Category: Keywords

Categories
2021 Deciding Body Domestic court European Convention on Human Rights Keywords Paris Agreement Right to assembly and association Right to freedom of expression Rights at stake State concerned Switzerland Year

Credit Suisse Climate Activists Trial (Geneva)

Summary:
On 13 October 2018, during a climate march in Geneva, a young climate activist from the collective “BreakFree Suisse” spread his hands smeared with red paint all over the facade of the Swiss bank Credit Suisse, leaving red handprints to denounce investments in fossil fuels. According to the climate activist, these red handprints symbolized the blood of the various victims of climate change.

On 20 February 2020, the activist was found guilty by the Tribunal de police (“Police Court”) for property damage.

On 14 October 2020, the Cour de Justice (“Court of Justice”) acquitted the climate activist and argued that the young man had acted in a putative state of necessity due to climate change.

A year later, on 28 September 2021, the Swiss Bundesgericht (“Federal Supreme Court”) overturned this decision and referred the case back to the Cour de Justice. The Bundesgericht argued that climate change and the resulting consequences do not represent an imminent danger to individual legal interests.

Consequently, on 31 March 2022, the Cour de Justice revised its first decision and ordered the climate activist to pay a symbolic fine of 100 Swiss francs as well as compensation for material damage.

In a similar case in Lausanne, climate activists from the same collective were on trial after occupying the entrance halls of the Swiss bank Credit Suisse.  

Rights invoked:
The activist invoked his rights to freedom of expression (Article 10 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) and assembly and association (Article 11 ECHR).

The Swiss Bundesgericht held that Article 11 ECHR only protects the right to freedom of “peaceful assembly”. With his behavior, the young man committed an act of vandalism, which is incompatible with freedom of expression. Accordingly, the Court found that the activist could not rely on Articles 10 and 11 ECHR.  

Further proceedings:
It was reported that applications concerning both of these cases have been filed at the European Court of Human Rights.

Date:
28 September 2021

Suggested citation:
Swiss Bundesgericht, N.B. v. Credit Suisse, 6B_1310/2020, 6B_1298/2020, Judgment of 28 September 2021.

Links:
For the Federal Supreme Court’s judgment, see here.

For the Cour de justice’s second judgment, see here.

For the Cour de Justice’s first judgment, see here.

For the Tribunal de police’s judgment, see here.

Categories
Argentina Brazil Children and young people Committee on the Rights of the Child France Germany Turkey

Sacchi et al. v. Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany & Turkey

Summary:
On 23 September 2019, 16 children, among them teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg, filed a petition before the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) alleging that Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany and Turkey had violated their rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) by making insufficient cuts to greenhouse gases and failing to encourage the world’s biggest emitters to curb carbon pollution. Each of the respondent states has ratified the UNCRC, and all of them have signed the Paris Agreement but, according to petitioners, none have made or kept commitments that align with keeping temperature rise.

The sixteen children petitioned the CRC to declare a violation of their rights due to the respondent states’ perpetuation of climate change. They also petitioned the CRC to recommend actions that the respondents must take to address climate change, specifically mitigation and adaptation measures. Their claims are based on the rights enshrined in the UNCRC, and the argument that the respondents have knowingly caused and perpetuated the climate crisis, thereby triggering the applicability of human rights obligations and duties.

In its inadmissibility decision of 22 September 2021, the Committee declared the Communication inadmissible. This decision is indicative of some of the procedural challenges that climate cases will face in the future. Whereas the Committee recognized that the authors of the Communication had victim status, and established that it had jurisdiction over the case, it found the case inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

Adjudicating Body:
UN Committee on the Rights of the Child

Date:
22 September 2021

Status of case:
Declared inadmissible

Third party intervention:
On 1 May 2020, David R. Boyd and John H. Knox (the current and former UN Special Rapporteurs on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, respectively), submitted a third-party intervention regarding this Communication to the Committee. The text of the intervention is available here.

Hearing in these cases:
There were oral hearings before the CRC in these cases. The parties appeared before the Committee via videoconference at five separate hearings between May and September 2021.

Admissibility:
Arguments by the respondent States:
Three respondent States (Brazil, France and Germany) responded to the petition, arguing that it was inadmissible on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction; lack of substantiation (manifestly ill-founded); and the failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

Reply by the petitioners:
In their reply of 4 May 2020, the petitioners argued that:

1) the Committee had jurisdiction because they (the petitioners) are “directly and foreseeably injured by greenhouse gas emissions originating in the Respondents’ territory;”
2) the claims are manifestly well-founded because the children are currently suffering direct and personal harms due to climate change, and they will continue to do so in the foreseeable future; and
3) the pursuit of domestic remedies would be futile.

Findings of the CRC:
The CRC adopted a separate set of Views for each State party concerned; these will be discussed together here.

In terms of the authors’ victim status, the Committee held that they had “prima facie established that they have personally experienced a real and significant harm in order to justify their victim status.” In doing so, it held that the authors, as children, are particularly impacted by climate change, and that States have “heightened obligations to protect children from foreseeable harm”. As a result, the CRC was not precluded by Article 5(1) of the Optional Protocol from considering the communication.

In terms of jurisdiction, the CRC held, with reference to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’s Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 on the Environment and Human Rights and its own Joint Statement on Human Rights and Climate Change, that States have effective control over carbon emissions and that they are responsible for transboundary harm caused by these emissions. It found that, even though climate change is “a global collective issue that requires a global response, States parties still carry individual responsibility for their own acts or omissions in relation to climate change and their contribution to it.” In light of existing scientific evidence showing the impact of the cumulative effect of carbon emissions on the enjoyment of human rights, including rights under the Convention, the Committee considered with regard to each individual respondent State that “the potential harm of the State party’s acts or omissions regarding the carbon emissions originating in its territory was reasonably foreseeable to the State party”.

Concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee recalled that this requirement does not apply where these avenues do not offer objective prospects of success. In these cases, however, it examined the remedial possibilities in each State in detail, and ultimately reached a finding of inadmissibility, noting that no domestic proceedings had been initiated in the respective States concerned.

In this regard, various arguments made by the authors were unsuccessful. The argument that plaintiffs from other countries were barred from proceedings was disregarded for lack of specific examples (Communication concerning Argentina, § 10.18). The Committee further referred to the existence of discretionary remedies, which the authors had not used. The authors’ “doubts about the prospects of success of any remedy” was not sufficient for the Committee to consider they had exhausted “all domestic remedies that were reasonably effective and available to them to challenge the alleged violation of their rights under the Convention.” The references to environmental cases in which the State parties took several years to reach a decision was not considered sufficient evidence to show that domestic remedies would be unreasonably prolonged.

Merits:
Not examined

Remedies:
Not applicable

Separate opinions:
Not applicable

Implementation measures taken:
Not applicable

Follow-up:
The Committee issued a child-friendly version of its Views in this case. Along with providing a simplified explanation of the case, this document informed the authors of the Sacchi communication that:

“Your case also increased the Committee’s awareness about these issues and highlighted our shared sense of urgency, and therefore we have already announced our decision to write our next General Comment on children’s right and the environment with a special focus on climate change. We plan to consult with children and young people around the world, and we invite you, as the authors of this significant case, to share your views during the processes towards the drafting of the next General Comment.”

