denying that all consumer goods originate from materials that are exploited on a large scale in world production and that originate from nature, such as oil.

To say that there is a precise separation between humans and the environment, as well as that there is real protection, is in itself a huge contradiction. After all, we are all on a planet and making use of its resources (…).

Ultimately, the court found the decision establishing the Park to be incompatible with Article 68 of the Transitional Constitutional Provisions Act (ADCT) and ILO Convention 169. Although the decision noted the problem of environmental racism, it found that the marginalization at stake stemmed from combined social, environmental, historical, and legal factors. It affirmed the relationship between traditional communities and the environment and the need to halt human impacts on natural ecosystems.

As noted by Climatecasechart, the original claim did not reference climate change; this connection was introduced judicially in the ruling of 2023.

On 5 March 2024, the São Paulo State Attorney General’s Office appealed. In doing so, it highlighted the threat of climate change and the importance of carbon sinks, such as the State Park in question.

Further information:
To read the full judgment in the case (in Portuguese), click here.

Last updated:
12 February 2025.

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

Sagoonick et al. v. State of Alaska I

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sagoonick IDownload

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

Last updated:
14 November 2024

Categories
Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Imminent risk Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Minority rights New Zealand Paris Agreement Right to life Separation of powers

Smith v. Attorney General

Summary:
This case was filed in 2022 and concerns the same plaintiff as the Smith v. Fonterra corporate responsibility case. The plaintiff in these cases is a Māori landowner and spokesperson on climate change for his tribe (iwi). He argued that the climate policy of the New Zealand government had failed to adequately protect the citizens of New Zealand, and especially Māori, against the impacts of climate change. Before the High Court, he submitted that “the Government has taken no or inadequate climate change mitigation measures since it had become aware of the causes and effects of climate change down to the present.” In July 2022, the High Court struck out all of the applicant’s claims. The Court of Appeal rejected his appeal on all counts in December 2024.

Claims made:
The plaintiff’s case is based on three main arguments (expanded from the original submissions, which concerned only the first argument of the three). First, the plaintiff argues that the government breached its common law duty of care to “take all necessary steps to reduce NZ emissions and to actively protect the plaintiff and his descendants from the adverse effects of climate change”, as derived from its authority over the territory of New Zealand, the government’s duty of care, and its responsibility to Māori. Secondly, he alleged a breach of the rights enshrined in sections 8 and 20 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA), concerning deprivation of life and the denial of the right to practise culture. Here the plaintiff argued that the Crown had “failed to put in place an effective legislative and administrative framework properly designed to provide effective mitigation against the climate change risk in accordance with the best available science and New Zealand’s international and domestic legal obligations.” He invoked the protection of his own life, those of his tribe and clan, and those of future generations. Thirdly, he argued that the government had violated the Tiriti o Waitangi | the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand’s founding document, and the consequent fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiff and those he represents.

Finding of the High Court:
In July 2022, the High Court struck out all three claims. First, it found that the plaintiff’s arguments about the common law duty of care were not based on recognized legal obligations or case-law. It was also considered too far-reaching: “any relief, if it were available, would be an ineffective and piecemeal way to deal with climate change issues. Every person in New Zealand would be entitled to sue the Government under the novel duty.” It noted too that “the courts have neither the technical capacity nor the political mandate to co-ordinate in an integrated way to mitigate the effects of climate change”.

On the second argument, the Court found that the right to life claim was untenable because the plaintiff had not demonstrated a “‘real and identifiable’ risk to the life of a specified individual or even a class of individuals. It is a general threat that may eventuate as a result of the effects of climate change to all New Zealanders.” In addition, the Court was not convinced that it was possible to draw analogies to Dutch law, and specifically the Urgenda case invoked by the plaintiff, meaning that “[t]he decision in Urgenda must be treated with caution”.

Furthermore, on the minority rights claim, the Court held that the plaintiff had not alleged specific breaches of that right, which only entailed positive obligations under exceptional circumstances. It also held that the plaintiff’s case was “based on a claim that an existing legislative and policy framework is inadequate to protect Māori. There is no allegation of opposition or coercion targeting Māori that fits within that exceptional category here.” Accordingly, this part of the case was also declared inadmissible.

Finally, concerning the Tiriti o Waitangi, the Court found that this claim was so broad, and climate change was so complex, that “any fiduciary obligations arising from the Crown would be owed to the public in general. This alone makes the claim untenable”. To be contemplated, such a claim would depend on an underlying duty — here, the duty of care invoked by the applicant — which had already been rejected above, making this claim untenable. In addition, the Court held, “a claim that such a duty is owed to only a subsection of New Zealanders, Māori, as opposed to the public in general, is a further reason that it cannot be tenable”.

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:
On 19 December 2024, the Court of Appeal issued its ruling in this case, rejecting the applicant’s appeal on all counts.

On the claim concerning the right to life, the court considered six questions: 
           a)  whether that right includes a right to a life with dignity;
           b)  whether the widespread nature of (climate) effects preclude the applicability of the right to life;
           c)  whether the risks from climate change are sufficiently proximate;
           d)  whether the right to life can impose positive duties on the State;
           e)  whether it is tenable that New Zealand’s regulatory framework breached the right to life; and
           f)  whether reporting orders are tenably available.

On the first question, it found that it was not clearly untenable that the right to life includes a right to a minimum baseline as to the quality of life and is therefore applicable to the potential impacts of climate change.  This, it held, is consistent with international jurisprudence. Throughout, it extensively engaged with international jurisprudence (Billy, Teitiota) and soft-law materials (the HRC’s General comment No 36).

On the second question, the Court found that it was not clearly untenable on the grounds that the alleged risk to life potentially affects a large group or all of the population.   

On the third question, again referring to international climate jurisprudence on equivalent rights, and particularly engaging with the ECtHR’s KlimaSeniorinnen judgment, the Court found that this would be a matter of (scientific) evidence for trial, and that it could accordingly not strike this out at this stage. 

On the fourth question, the Court found – given the context of the climate emergency and the case-law from around the world responding to this challenge — it was not clearly untenable that NZBORA’s right to life requires the government to take protective measures against foreseeable threats to life. 

On the fifth question, on the challenge to the efficacy of the legislative framework responding to climate change, the Court found that it could not second-guess parliamentary policy choices, striking out this claim while referring to the possibility of judicial review of concrete actions taken under the legislative framework.

On the sixth question, it found that the court’s institutional role did not encompass an ongoing monitoring role of the measures the Crown is implementing in response to climate change.

On the right to culture, the court found that it was not clearly untenable that climate change could give rise to a positive obligation to protect against a denial of the right to culture under s20 of NZBORA where a substantial interference amounting to a denial of the right occurs. However, here too the court found that the pleaded deficiencies of the domestic legal framework reflect policy choices that are for Parliament and that it could not review.

As concerns the claim of a breach of te Tiriti, the court found that this was clearly untenable because the domestic legislative framework gives effect to the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty and allows for decisions consistent with Treaty principles.

As concerns the claim that the Crown owes fiduciary duties to Mr Smith, his whānau, Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Kahu, the court found that the claimed fiduciary duty was not comparable to specific fiduciary duties arising between the government and certain Māori due to particular dealings between them.  As a result, the pleaded claim was inconsistent with the nature of fiduciary duties because the response to climate change required a balancing of interests and the government could not act purely in the interests of the pleaded beneficiaries. 

As concerned the claim that there was a novel common law duty in place, relying on the common law public trust doctrine, this doctrine stemmed from the context of access to seashores and navigable waters and was thus too far removed from the extensive duty pleaded in relation to climate change.  The court found that the boundaries of the public trust doctrine are imprecise and fluid, raising a host of conceptual problems in imposing fiduciary or trust-like obligations on the government, and that the doctrine could in any case be displaced by legislation; domestic law did not leave room for its application.