Committee on the Rights of the Child, Re: Sacchi et al v Argentina and four similar cases

Following up on this, the Committee on the Rights of the Child issued a General Comment No. 26 on children’s rights and the environment with a special focus on climate change on 22 August 2023.

Keywords:
Admissibility, children’s rights, UNCRC, domestic remedies, transboundary harms, victim status.

Links:
For a summary of the five cases from the UN’s treaty body media service, click here.

For background on the case, click here.

The text of the petition is available on Climate Case Chart, click here to access it.

The full text of the Committee’s Views can be found:

  • Regarding Argentina, the Views can be found here.
  • Regarding Brazil, the Views can be found here.
  • Regarding France, the Views can be found here.
  • Regarding Germany, the Views can be found here.
  • Regarding Turkey, the Views can be found here.

Suggested citation for the Communication concerning Argentina:
Committee on the Rights of the Child, Sacchi et al. v. Argentina (dec.), 22 September 2021, CRC/C/88/D/104/2019.

Categories
Children and young people Domestic court Right to a healthy environment Uganda

Mbabazi and Others v. The Attorney General of Uganda and Others

Summary:
This case was brought by a group of four young people, along with an NGO, alleging that the government of Uganda had breached its duty as a public trustee over natural resources because it had failed to uphold the right to a clean and healthy environment. The case was brought against the Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda and the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA). The plaintiffs brought their case under Articles 29, 50 and 237 of the Ugandan Constitution, along with sections 2, 3, 71 and 106 of the National Environment Act. They brought the case on their own behalf, as well as on behalf of “all children of Uganda born and unborn”, and in the public interest.

Claims:
The plaintiffs argued that the Government of Uganda holds and maintains natural resources for and on behalf of Ugandan citizens under Article 237 of the domestic Constitution, and that it has a duty and obligation to maintain these resources and to ensure their sustainable use. It also has a duty to ensure the sustainable use of resources for present and future generations, including air, water and land. They describe the atmosphere as an ecological asset of the Ugandan people. They invoked Articles 39 and 237 of the domestic Constitution, which imposes a duty on the government to ensure that the atmosphere is free from pollution, and they also argued that the Government has a duty to ensure the integration of environmental concerns into overall national policy-making. The Government had failed to uphold citizens’ right to a clean and healthy environment, and to curb the present and future effects of climate change.

Date filed:
2012

Case status:
Pending

Further reading:
The amended text of the complaint, as submitted in 2015, is available from climatecasechart.com.

Suggested citation:
High Court of Uganda, Mbabazi and Others v. The Attorney General and National Environmental Management Authority, Civil Suit No. 283 of 2012

Categories
Business responsibility / corporate cases Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Evidence Right to a healthy environment Right to health South Africa

South African ‘Deadly Air Case’

Summary:
This case concerns toxic air pollution in the Mpumalanga Highveld, which is home to a dozen coal-fired power plants, a coal-to-liquids plant and a refinery. The case was brought by two environmental organisations – groundWork and Vukani Environmental Justice Movement in Action – represented by the Centre for Environmental Rights.

The applicants have petitioned the court to declare the unsafe levels of air pollution to be a violation of section 24a of the South African Constitution, which provides that “everyone has the right to an environment not harmful to their health or wellbeing”. 

The outcome of the case is currently pending before the Pretoria High Court, and Judge Colleen Collins has reserved judgment.

Claims:
The applicants’ complaints concern exposure to toxic chemicals emitted by the coal plants. This includes sulphur dioxide, heavy metals like mercury, and fine particulate matter. According to the applicants, the coal plants are responsible for the majority of these emissions, which are causing chronic respiratory illnesses such as asthma and lung cancer, and which also increase the risk of strokes, heart attacks, birth defects and premature deaths. 

The area in question has been recognized as a hotspot of pollution in excess of permissible levels. It has been claimed that this pollution is responsible for up to 10,000 excess deaths per year. But the Government has pointed to the existence of clean air regulations, and argued that there is no scientific evidence proving the link between the air pollution and the harms allegedly suffered by any particular individual. It has also highlighted the need to realize the right to a healthy environment progressively.

Amicus curia intervention by the UNSR:
David R. Boyd, the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights and the environment, intervened as an amicus curiae in this case. He argued that poor and marginalised people disproportionately carry the burden of toxic air pollution. It has been reported that Boyd’s arguments include consideration for the vulnerability of children to environmental threats.

Deciding body:
Pretoria High Court

Admissibility:
TBD

Merits:
TBD

Remedies and outcomes:
TBD

Further reading:
For more information from the Centre for Environmental Resources, click here.

Suggested citation:
South African ‘Deadly Air’ case, Pretoria High Court, hearings held on 17-19 May 2021.

Categories
Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Italy Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment

Giudizio Universale (The Last Judgment) (A Sud and Others v. Italy)

Summary:
On 5 June 2021, 203 plaintiffs (24 associations, 17 minors represented in court by their parents, and 162 adults) led by the environmental justice NGO A Sud filed a lawsuit with the Civil Court of Rome against the Italian State, represented by the Presidency of the Council of Ministers. The lawsuit is part of a campaign for awareness raising named “Giudizio Universale” (The Last Judgment).

The plaintiffs allege that the Italian State is fully aware of the climate emergency and the urgency of GHG emissions reduction, as demonstrated by official declarations and explicit acknowledgements by State representatives in recent years which produced environmental information as per Article 2(3) of the Aarhus Convention. Notwithstanding, the climate measures taken by the Italian State were insufficient. Limited emissions reductions had been achieved mainly due to the economic crisis and the following recessions, but it was projected that the State would not meet even modest reduction targets by 2030. These measures would not satisfy the climate obligations that the Italian State is required to observe and implement, originating from the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement, and specific EU Regulations. Therefore, the plaintiffs allege that the State infringed human rights, including the right to a stable and safe climate, which interfaces with the principles in Article 6 of the Treaty of the European Union, and the rights recognized by Articles 2 (right to life), 8 (respect for private and family life), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the ECHR. The plaintiffs allege that this gives rise to non-contractual liability of the State under Article 2043 of the Italian Civil Code, and that responsibility may also be identified according to Article 2051 of the Civil Code as the State can be considered the guardian of the climate system.

The plaintiffs requested the judge to declare that the Italian State is responsible for failing to tackle the climate emergency and to order the State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 92% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels, applying the principle of equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (Fair Share).

Hearings:
The first hearing was held on 14 December 2021 in the form of an exchange of written briefs. The Italian State requested the judge to declare the complaint inadmissible, or to dismiss it on the merits as completely ill-founded. Subsequent oral hearings were held on 21 June 2022 and 13 September 2023.

Decision:
On 26 February 2024 the Court declared the complaints inadmissible for absolute lack of jurisdiction. Notably, the Court considered it impossible to verify the adequacy of the measures taken by the State to achieve its climate targets, noting that it lacked the necessary information to examine choices of such complexity. The Court also rejected the existence of State emissions-reductions obligations under private law that can be claimed by individuals, and invoked the principle of the separation of powers. The plaintiffs declared that they would challenge this judgment on appeal.

Appeal proceedings:
In November 2024, it was reported that the applicants had appealed the Civil Court of Rome’s decision, citing the success of the KlimaSeniorinnen case at the European Court of Human Rights as bolstering its case.

Date filed:
5 June 2021

Jurisdiction:
Civil Court of Rome

Status of the case:
First instance judgment; appeal pending

Suggested case citation:
Complete first instance judgment citation: A Sud Ecologia e Cooperazione ODV et al. v. Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Tribunale di Roma, Seconda Sezione Civile, n. 39415/2021, 26 febbraio 2024 [A Sud Ecologia e Cooperazione ODV et al. v. Presidency of the Council of Ministers, Civil Court of Rome, Secon Civil Section, n. 39415/2021, 26 February 2024], case under appeal.

Further reading:
English language: a summary of the legal action was provided by the applicant NGO here.

Italian language: all the documents from the proceedings and a review of relevant literature can be found on this website hosting the Observatory on Italian climate change litigation, edited by the students in Comparative Climate Change Law at the University of Salento.

Last updated:
13 November 2024

Categories
Business responsibility / corporate cases Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Extreme poverty Gender / women-led Indigenous peoples' rights Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to housing Right to life Right to subsistence/food Right to water Self-determination The Philippines Vulnerability

Greenpeace Southeast Asia and others v. the Carbon Majors

Summary:
This case was brought before the Philippines’ Commission on Human Rights (CHR) by 12 organisations and 20 individuals, as well as over a thousand Filipino citizens who expressed their support for the case through a petition, against the so-called ‘carbon majors’, i.e. high-emitting multinational and state-owned producers of natural gas, crude oil, coal and cement, including BP, Shell and Chevron. The applicants based their case on research indicating that these ‘carbon majors’ are responsible for a large percentage of global greenhouse gas emissions. Citing the Philippines’ high degree of vulnerability to the effects of climate change, the applicants alleged violations of the rights to life, health, food, water, sanitation, adequate housing, and self-determination. They also specifically invoked the rights of vulnerable groups, peoples and communities, including women, children, people living with disabilities, those living in extreme poverty, indigenous peoples, and displaced persons. They invoked also the right to development, labor rights, and the right to ‘a balanced and healthful ecology’. This petition was brought after a number particularly destructive typhoons that affected the Philippines, including Typhoon Haiyan.

As a result of the petition, the CHR began a dialogical and consultative process, called the National Inquiry on Climate Change (NICC). This process aims to determine the impact of climate change on the human rights of the Filipino people, as well as determining whether the Carbon Majors are responsible for climate change.

On 6 May 2022, the Human Rights Commission released the findings of its inquiry.

Responsible instance:
The case was brought before the Philippines’ Commission on Human Rights, which is an independent National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, established on 5 May 1987 by Executive Order No. 163.

Date filed:
22 September 2015

Procedural steps in the case:
On 10 December 2015, the Commission announced during the Paris Climate Change Conference that it would take cognizance of the case.

On 21 July 2016, the Commission enjoined the respondent Carbon Majors to file their comments or answers to the petition within forty-five days. Out of the 47 respondents summoned, 15 submitted a response. Thirteen amicus curiae briefs were received. The applicants filed a reply, to which seven of the carbon majors filed a rejoinder.

Beginning July and November 2017, the Commission conducted community visits and dialogues to select climate impacted areas.

On 11 December 2017, the parties held a first preliminary conference. The Commission used this opportunity to deny the respondents’ jurisdictional objections to the case. It asserted its authority to investigate the case and hold public hearings in 2018 in Manila, New York, and London.

In 2018, the Commission held six public hearings in the case.

Outcome of the NICC:
On 6 May 2022, the Human Rights Commission released the findings of its inquiry. In his introductory note, Commissioner Roberto Eugenio T. Cadiz outlined the lengths taken by the Commission to engage with the “carbon majors” over this case, and noted that corporate actors, and not just States, have an obligation to respect and uphold human rights under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP). He also noted the unprecedented nature of the claim, and the Commission’s own lack of resources in dealing with it. And he rejected the argument by the “carbon majors” that the Commission did not have territorial or subject matter jurisdiction to deal with the case, noting the interrelated nature of all human rights and the impact on the people of the Philippines.

In its report, the Commission began by reviewing the best available scientific knowledge on climate change. It set out, “as established by peer-reviewed science, that climate change is real and happening on a global scale”, and that it is anthropogenic, i.e. caused by human activity. It then set out that climate change is a human rights issue, noting its adverse impacts on human rights both internationally and in the Philippines. It focused particularly on impacts concerning the right to life, the right to health, the right to food security, the right to water and sanitation, the right to livelihood, the right to adequate housing, the right to the preservation of culture, the right to self-determination and to development, and the right to equality and non-discrimination, focusing on the rights of women, children, indigenous peoples, older persons, people living in poverty, LGBTQIA+ rights. It also noted the impacts on the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment and on the rights of future generations and intergenerational equity.

After considering the duties of States to protect human rights, as the primary duty-bearers of human rights law, the Commission found that these rights also include extraterritorial obligations, and that while a balance between sovereignty and human rights must be sought, “States’ duty to protect is not confined to territorial jurisdiction”. It relied on international environmental law to identify the concrete procedural and substantive obligations on States in the context of climate change, and their obligation to protect vulnerable sectors against discrimination.

The Commission considered that the refusal of governments to engage in meaningful mitigation action regarding climate change constitutes a human rights violation. It held that “[t]he pursuit of the State obligation to mitigate climate change cannot just be framed as aspirational, where the standard of fulfillment is vague and the timeline is uncertain. Concrete metrics must be set against which States may be held accountable. Failing this, States enable the human rights of their citizens to be harmed, which equates to a violation of their duty to protect human rights” (p. 87). The absence of meaningful action to address global warming, it held, suffices in this regard; these obligations of States include an obligation to regulate corporate activities, and to establish a policy environment that discourages reliance on fossil fuels.

The Commission then turned to business responsibilities, noting that “a State’s failure to perform [its duty to enact and enforce appropriate laws to ensure that corporate actors respect human rights] does not render business enterprises free from the responsibility of respecting human rights.” Referring to the UNGP framework and the UN Global Compact as well as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Corporations, it applied these standards to the context of climate change. It found that:

  • The anthropogenic contributions of the “carbon majors” to climate change is quantifiable and substantial;
  • The “carbon majors” had early awareness, notice or knowledge of their products’ adverse impacts on the environment and climate systems;
  • The “carbon majors” engaged in willful obfuscation or obstruction to prevent meaningful climate action;
  • The “carbon majors” have the corporate responsibility to undertake human rights due diligence and provide remediation, including through every entity in their value chain;
  • And the UNGPs may be relied on under the law of the Philippines.