Status of the case:
Appeal to the Court of Appeal rejected 19 December 2024.

Further reading:
The text of the High Court ruling is available here.

The text of the Court of Appeal ruling is available here.

Suggested citation:
High Court of New Zealand, Smith v. Attorney General, [2022] NZHC 1693.

Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Smith v. Attorney General, [2024] NZCA 692.

Categories
Climate activists and human rights defenders Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Finland Indigenous peoples' rights Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to water Rights of nature Vulnerability

Finnish Association for Nature Conservation and others v. Finland

Summary:

In August 2024, a coalition of six Finnish environmental and human rights organizations, including the Finnish Sámi Youth, filed a lawsuit against the Finnish government at the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland. The lawsuit accuses the government, led by Prime Minister Petteri Orpo, of failing to meet the commitments outlined in Finland’s 2022 Climate Act, which aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2035. The plaintiffs argue that the government’s insufficient actions, particularly in the areas of forestry, agriculture, and transportation, threaten both environmental sustainability and the rights of the Sámi people, who are disproportionately affected by climate change.

The case builds on an earlier ruling by the Supreme Administrative Court, which dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim on procedural grounds, and a recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the Klimaseniorinnen case, where the Strasbourg Court found that Switzerland’s failure to adequately address climate change constituted a violation of human rights.

Claim:

The plaintiffs claim that the Finnish government’s inadequate climate policies are not only a breach of the nation’s own laws but also a violation of human rights. Specifically, they argue that the government is failing to protect the Sámi people’s rights to maintain their culture, livelihood, and environment. They demand that the government implement stronger measures to meet its climate targets, thus safeguarding both the environment and the rights of the Sámi as an indigenous people.

Significance:

The significance of this case is multifaceted. Firstly, it represents a critical intersection between environmental law and human rights, specifically the rights of indigenous peoples, highlighting how climate change disproportionately affects vulnerable populations. Secondly, this case is notable for invoking international legal standards, such as those set by the ECHR, in a national context. The outcome could therefore have implications beyond Finland, contributing to the growing body of climate litigation worldwide that seeks to hold governments accountable for their environmental commitments. Finally, the case highlights the increasingly active role of civil society in enforcing climate laws and protecting the rights of vulnerable populations in the face of global climate change.

Ruling in the case:

In January 2025, it was reported that the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland had turned down the complaint, emphasizing the need for more time to conduct an assessment of the effectiveness of current policies and the impossibility of ex ante assessments.

Links:

The related documents are accessible here, here, here, and here.

Suggested case citation:

Finnish Association for Nature Conservation and others v Finland (pending, Supreme Administrative Court of Finland, 2024).

Last updated:
12 February 2025

Categories
Domestic court Fossil fuel extraction Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Participation rights Right to a healthy environment Right to health South Korea

Kang et al. v KSURE and KEXIM

Summary:
In March 2022, four individuals, including one Korean national and three Australian nationals from the indigenous community of the Tiwi Islands, filed a complaint before the Seoul District Court. The complaint specifically targets two public Korean debtor corporations—Korea Trade Insurance Corporation and Korea Export Import Bank—by challenging their financial support for the Barossa gas field development project. This fossil gas reserve initiative, led by SK E&S Co., Ltd. (a South Korean conglomerate), Santos Ltd. (an Australian oil and gas corporation), and Jera Co. (Japan’s largest power company), is located off the coast of Australia’s Northern Territory, near the Tiwi Islands. The applicants oppose the project, highlighting potential irreversible environmental, legal, and financial risks. The plaintiffs argue that endorsing the Barossa Gas Project would violate their constitutional rights to health and a healthy living environment. They are seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants from supporting the project.

Claim:
The claim underscores the environmental risks associated with the Barossa Gas Project, projecting an annual emission of 15Mt of CO2 and potential harm to the marine ecosystem, including endangered sea turtles, and indigenous communities. Legal risks involve insufficient consultation with indigenous communities and a potential dispute over control of the gas field given its location within the Indonesian exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Financial risks are tied to the project’s inconsistency with climate goals, an anticipated decline in fossil gas demand, and underdeveloped carbon capture and storage technologies. The plaintiffs base their claim on constitutional environmental rights, Tiwi Islanders’ property rights, and the South Korean National Finance Act. They emphasise the deficiencies in the consultation and assessment processes for the proposed Barossa pipeline in a habitat protection zone near the Tiwi Islands. The central issue revolves around whether the Tiwi Islanders were adequately consulted and if environmental and climate impacts were sufficiently assessed for the Barossa project.

Links:
The complaint is accessible for download below (in the original Korean).

20220323_16485_petitionDownload

Status of the case:
Pending.

Suggested citation:
Kang et al. v. KSURE and KEXIM (South Korea, Seoul District Court), pending case filed on 23 March 2022.

Last updated:
12 December 2023.

Categories
Business responsibility / corporate cases Domestic court France Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Right to a healthy environment Right to health

Envol Vert et al. v Casino

Summary:

This case revolves around the nexus of climate change and human rights abuses. Various NGOs, representing the plaintiffs, initiated legal proceedings in March 2021 against the French supermarket giant, Casino. The allegations stem from the company’s activities in the cattle industry in Brazil and Colombia, facilitated through its subsidiaries Grupo Pão de Açúcar and Grupo Éxito. Despite Casino’s commitment to eradicating deforestation and complying with Brazilian national law, the lawsuit contends that the corporation is culpable for environmental degradation, human rights violations, and threats to human health and safety in the mentioned regions. Specific accusations include biodiversity loss, depletion of carbon stocks, land seizures, violations of Indigenous peoples’ rights, and instances of slavery and forced labor. The plaintiffs argue that Casino’s vigilance plans, mandated by the French duty of vigilance law, lack substance and are insufficient. Consequently, they seek court orders compelling Casino to establish and implement a comprehensive vigilance plan, along with compensating Brazilian Indigenous groups for damages resulting from the company’s failure to fulfil its duty of vigilance.

Claim:

The plaintiffs assert that Casino, through its operations in the cattle industry in Brazil and Colombia, is responsible for environmental harm, human rights violations (including land seizures, violations of Indigenous peoples’ rights, slavery, and forced labor), and threats to human health and safety. They contend that Casino’s vigilance plans, mandated by the French duty of vigilance law, lack substance. Seeking legal intervention, the plaintiffs aim to compel Casino to establish and implement a comprehensive vigilance plan, identifying risks arising from the group’s activities. Additionally, they request compensation for Brazilian Indigenous groups, arguing that Casino’s failure to uphold its duty of vigilance resulted in the loss of opportunity and moral damage. Casino rebuts these claims, asserting that its vigilance plan aligns with legal requirements and deeming the plaintiffs’ requested measures unreasonable under the duty of vigilance law. The core issue involves determining whether Casino violated the French duty of vigilance law through its involvement in cattle-industry-induced deforestation.

Links:

The case document can be found below.

20210302_13435_complaintDownload

Status of the case:

The case is currently pending before the French Saint-Étienne Judicial Court.

Suggested citation:

Envol Vert et al v Casino (Saint-Étienne Judicial Court), filed 2 March 2021.

Last updated:

11 December 2023.

Categories
Adaptation Climate-induced displacement Domestic court Indigenous peoples' rights Kenya Loss & damage Non-discrimination Right to life Right to property

Legal Advice Centre T/A Kituo cha Sheria & Anor v. Attorney General and 7 Others (Iten ELC Petition No. 007 of 2022)

Summary:
In 2022, a case was filed in Kenya on behalf of members of indigenous Ilchamus and Tugen communities living on the shores of Lake Baringo. Due to flooding, Lake Baringo has doubled in size since 2010. The plaintiffs assert that, as residents of the area, they are victims of climate change-related flooding, which in turn has caused displacement, deaths and harm to property. The petitioners allege violations of their constitutional human rights as well as violations of the Kenyan government’s duties under the domestic Climate Change Act. Drawing on a 2021 government report that identified climate change as the main cause of flooding in the area, the plaintiffs seek to — in the words of their lead attorney, Omondi Owino, “enforce the climate change duties of public officials”.