It went on to issue a number of recommendations. Concerning States, it called for climate justice, including a pooling of resources and sharing of skills, and urged governments to:

  • Undertake to discourage dependence on fossil fuels, including by phasing out all coal power fossil fuel subsidies and other incentives;
  • To collaborate on innovative climate action and guarantee the enjoyment by all of the benefits of science and technology;
  • To cooperate towards the creation of a legally binding instrument to strengthen the implementation of the UNGPs, and provide redress to victims of corporate human rights impacts;
  • To concretize the responsibilities of corporate actors in the climate context;
  • To discourage anthropogenic contributions to climate change and compensate victims;
  • To ensure access to adaptation measures by all, as well as equality and non-discrimination in climate adaptation and mitigation measures;
  • And to ensure a just transition towards an environmentally sustainable economy;
  • As well as to fulfil climate finance commitments and devise new mechanisms for loss and damage from climate change-related events;
  • To adequately support and protect environmental defenders and climate activists;
  • To promote climate change awareness and education;
  • To include military operations and supply chains in carbon accounting;
  • And to strengthen shared efforts to conserve and restore forests and other terrestrial ecosystems.

The Commission also formulated concrete recommendations for the “carbon majors” themselves, urging them to:

  • Publicly disclose their due diligence and climate and human rights impact assessment results, and the measures taken in response thereto;
  • Desist from all activities that undermine the findings of climate science, including “climate denial propaganda” and lobbying activities;
  • Cease further exploration of new oil fields, keep fossil fuel reserves in the ground, and lead the just transition to clean energy;
  • Contribute to a green climate fund for the implementation of mitigation and adaptation measures;
  • And continually engage with experts, CSOs, and other stakeholders to assess and improve the corporate climate response through “a new chapter of cooperation towards a united front for climate action”.

Speaking directly to financial institutions and investors, the Commission noted their ability to “steer companies and industries towards a sustainable path by aligning lending and investment portfolios with targets set by science”. It considered that their role in financing sectors and projects that generate greenhouse gas emissions make them “similarly accountable for global warming”. Accordingly, they were urged to:

  • Refrain from financing fossil fuel related projects and instead direct capital towards green projects; and
  • Exert social, political and economic pressure on the fossil fuel industry to transition to clean energy by divesting financial instruments related to fossil fuels.

The Commission concluded by noting the role of UN institutions, NHRIs, and courts — reviewing examples of climate litigation such as the Urgenda or Leghari cases, noting that “even when courts do not rule in favor of the claimants, they still contribute to meaningful climate response through their elucidation of the law and the rights and obligations of the parties”. Similarly, NGOs, CSOs, the legal profession and individuals are recommended to champion human rights and continue engaging in strategic litigation to strengthen business and human rights norms, change policy, increase governments’ ambitions, and create precedents.

The Commission furthermore addressed the Philippines’ own lackluster record of climate action, making concrete recommendations to the government to, among other things, formulate a national action plan on business and human rights, declare a climate and environmental alert, and revisit its NDC under the Paris Agreement as well as implement coal moratoriums, transition to low-carbon transportation systems, implementing REDD+ measures and data building and reporting mechanisms, and create legislative change. It also recommended to the domestic judiciary to create rules of evidence for attributing climate change impacts and assessing damages, and take note of the anthropogenic nature of climate change.

Full text of the report:
The report of 6 May 2022 is available for download below.

CHRP-NICC-Report-2022Download

Suggested citation:
Philippines Human Rights Commission, In Re: National Inquiry on the Impact of Climate Change on the Human Rights of the Filipino People and the Responsibility therefor, if any, of the ‘Carbon Majors’, case nr. CHR-NI-2016-0001, Report of 6 May 2022.

Further information:
The full text of the petition is available here.

A blogpost on the importance of the report by Annalisa Savaresi and Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh is available on the GNHRE blog.

For additional resources provided by the Commission, such as transcripts of hearings and evidence submitted, click here.

Categories
Children and young people Climate-induced displacement Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Pakistan Public trust doctrine Right to a healthy environment

Ali v. Pakistan

Summary:
This 2016 petition was brought against Pakistan in the name of a seven-year-old girl from Karachi, and challenges actions and inactions on the part of the federal and provincial government relating to climate change. The case is still pending.

Facts and claims made:
The petition, which is available on Climate Case Chart, was filed directly with the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Islamabad, and it alleges violations of constitutional rights, of the public trust doctrine, and of environmental rights. It challenges the environmental harms that are expected to result from the policy of burning coal to obtain electricity. The application challenges a plan to develop coal fields, which would massively increase Pakistani coal production and would displace local residents and degrade the local environment. The plan is linked to investments stemming from the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which supports coal field development and new coal-fired power plants in Pakistan.

Suggested case citation:
The Supreme Court of Pakistan, Ali v. Pakistan, petition filed on 1 April 2016

Categories
Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Poland Right to a healthy environment

Stasiak, Górska, Nowakowski and others v. Poland

Summary:
In June 2021, the NGO ClientEarth announced that it was supporting five Polish citizens in bringing actions against the Polish government, contesting reliance on coal and the failure to take action to reduce carbon emissions. The claimants are arguing that they have a right to live in a healthy environment, and that this right is under threat due to the Polish government’s inaction when it comes to reducing emissions. They submit that they have suffered the effects of droughts, wildfires, flooding and crop failures on their lives and property due to climate change, and that these effects will continue to worsen.

ClientEarth is representing the claimants under Polish civil law that permits individuals to delegate environmental litigation to NGOs. Their cases are based on Polish personal rights (or “personal goods”) under the Polish Civil Code, including the rights to life, health and property, and Articles 2 and 8 ECHR (the rights to life and to private and family life, respectively).

Date of filing:
2021

Admissibility:
TBD

Merits:
TBD

Remedies:
TBD

Suggested case citation:
N/A

More information:
For more information on the case, click here.

To read the legal briefing provided by Client Earth, click here.

Categories
2021 Belgium Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Private and family life Right to life

Belgian ‘Klimaatzaak’

Summary:

On 30 November 2023, a Court of Appeal in Brussels, Belgium, issued its judgment in the Urgenda-inspired “Klimaatzaak” (Dutch for “climate case”). Its judgment builds on a 17 June 2021 first-instance judgment, which held that Belgian climate policy was negligent and violated positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (Articles 2 and 8). While confirming this part of the judgment for three of the four domestic governments involved, the appeal court overturned the first instance’s finding that, in light of the separation of powers, it could not set greenhouse gas reduction targets. The appeal court set clear targets for domestic emissions reductions, ordering reductions of 55 percent by 2030 (compared to 1990 levels).

First-instance judgment:

The applicants in this case alleged, among other things, that the four Belgian governments (i.e. the three regional governments and the federal state) had violated human rights law, and were obligated to reduce Belgium’s greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels.

The case was delayed for almost three years because of proceedings contesting the language of the case, which was ultimately adjudicated in French.

On 17 June 2021, a court of first instance found that Belgian climate policy was negligent and violated positive obligations under human rights law. At stake were, among other things, violations of Articles 2 and 8 ECHR, in claims inspired by the Dutch Urgenda case. However, the court of first instance also held that, in light of the principle of separation of powers, it could not set greenhouse gas reduction targets for the Belgian governments.

The Brussels court of first instance not only declared the complaint of the applicant association, VZW Klimaatzaak, admissible, but also that of the 58,000 co-plaintiffs. Belgian law does not allow for an actio popularis, but the first-instance court recognized that all of the applicants faced a risk of material, physical or moral damage. In doing so, it referred to the risks to human and animal health and to the territorial integrity of the Belgian state, and especially of the Flemish region, which was particularly at risk of harms caused by sea level rises. The best available science, as reflected in existing diplomatic consensus, did not leave room for doubt about the existence of a real risk from dangerous climate change. This meant a serious risk that current and future generations would see their daily lives profoundly impacted (“profondément perturbées”). The fact that other Belgian citizens could bring a similar claim did not change this.

The judgment also stated that the federal state and the three regions are jointly and individually responsible for the risk of harm at stake, despite the complex structure of the Belgian state.

Lastly, the judgment stated that the four governments’ inadequate climate policy violated articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (which enshrine the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life, respectively).

However, the court did not order the injunction claimed by the applicants for concrete reduction targets. The applicants had requested an injunction to the effect that the Belgian state should reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 42% by 2025 and by 55% by 2030.

Judgment on appeal:

On appeal by the applicants, who challenged the first-instance judgment over the decision not to order concrete reductions targets, the case was reviewed by the Brussels Court of Appeal. Its judgment, which was issued on 30 November 2023, confirmed that the 2020 climate policy of three out of the four respondent domestic governments had violated Articles 2 and 8 ECHR. In its judgment, the court ordered the Belgian state, the Flemish Region and the Brussels-Capital Region to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions more quickly, namely by 55 percent by 2030 (compared to 1990 levels). Meanwhile, it found that the Walloon region’s climate policy had progressed sufficiently to be in conformity with human rights law.

In its judgment, the court found that “in light of the prevailing consensus within the scientific community and the international political community, the three governments have violated Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Articles 1382 and 1383 of the old Civil Code because they had not sufficiently reduced greenhouse gas emissions in 2020” (our translation). This violation was still ongoing because these governments have “set insufficiently strict targets and have not taken sufficiently far-reaching measures to sufficiently limit emissions by 2030”. The court found that “a reduction of -55% in GHG emissions by 2030 constitutes a minimum threshold, below which Belgium cannot go under penalty of violating Article 2 of the ECHR” (in the original French: une diminution de -55 % des émissions de GES à l’horizon 2030 constitue ce seuil minimal, en deçà duquel la Belgique ne peut aller sous peine de ne pas respecter l’article 2 de la CEDH). In doing so, it draws on the European Climate Law, which codifies the goals set out in the European Green Deal for the EU to become climate-neutral by 2050.

While the applicants had requested a penalty payment of 1 million euros per month, the appeal court deferred its ruling on this issue to await, among other things, emissions figures from the 2022-2024 period.

Status of case:

After the November 2023 ruling, further proceedings — in cassation, and potentially before the European Court of Human Rights — are possible in this case, which is accordingly not yet final.

On 18 April 2024, the applicants communicated that Flanders had filed a cassation appeal. Flanders was the only one of the domestic governments involved to lodge an appeal in cassation. The federal and Brussels governments had decided against a further appeal.

Suggested citation:

Francophone first instance court of Brussels, 4th chamber, Klimaatzaak ASBL v. Belgium, no. 2015/4585/A, Judgment of 17 June 2021, available at https://prismic-io.s3.amazonaws.com/affaireclimat/18f9910f-cd55-4c3b-bc9b-9e0e393681a8_167-4-2021.pdf

Brussels Court of Appeal, Klimaatzaak ASBL v. Belgium, case 2021/AR/1589, Judgment of 30 November 2023.

Full text:

For background information on the case, see here.

For a summary (in Dutch) by Klimaatzaak, see here.

For the full first-instance judgment (in French), see here.

For the full second-instance judgment, click here.

Further reading:

For more on this case, see the blog post by Matthias Petel and Antoine De Spiegeleir in the Sabin Center’s Climate Law Blog, available here.

For a press release from the applicants concerning the second-instance judgment, click here.

Last updated:

7 September 2024

Categories
2021 Access to a remedy Children and young people Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights Non-discrimination Norway Private and family life Right to life

Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway

Summary:
This case was the fourth climate change case brought to the European Court of Human Rights. It was brought by six young Norwegian climate activists aged between 20 and 27, along with two organisations, who alleged that their members’ lives, health and well-being are being directly affected by the escalating climate crisis. The six individual applicants also alleged that, as young people, some of whom belong to an Indigenous community, they are being disproportionately affected by the climate crisis.

The application concerns the Norwegian State’s decision to license continuing exploration for oil and gas in new areas of the Arctic (Barents Sea), and its intention to bring new fossil fuels to market after 2035. The applicants argued that the best available science shows that the emissions from known reserves of fossil fuels will already exceed the carbon budget that remains given the 1.5°C temperature target set in the Paris Agreement.

Citing the seriousness and urgency of the climate crisis, the applicants alleged that the respondent State had failed to take the precautionary measures of prevention and protection required under Articles 2 and 8 ECHR (the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life, respectively). They furthermore alleged a breach of the prohibition of discrimination in Article 14 ECHR. during the domestic court proceedings, as well as a violation of the right of access to an effective domestic remedy under Article 13 ECHR.

Domestic proceedings and the reasoning of the Norwegian Supreme Court:
This case is a follow-up from domestic proceedings that were concluded by a judgment in favor of the State issued by the Norwegian Supreme Court on 22 December 2020. In 2016, the two applicant organizations brought a case against the State’s decision to grant 10 licenses in the Barents Sea (in what is known as “the 23rd licensing round” on the Norwegian continental shelf). On 22 December 2020, the Norwegian Supreme Court ruled that this decision did not violate the right to a healthy environment under Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution. It also found no violation of the ECHR. While it did find that climate impacts should have been assessed, it held that this could be remedied at the development stage (after the licenses in question had been issued). The Supreme Court’s judgment followed rulings from Oslo City Court and the Borgarting Court of Appeal, both of which held that the disputed licensing decision was valid.

In its ruling, the Norwegian Supreme Court considered that there had been no violation of the ECHR in this case because that Convention only applies to “direct and immediate” environmental harms. Although the Supreme Court considered Articles 2 and 8 ECHR and referred to the pending Duarte Agostinho case in its oral ruling, it considered that the case-law as it stood at the time of decision had not been contravened.

Regarding Article 2 ECHR, the Supreme Court held that this only applies to real and immediate risks of loss of life. The question before the Supreme Court, it argued, was the issue of a sufficient link between the domestic administrative decisions and the risk of a loss of life. It considered that it was not clear whether the decisions would in fact lead to emissions, and the threat concerned was in the future.

Regarding Article 8 ECHR, the Court held that this did not cover every harm to the environment, that an impact had to be “direct and immediate” also here, and that efforts by the Committee of Ministers to add a separate right to a healthy environment to the ECHR had failed. The Supreme Court also considered that the Dutch Urgenda judgment was not comparable to the case at hand, because that case concerned already-established climate targets, and not the possible invalidity of an administrative decision.