The petitioners’ motion for the Supreme Court of Kenya to create a three-judge Environment and Land Court (ELC) panel to hear the case was allowed. A hearing in the case — which alleges that government officials “failed, refused, or neglected” to “anticipate, prevent, or minimize” the impacts of climate change — was held on 24 October 2023 at the ELC in Iten. Government lawyers have reportedly contested the claims and the plaintiffs’ claims for damages, arguing that Kenya’s contribution to global climate change is minimal.

Suggested citation:
Environment and Land Court (ELC) of Iten, Legal Advice Centre T/A Kituo cha Sheria & Anor v. Attorney General and 7 Others, Petition No. 007 of 2022.

Categories
2023 Colombia Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Just transition litigation Participation rights Right to culture Self-determination Uncategorized

Pirá Paraná Indigenous Council and Another v. Ministry of Environment and Others (Pirá Paraná Case)

Summary:

On July 15th, 2022, the Pirá Paraná Indigenous Council, in collaboration with the Association of Indigenous Traditional Authorities of the River Pirá Paraná, initiated a ‘tutela’ proceeding against private corporations and Colombian authorities. This expedited legal procedure is only available when regular mechanisms are deemed inadequate to ensure the protection of the plaintiffs’ rights. The legal action arises from concerns related to the Baka Rokarire project, particularly its carbon credit initiatives, within the Indigenous territory situated in the heart of the Amazon rainforest, located in the Vaupés region. The central issue at hand is the potential violation of Indigenous fundamental human rights, including self-determination, self-governance, and the preservation of cultural diversity and integrity. The claimants argue that the individual who represented the Indigenous community in the project lacked proper legitimacy, while public authorities allegedly failed to safeguard Indigenous rights throughout the project’s registration and development. Private companies are accused of neglecting human rights due diligence standards and deliberately excluding Indigenous authorities from the decision-making process.

Claim:

The plaintiffs argue that the Baka Rokarire project, especially its carbon credit initiatives, violate their fundamental human rights as Indigenous people. Importantly, the lawsuit filed by the Pirá Paraná community does not contest land ownership rights but instead focuses on preserving the integrity of the territory, which holds great cultural and ancestral significance for Indigenous populations. Their primary concern centers around the absence of genuine Indigenous representation in the project’s agreement. Furthermore, they accuse public authorities of failing to fulfill their responsibilities in safeguarding Indigenous rights during the project’s registration and execution. Private companies involved are accused of neglecting human rights due diligence standards and intentionally excluding Indigenous authorities from the project’s development. The main argument is that the potential negative impact on Indigenous rights justifies legal intervention.

Decision:

Initially, based on the subsidiarity of the tutela mechanism, the Judicial Court deemed the case inadmissible, citing that the plaintiffs could have pursued other available legal avenues. The court’s rationale was that the tutela mechanism was not the suitable course of action in this instance, as there was no clear evidence indicating the presence of irreparable damage in the case. The Administrative Tribunal upheld this decision. However, in April 2023, a significant development occurred when Colombia’s Constitutional Court took the unprecedented step of reviewing the case. This marks the first-ever evaluation of a case involving the voluntary carbon market, potentially setting a legal precedent that will delineate the boundaries of activities permitted within territories inhabited by Indigenous communities in carbon credit projects. The Constitutional Court’s review will also encompass an examination of whether the tutela mechanism is the appropriate means for challenging these projects, especially concerning Indigenous rights. This decision to review represents a noteworthy opportunity to provide clarity regarding Indigenous rights and cultural preservation within the context of carbon offset initiatives.

Links:

The case documents are accessible via Climate Case Chart: Click here.