Given these considerations, the Norwegian Supreme Court held, by a majority of eleven to four, that the disputed licensing decision granting was valid. A minority of four judges dissented, arguing that – although they agreed with the majority’s conclusions on Article 112 of the Constitution and Articles 2 and 8 ECHR – the production licenses awarded in the 23rd licensing round were invalid because of procedural errors in the impact assessment. 

Submissions before the ECtHR in greater detail:
The applicants argued that there is a real and serious risk to their lives and well-being, and to their ability to enjoy their private life, family life and home. They submitted that the Norwegian State had failed to adopt the necessary and appropriate measures to address this risk, and that it had failed to describe and assess the total climate effects, including exported emissions, of continued and expanded extraction of oil and gas from the Arctic, thereby also violating the applicants’ rights.

The six individual applicants submitted that they have experienced climate anxiety, emotional distress and great worry about the
current and imminent risks of serious climate harms, and the impact on their lives, life choices, and the lives of future generations. They referred to mental health literature, which increasingly draws attention to such concerns, described in the application as “pre-traumatic stress.”

The applicants noted that, under current climate policies, the average temperature in Norway is expected to rise by more than 5.5 degrees Celsius by 2100. There had already been an increase in extreme rainfall events, flooding and landslides. Future impacts will include increased risk of drought and forest fire-inducing thunderstorms, changes to flood systems, sea level rise and ocean acidification.

The applicants noted that there is a significant difference between planned fossil fuel extraction and Norwegian climate goals. The applicants submitted that State representatives stated before the Norwegian Supreme Court that Norway will continue to produce and export petroleum as long as there are buyers. They noted that Norway is the 7th largest exporter of emissions in the world, and the 3rd largest per capita, behind Qatar and Kuwait. There is no system in place to declare, assess, calculate, or reduce exported emissions from fossil fuels extraction projects, nor the exported emissions from oil and gas extraction overall.

On victim status, the applicants alleged that the licensing of fossil fuels extraction is too complex for individuals and young people to challenge alone. The organizations in question are not only better suited to challenge such decisions, but they also claim to represent future generations.

The applicants alleged that Articles 2 and 8 ECHR had been violated because of the presence of a real, immediate and serious risk to these rights, of which the State had actual or putative knowledge and regarding which it failed to adopt reasonable and appropriate preventative measures. They invoked the principle of prevention, and argued that the State must adopt a legislative and administrative framework designed to provide effective deterrence against threats to the right to life. They argued that an unequal burden has been placed on younger generations, and those unborn. The applicants argued that the threats against their rights are ongoing since temperature increase cannot be reversed and the authorities must act immediately to prevent the harms in question.

Under Article 13 ECHR (right to an effective remedy), the applicants argued that the Norwegian courts did not assess the merits of the Convention claims in full and based on ECtHR case law.

Under Article 14 ECHR (prohibition of discrimination, they argued that there were disproportionately prejudicial effects on a particular group, citing the factors of young age and the fact that two of the individual applicants were members of the indigenous Sami minority, whose traditions, land and resources are negatively impacted. Due to their age, the young applicants, they submitted, had no opportunity to participate in the relevant decision-making while at the same time having to shoulder a heavier burden concerning the long-term consequences of the acts and omissions in question.

Interim developments:
The 10 disputed licenses were returned and relinquished by the companies concerned given that no potentially profitable gas discoveries were made. On 11 March 2022 Norway re-licensed the area covered by one of the disputed licenses (no. 855) under the so-called APA system for mature areas. The original license had covered the drilling of two wells, one of which had discovered an oil column but was ultimately considered have limited economic potential. The new production license for the area, no. 1170, is valid until 11 March 2030. It allowed the discovery of two significant gas deposits adjacent to and geologically part of Wisting, the largest undeveloped oil discovery on the Norwegian continental shelf. The two wells were plugged and abandoned after evaluation, but their discovery remains valid and open to development.

In 2019, the Ministry awarded twelve new petroleum production licenses to eleven companies in the 24th licensing round. In 2021, the Ministry awarded four new petroleum production licenses in the 25th licensing round. In addition, the Government also granted licenses under the system of Awards in Predefined Areas (“APA”), which relate to the mature areas of the Norwegian continental shelf.

On 8 April 2022 the Government approved the recommendation of the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy of a report that states that “The Norwegian petroleum industry will be further developed” and “[t]he licensing system will remain unchanged. Permits will continue to be granted to explore for oil and gas in new areas.” This same report indicates that licensees must “assess the climate impacts of production and combustion emissions when considering all new plans for development and operation (PDOs), and highlight the assessments in decisions related to those plans”. The Ministry also indicated that it would follow up to the Norwegian Supreme Court’s judgment in this case by “conducting an assessment of the climate impacts of production and combustion emissions when considering all new development plans (PDOs). The scope of the assessment will be adapted to the scale of the resources in the individual development.”

Judgment of the ECtHR of 28 October 2025:
On 28 October 2025, the Second Section of the ECtHR issued its unanimous judgment in this case, examining the applicants’ claim that the 2016 decision granting 10 petroleum production licenses was contrary to Norway’s obligation to mitigate climate change, which was adversely affecting the lives, living conditions and health of the individual applicants and other persons whose interests were represented by the applicant organizations. The Court, in doing so, engaged in an extensive comparative exercise. It noted the 2024/2025 climate-related advisory opinions issued by the ITLOS, IACtHR and ICJ, summarizing their findings as well as noting environmental treaties (the Aarhus Convention and Espoo Convention) and the (R (Finch) v Surrey County Council judgment of the UK Supreme Court.

After these considerations, the Court turned to the scope of the case before it. It held that the scope of the case as defined by the domestic proceedings was narrow, given that it concerned “an allegedly faulty decision-making process in one specific round of licensing of petroleum exploration, which would precede petroleum production” (para. 282). Contrasting the case with the 2024 Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Grand Chamber judgment, the Court held that Greenpeace Nordic “concerns the State’s procedural, rather than substantive, obligations, and is moreover limited to ten exploration licences”, while nevertheless raising “the issue of an alleged failure of the State to effectively protect individuals from the serious adverse effects of climate change on their life, health, well-being and quality of life” (para. 282). The Court also decided to examine the case only under Article 8 ECHR, the right to respect for private and family life, and not to examine the complaint made under Article 2 ECHR, the right to life (paras. 283-284).

The Court then examined the victim status and locus standi of the applicants under Article 34 ECHR, applying the criteria developed in the 2024 Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Grand Chamber judgment. On individual victim status, the Court applied the high-threshold, two-step KlimaSeniorinnen test that requires (a) a high intensity of exposure and (b) a pressing need to ensure individual protection of the applicants. For the NGOs, it applied the KlimaSeniorinnen representative standing test that requires associations to be (a) lawfully established in the jurisdiction, (b) dedicated to the defense of climate rights, and (c) genuinely qualified and representative. The Court combined the assessment of these two tests with the merits of its examination of Article 8 ECHR, and ultimately found that the individual applicants, including the youth and Indigenous applicants, had not satisfied the individual victim status test. However, it did find that the legal persons had standing to bring a representative application.