Status of the case:

The case is currently pending before the Constitutional Court of Colombia.

Last updated:

05 October 2023.

Categories
2023 Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Evidence Fossil fuel extraction Human dignity Indigenous peoples' rights Public trust doctrine Right to a healthy environment Right to health Standing/admissibility United States of America

Held and Others v. Montana

Summary:
In Held and Others, sixteen young plaintiffs aged between two and eighteen brought a case against the U.S. state of Montana alleging violations of the state constitution due to climate change. The youth plaintiffs in this case, which is to some extent comparable to the Juliana litigation, alleged that they are already experiencing ‘a host of adverse consequences’ from anthropogenic climate change in Montana, including increased temperatures, changing weather patterns, more acute droughts and extreme weather events, increasing wildfires and glacial melt. Fossil fuels extracted in Montana cause emissions higher than those of many countries, including Brazil, Japan, Mexico, Spain, or the United Kingdom. The plaintiffs argued that this was causing health risks, especially for children, and that the defendants, among them the state of Montana, its Governor, and various state agencies, had “act[ed] affirmatively to exacerbate the climate crisis” despite their awareness of the risks to the applicants. On 14 August 2023, Judge Kathy Seeley ruled wholly in favor of the youth plaintiffs, declaring that Montana had violated their constitutional rights and invalidating the statutory rule forbidding state authorities from considering the impacts of GHG emissions or climate change in decision-making related to fossil fuel extraction. In 2025, 13 of the 16 original plaintiffs filed non-compliance proceedings based on new state legislation.

Claims made:
The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of fossil fuel-based provisions of Montana’s State Energy Policy Act along with a provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act which forbids state authorities from considering the impacts of GHG emissions or climate change in their environmental reviews (the “MEPA Limitation”). They also challenged the aggregate acts that the state has taken to implement and perpetuate a fossil fuel-based energy system under these statutes.

The plaintiffs sought a declaration that their right to a clean and healthy environment includes a right a stable climate, and that existing approaches to greenhouse gas emissions in Montana violate constitutional provisions, including the right to a clean and healthy environment; the right to seek safety, health, and happiness; and the right to individual dignity and to equal protection. They also sought injunctive relief, namely an order to account for Montana’s greenhouse gas emissions and to develop and implement an emissions reductions plan.

Decision on the admissibility:
On 4 August 2021, a the Montana First Judicial District Court for Lewis and Clark County declared the case admissible in part. The prayer for injunctive relief in terms of emissions accounting, a remedial plan or policy, the appointment of expert to assist the court, and retain jurisdiction until such orders are complied with were rejected. However, the court declared the constitutional rights claims admissible, including the claim about the plaintiffs’ ‘fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment’, which — as the plaintiffs submitted — ‘includes a stable climate system that sustains human lives and liberties’.

Judge Seeley’s Ruling of 14 August 2023:
After a trial held from 12-23 June 2023, Judge Kathy Seeley of the First Judicial District Court of Montana issued a ruling in this case on 14 August 2023. Noting that “[t]he science is clear that there are catastrophic harms to the natural environment of Montana and Plaintiffs and future generations of the State due to anthropogenic climate change”, she ruled wholly in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring that the state of Montana had violated their constitutional rights to equal protection, dignity, liberty, health and safety, and public trust, all of which are predicated on their right to a clean and healthful environment (p. 92-93).