The Court’s reasoning in this regard first examined whether there was a “sufficiently close link” between the disputed 2016 licensing decision and the risk of climate-related impacts on ECHR rights. It held that:

294. “The Court observes that while exploration will not always, and certainly not automatically or unconditionally, be followed by extraction, in Norway, it is both a legal and a practical precondition for it. (…) [P]etroleum would not be extracted but for the opening of an area for extraction, and the granting of production licences. The fact that other events and permits are also necessary before extraction can take place does not break that chain of causation. When considering causation for the purposes of attributing responsibility for adverse effects arising from climate change, the Court has not required it to be shown that “but for” a failing or omission of the authorities the harm would not have occurred (…). The Court further observes that the link between petroleum exploration and its future production is inherent. (…) The Supreme Court itself observed that the SEA had to include all stages of the petroleum production, from exploration to development, extraction, transport, exploitation and termination (…). In these circumstances, it is clear that the petroleum project in question was of such a nature as to entail potential risks of extraction.”

The Court went on to find that the relinquishment of the 10 licenses “does not break the required causal nexus for the applicability of Article 8 of the Convention”, emphasizing the preventive function of the right of access to information and observing that “the Convention guarantees a right for affected individuals to be informed about the environmental effects of a planned activity” which means that “[t]he procedural nature of the right to information and the preventive function of that right make the applicability of the provisions in question independent of the later materialisation of the risk” (para. 295). The Court also noted that the previously licensed areas could be automatically re-licensed for exploration under the APA system, meaning that “even a relinquished licence maps out an opened area for future discoveries” (para. 296). The Court went on to hold that

297.  Having established the link between exploration licensing and extraction, the Court also notes that oil and gas extraction is the most important source of GHG emissions of Norway (…), and that the burning of fossil fuels, including oil and gas, is among the main causes of climate change (…).

This meant that there was a sufficiently close link between the disputed licensing procedure and serious adverse effects of climate change on the lives, health, well-being and quality of life of individuals (para. 299).

Examining this with regard to individual victim status, the Court held that “no grievances about the personal situation of the six individual applicants were examined in the disputed judicial review of the 23rd licensing round” (para. 301). Nevertheless, it noted that “the crux of these applicants’ complaint concerns the adverse effects of climate change which they, as young people, are suffering as a result of the respondent State’s allegedly inadequate action on climate change, particularly as a result of the authorisation of further petroleum production.” It considered these to be localized claims, focused on the specific situation prevailing in Norway and noting the climate impacts in that country, including ocean warming, rising air temperatures, seasonal effects and forest and fish stock degradation (para. 302). However, it found that the individual applicants (applicants nos. 2‑7) did not fulfil the criteria for victim status under Article 34 ECHR. Albeit noting the Indigenous rights implications of the case – the fact that that three of the six individual applicants identify as members of the Sámi people – it held that “[w]hile the Court fully appreciates that climate change poses a threat to the traditional Sámi way of life and culture (…), it cannot conclude that the hardships that the situation complained about may be causing the three applicants personally are of “high intensity”” (para. 303). Neither had arguments about the mental health impacts of climate change been adequately substantiated. However, the Court did note “the seriousness of conditions such as climate anxiety or climate grief” (para. 304), but found that it lacked evidence to examine this in light of ECHR rights. Likewise, it lacked medical evidence indicating “any particular morbidity or any other serious adverse effect on their health or well-being that had been created by climate change and would go beyond the effects which any young person living in Norway and having a degree of awareness about climate change might experience” (para. 305). On this basis, it rejected the individual victim status of the applicants.

On representative locus standi, the Court applied the three-step KlimaSeniorinnen test, finding that the two NGOs concerned, Greenpeace Nordic and Young Friends of the Earth, met all three criteria of that test. They enjoyed standing in the domestic courts and “act in the interest of the general public and of future generations – and, in the case of Young Friends of the Earth, also in the interest of its members – with the aim of ensuring effective climate protection”, meaning that they take “legal action to address the effects of climate change in the interests of its members and/or other persons affected by specific climate change impacts” (para. 309). As a result, the Court was satisfied that these two organizations represented “a collective means of defending the rights and interests of individuals against the threats of climate change in the respondent State” (para. 310).

Under Article 8 ECHR, the Court began its merits analysis by setting out the nature of the State’s positive obligation in the specific context of climate risk. It reiterated that Article 8 protects individuals against serious adverse effects of climate change on their life, health, well-being and quality of life, and that the Contracting State must ‘do its part’ to ensure effective protection against such risks through an adequate legal and administrative framework. The Court underlined that this obligation is not purely theoretical: States are required to organize their decision-making in a way that meaningfully addresses climate-related risks that may interfere with the enjoyment of Convention rights (para. 314).

At the same time, the Court accepted that States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in determining the specific measures they adopt to discharge their climate-related obligations under Article 8, including how they balance climate protection against other competing interests.

That margin of appreciation is nevertheless framed and limited by what could be described as three considerations of particular weight. First, in any such balancing, climate protection must be afforded ‘considerable weight,’ reflecting both the severity and the irreversibility of climate harm. Second, greenhouse gas emissions are cumulative and transboundary, meaning that the harmful effects of present-day decisions will manifest and intensify over time and are not confined to national borders. Third, despite longstanding scientific warnings, States collectively have not yet acted sufficiently to avoid dangerous climate change risk, and there remains only a ‘rapidly closing window of opportunity’ to secure a liveable future. In the Court’s view, those elements reinforce the urgency and seriousness of climate mitigation as a human rights concern (paras. 315-316).

The Court then specified how Article 8 operates in procedural terms. It recalled that, in environmental cases, its analysis often centers on whether the domestic decision-making process provided adequate procedural safeguards, rather than on substituting its own assessment for that of national authorities. In the climate context, this procedural obligation see itself in a requirement that States, before authorising an activity which could significantly contribute to climate change and thereby threaten the protected interests under Article 8, carry out an environmental impact assessment that is adequate, timely and comprehensive. The assessment must be conducted in good faith, rely on the best available science, and be sufficiently concrete and detailed to inform the authorities’ decision at a stage when all options (including refusing the project) are genuinely open (para. 318).

This assessment must, at a minimum, allow identification and, so far as possible, quantification of expected greenhouse gas emissions arising from the proposed activity; evaluate the compatibility of that activity with the State’s domestic and international climate obligations; and address not only direct operational emissions but also downstream emissions (scope 3) that would result from the eventual use of the extracted petroleum, including where that combustion would take place outside the State’s territory. The Court also stressed that meaningful public participation is an integral part of this procedural duty. Individuals and communities affected by the climate risks associated with a project must have access to relevant information and a genuine opportunity to express their views early enough in the process to influence the outcome (paras. 319–320). Crucially, the Court held that

319.  In the context of petroleum production projects, the environmental impact assessment must include, at a minimum, a quantification of the GHG emissions anticipated to be produced (including the combustion emissions both within the country and abroad; compare, mutatis mutandis, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others, cited above, § 550). Moreover, at the level of the public authorities, there must be an assessment of whether the activity is compatible with their obligations under national and international law to take effective measures against the adverse effects of climate change. Lastly, informed public consultation must take place at a time when all options are still open and when pollution can realistically be prevented at source.

The Court situated these procedural requirements within broader developments in international law, noting the converging obligations articulated in recent advisory opinions by international courts and tribunals such as the 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion; the 2025 EFTA Advisory Opinion; the 2024 Advisory Opinion of the ITLOS; and the IACtHR Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 (paras. 320–324).

Against that normative structure, the Court turned to the Norwegian system. It noted that petroleum activities on the Norwegian continental shelf proceed in three administrative stages: first, the opening of an area for petroleum activities, following a strategic environmental assessment and parliamentary involvement; second, the granting of exploration licenses (the stage at issue in the present case); and third, the approval of a Plan for Development and Operation (PDO), which is required before any extraction can begin (para. 326).

The applicant organizations had argued that Norway failed to comply with Article 8 because, prior to awarding the exploration licenses in 2016, the authorities did not conduct a sufficiently comprehensive climate impact assessment. In particular, they submitted that there had been no assessment, at that stage, of the total climate effects of future extraction, including exported combustion emissions, no evaluation of the project’s compatibility with the remaining carbon budget aligned with the 1.5°C temperature goal, and an overall approach that prioritized economic projections over climate constraints. They also challenged the position taken by the Norwegian Supreme Court, namely that any deficiencies could simply be addressed later at the PDO stage, arguing that deferring climate assessment to the PDO stage was contrary to EEA and international law and, in practice, ineffective (paras. 328-329).

The ECtHR accepted an important part of the applicants’ arguments at the factual level. It observed that the domestic procedures leading to the 2016 licensing decision were ‘not fully comprehensive,’ in that the strategic environmental assessment did not include all stages of the petroleum project, particularly the downstream combustion emissions. It noted that the Norwegian Supreme Court acknowledged this omission but considered that it could be remedied at the later PDO stage (para. 330).

However, the Court did not consider those gaps, taken alone, to amount to a breach of Article 8. Instead, it asked whether, looking at the process ‘as a whole,’ Norway had put in place procedural guarantees capable of ensuring that no petroleum extraction project would proceed without a sufficiently rigorous climate assessment and an opportunity for effective public challenge. The Court based its reasoning on three following elements.

First, it attached weight to the legal position, confirmed by the Norwegian Supreme Court, that the granting of an exploration license does not create any automatic entitlement to extract petroleum. Under Norwegian law, extraction cannot commence without approval of a PDO by the competent ministry. The authorities therefore retain both the power and, under Article 112 of the Constitution, the duty to refuse a PDO if climate or environmental considerations so require (para. 331).

Second, at the PDO stage, Norwegian law requires an environmental impact assessment and public consultation. This assessment must address the climate impacts of both production and combustion emissions and be reviewed by the authorities in light of Norway’s domestic and international climate commitments. The Court also noted the Government’s formal undertaking, following the domestic litigation, to ensure that all future PDOs include such assessments and that their results are explicitly reflected in the approval decisions. These commitments, in the Court’s view, confirmed that downstream emissions and compatibility with climate targets would be examined before any extraction could begin (paras. 332–334).

Third, the Court observed that affected individuals and organisations have access to environmental information and opportunities to participate in the PDO-stage decision-making, which is subject to administrative and judicial oversight before any extraction begins. Because the PDO stage precedes production, the Court considered that meaningful preventive control remains possible at that point (paras. 333–334).

The Court further observed that, under Norwegian law interpreted in light of EEA environmental requirements, impact assessments at the PDO stage must take account of cumulative and transboundary climate effects, including downstream or ‘exported’ emissions from the eventual combustion of petroleum. It considered that this mechanism, assessed together with the wider procedural safeguards of the Norwegian system, adequately addressed the applicants’ concern that such emissions had been overlooked at the earlier licensing stage. On that basis, the Court concluded that, although the environmental impact assessment at the licensing stage was incomplete, the Norwegian system, assessed in its entirety, still satisfied the procedural requirements inherent in Article 8. In light of this, the Court unanimously found that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention (paras. 336-337).

Thus, the decisive point for the Court was that there are effective safeguards built into the approval process for actual extraction: extraction cannot begin without a PDO; the PDO must be preceded by a climate-focused assessment and public participation; the authorities are under a duty to refuse the PDO if climate considerations so require; and those decisions remain open to challenge. The Court found no evidence of bad faith on the part of the Norwegian authorities, no indication that the PDO stage is structurally incapable of correcting earlier deficiencies, and no indication that those safeguards are purely theoretical or illusory. It therefore held that Norway had remained within its margin of appreciation in structuring climate-related assessment across multiple stages, and that the deferral of a full climate assessment to the PDO stage, while not ideal from the applicants’ perspective, did not in itself breach Article 8 as long as the PDO stage functions in the manner described above.

Concerning the complaint under Article 14 ECHR (prohibition of discrimination), the Court considered that it was not necessary to examine whether this provision was applicable as concerned the individual applicants because this complaint was in any event inadmissible given the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. Citing its own subsidiarity and the exhaustion rule in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court noted that “the individual applicants did not avail themselves of any domestic remedy in their own name” (para. 350). It held that “while the applicants complained before the Court that not invalidating the 2016 licensing decision constituted indirect discrimination on the grounds of the individual applicants’ age and of ethnic status, no such complaint had been made, even in substance, in the course of the domestic judicial review proceedings, and, in particular, before the Supreme Court” (para. 351). As a result, the applicants had not afforded the domestic courts with the requisite opportunity to examine or remedy this complaint, and it was declared inadmissible.

As concerned Article 13 ECHR (right to an effective remedy), the Court held that the domestic courts “duly engaged” with the applicant organizations’ arguments and duly examined their claims, in line with the requirements of Article 13, and that their review powers were not limited in the sense of precluding them from examining the applicants’ complaints. The fact that the domestic courts ultimately held that the omission to conduct a prior assessment did not invalidate the licensing decision, as that could be rectified at the next PDO stage, and did not mean that their examination of the issues had been superficial (para. 363). The ECtHR also noted that the Norwegian Supreme Court devoted a separate section of its judgment to whether ECHR rights were engaged. The fact that the Supreme Court’s conclusion could be called into question in the light of the Court’s findings in this case did “not mean that the assessment was insufficient or that it was not diligently undertaken” (para. 354). The ECtHR itself noted that the approach taken in this case represented “a significant development in Convention case-law”, based on the KlimaSeniorinnen judgment. It ultimately declared the Article 13 complaint manifestly ill-founded in light of this reasoning.

Date filed:
15 June 2021

Date communicated:
6 January 2022 (press release).

Date of judgment:
28 October 2025

Adjudicating Body:
European Court of Human Rights

Status of case:
Decided by a Chamber formation of the ECtHR on 28 October 2025.

Suggested case citation:
ECtHR, Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway, no. 34068/21, Judgment of 28 October 2025.

Case documents:
Link to the text of the application: click here.
The full text of the judgment is available below.

CASE OF GREENPEACE NORDIC AND OTHERS v. NORWAYDownload

Last updated:
28 October 2025