In doing so, Judge Seeley ruled that the youth plaintiffs had standing to bring the case because they had proven that they had experienced significant injuries. The court set out the different impacts on the plaintiffs at length (p. 46-64). It ultimately found that the plaintiffs “have experienced past and ongoing injuries resulting from the State’s failure to consider GHGs and climate change, including injuries to their physical and mental health, homes and property, recreational, spiritual, and aesthetic interests, tribal and cultural traditions, economic security, and happiness” (p. 86 of the ruling). The judge also ruled that while mental health injuries based on state inaction on climate change do not on their own constitute a cognizable injury, “mental health injuries stemming from the effects of climate change on Montana’s environment, feelings like loss, despair, and anxiety, are cognizable injuries” (p. 86-87). The ruling recognizes that “[e]very additional ton of GHG emissions exacerbates Plaintiffs’ injuries and risks locking in irreversible climate injuries”, and that these injuries “will grow increasingly severe and irreversible without science-based actions to address climate change” (p. 87). As children and youth, the plaintiffs are disproportionately impacted by fossil fuel pollution and climate impacts, and their injuries are “concrete, particularized, and distinguishable from the public generally” (p. 87).

On causation, and having heard and evaluated testimony from several expert witnesses, the Court extensively reviewed the scientific evidence concerning the causation and progression of anthropogenic climate change and identified the Earth’s energy imbalance as the critical metric for determining levels of global warming (p. 22). Having established that “Montana is a major emitter of GHG emissions in the world in absolute terms, in per person terms, and historically”, and noting the state government’s continuing approval of fossil fuel projects despite its already extensive production of oil, gas and coal, the Court found that there was a “fairly traceable connection” between Montana’s statutes, its GHG emissions, climate change, and the injuries suffered by the plaintiffs (p. 87). Noting that the state government had the authority to limit fossil fuel-related activities, and having regard to the fact that the MEPA Limitation causes the state to ignore climate impacts and renewable energy alternatives to fossil fuels, as well as noting the economic and environmental advantages of a green energy transition for Montana, the Court noted that “current barriers to implementing renewable energy systems are not technical or economic, but social and political” (p. 83). The state of Montana, it held, “authorizes fossil fuel activities without analyzing GHGs or climate impacts, which result in GHG emissions in Montana and abroad that have caused and continue to exacerbate anthropogenic climate change” (p. 88). It noted also that these emissions were “nationally and globally significant”, and could accordingly not be considered de minimis; they “can be measured incrementally and cumulatively both in terms of immediate local effects and by mixing in the atmosphere and contributing to global climate change and an already destabilized climate system” (p. 88).

On the redressability of these impacts, the Court noted that the psychological satisfaction of the ruling itself did not constitute sufficient redress, and that declaring the relevant state statutory rules unconstitutional would provide partial redress because ongoing emissions will continue to cause harms to the plaintiffs. Noting that “[i]t is possible to affect future degradation to Montana’s environment and natural resources and injuries to these Plaintiffs”, and applying strict structiny to the state’s statutes, the Court found that the MEPA Limitation violates the right to a clean and healthful environment under the Montana Constitution, which protects children and future generations (among others) and includes the protection of the climate system. As a result, the Court tested whether the MEPA Limitation was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, finding that neither had the state authorities shown that it served a compelling governmental interest, nor was it narrowly tailored to serve any interest.

As a result, the judge invalidated the Montana legislation that promoted fossil fuels and prohibited analysis of GHG emissions and corresponding climate impacts.

Proceedings on non-compliance:
On 10 December 2025, 13 of the original 16 plaintiffs in the Held case filed a petition for original jurisdiction with the Montana Supreme Court. They challenged statutes passed by the Montana legislature in 2025, arguing that they weaken the state’s environmental protection laws and undermine the state’s constitutional obligation to protect the environment. The petition seeks a declaration that these statutes are unconstitutional, and to overturn them.

The petition in these follow-up proceedings is available below:

Petition+for+Original+JurisdictionDownload

Date filed:
13 March 2020

Date of admissibility decision:
4 August 2021

Date of Ruling:
14 August 2023

More information:
The original complaint is available from the Western Environmental Law Center.

The admissibility decision is available on climatecasechart.com.

Judge Seeley’s findings of fact, conclusions of law and order of 14 August 2023 are available below.

Held-v-MontanaDownload

Suggested citations:
Montana First District Court for Lewis and Clark county, Held and others v. State of Montana and others, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, 14 August 2023, Cause no. CDV-2020-307.