Category: Non-discrimination

Categories
2022 Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Non-discrimination Private and family life Right to life Right to property Sweden Uncategorized

Anton Foley and others v. Sweden (Aurora Case)

Summary:
On 25 November 2022, a group of over 600 young people born between 1996 and 2015 filed a class action lawsuit against the Swedish State in the Nacka District Court (Nacka tingsrätt). According to the Plaintiffs, the Swedish State is failing to do its fair share to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration in the atmosphere to keep warming below 1.5°C as compared to pre-industrial levels, by not undertaking immediate and adequate procedural and substantive measures to continuously reduce GHG emissions and enhance GHG sinks, thus failing to adequately protect the plaintiffs from adverse impacts of anthropogenic climate change. Therefore, the Plaintiffs claim that this constitutes a violation of their rights to life, private and family life, and non-discrimination under Articles 2, 8, and 14 of the ECHR, and their right to property under Article 1, Protocol 1 of the ECHR.

The Plaintiffs request the Nacka District Court to order the Swedish State to do its fair share in reducing GHG emissions to keep global warming below 1.5°C. The Swedish State should be required to take sufficient and adequate measures to ensure that emissions are continuously reduced and that GHG are absorbed through natural carbon sinks to limit the risk of adverse impacts of climate change on them.

On 31 March 2023, the Nacka District Court invited the Swedish State to file its response to the Plaintiffs’ application. On 21 June 2023, the Swedish State filed its response with the Nacka District Court, requesting that the case be dismissed. The Court then invited the Plaintiffs to submit their comments on the request for dismissal no later than 28 August 2023.

Date filed:
25 November 2022

Status of case:
Pending

More information:
The Plaintiffs’ summons application is available via the Climate Case Chart.

Suggested citations:
Nacka District Court, Anton Foley and others v. Sweden, case T 8304-22.

Last updated:
16 August 2023

Categories
2022 Chile Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Gender / women-led Non-discrimination Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to life Separation of powers

Women from Huasco & Others v. Government of Chile & Ministries of Energy, Environment and Health

Summary:

On 25 November 2021, a group of women from the city of Huasco, alongside Doris Zamorano, a member of a civil society organization in Huasco, brought a constitutional action against Chile’s omission in coordinating the early closure of two coal-fired power plants. The Chilean government had signed closure agreements with owners of various thermoelectric power plants, but the two plants in question were absent from these agreements. They would be subject to the general clause requiring closure of all coal-fired power plants by the year 2040. The petitioners argued the emissions from the powerplants and the uncertainty as to their closure in advance of the year 2040 contributes to interferences with their exercise and enjoyment of fundamental rights. In particular, they point to the governmental authorities’ awareness about the persistent local air pollution and treatment of Huasco as a ‘sacrifice zone,’ as well as Chile’s climate mitigation commitments.  

On 2 May 2022, the Court of Appeals of Copiapo dismissed the petition on the ground that adjudication of the issues raised by the petitioners was beyond its competence. The petitioners have filed an appeal against this decision before the Supreme Court of Chile.

Claims:

The applicants argue that the State’s omissions consist in its failure to close two coal-fired power plants, failure to justify the exclusion of the two power plants from the list of plants due to be closed earlier than 2040 pursuant to its climate policy, and toleration of emissions from the two power plants despite no compensation being granted for the negative environmental impacts from their operation. The petition alleges that these omissions violate their constitutional rights to equality, to life, physical and psychological liberty, to an environment free from contamination, and to the protection of their health, as well as a breach of the State’s administrative duty not to act arbitrarily. In support of the latter contention, the petitioners relied on the administrative law principles of service of the human person, coordination between State organs and the environmental principles of prevention and precaution. Further, they argued that the normative content of the State’s duty were to be informed by Sustainable Development Goals, International Labour Organisation Guidelines on Just Transition, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Paris Agreement and Chile’s 2020 NDC Communication under the Paris Agreement. By way of evidence, the petitioners relied on reports of high levels of air pollution in the city of Huasco, and a comparative analysis of morbidity rates and incidences of respiratory illnesses in Huasco and Caldera, a similar city that was not in the vicinity of coal-fired power plants.

The petitioners requested the Court of Appeals of Copiapo to order the concerned state organs to (i) establish and implement a plan to effect the early closure of the two power plants, and (ii) establish a compensation plan for historical and current emissions of the power plants to redress the environmental and health-related impacts.

In his reply, the Minister of Energy challenged the appropriateness of a judicial review of complex public policies which were the result of a democratic and representative participative process. The Minister also elaborated on the procedural history and content of the government’s policy on decarbonisation, and the limits of the legal competences of the various Ministries vis-à-vis regulation of private actors in the energy sector, to rebut the petitioners’ arguments about the State’s breach of administrative duties. The reply submitted by the Minister of Environment argued that there is no omission attributable to the Ministry of the Environment since regulation of power plants falls within the authority of the Ministry of Energy, and that environmental management instruments were enacted to improve the air quality in Huasco. The Minister of Health submitted a similar reply. The Undersecretary General of the Presidency argued that State authorities lack the power to order the early closure of the said power plants, and that all of the authorities named in the petition had taken relevant measures in relation to the factual situation described by the petitioners.

Decision:

On 2 May 2022, the Court of Appeals of Copiapo rendered its decision wherein it rejected the petition. The Court noted that petitioners’ action for constitutional review of the State’s omission suggests that they disagree with its actions which form part of the public policy on decarbonisation of the country. However, this policy was developed and implemented with the participation of various state organs (with the Ministry of Energy being at the head of them) and it is not for the Court to substitute itself for them and order a replacement or modification of such policy. The Court also noted the involvement of non-State stakeholders, including both actors from the industry and civil society, in the establishment of the decarbonisation policy.

Additionally, with respect to closure of power plants, the Court noted that State organs do not have the authority to demand closures and that such an outcome can only be achieved through agreements between the State and the concerned owners of the power plants. The Court concluded that the fact that the agreement concluded between the State and the owner of the two power plants in question does not envisage a concrete plan for their closure, as it does for some other power plants, does not evince arbitrariness.

Links:

The case documents are accessible via Climate Case Chart (click here).

Status of the case:

The case is pending in appeal before the Supreme Court of Chile.

Last updated:

08 August 2023.

Categories
Children and young people Climate activists and human rights defenders Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Non-discrimination Paris Agreement Private and family life Prohibition of torture Right to a healthy environment Right to culture Right to health Right to housing Right to life Right to property Russian Federation

Ecodefense and Others v. Russia

Summary:
In 2022, the NGOs Ecodefense and Moscow Helsinki Group, together with a group of individual plaintiffs representing Fridays for Future and the Sami and Itelmen indigenous people, brought an administrative action before the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation seeking to declare the Russian Federation’s climate legislation invalid. They argue that the current measures are not in line with the temperature targets under the Paris Agreement, noting that Russia is currently the fourth biggest global carbon emitter. They submit that Russia is accordingly in violation of its own constitution, as well as of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Russia ceased to be a party to the ECHR on 16 September 2022.

Key arguments:
The plaintiffs invoke a number of human and constitutional rights, arguing that their right to life, to health care, to a healthy environment (which is recognized by the Russian Constitution), to the protection of land and other natural resources as the basis of the life and activities of indigenous peoples, and to the protection of young people and future generations (based on the principle of equality). They also invoke the prohibition of torture and the right to home, private life and property as well as the prohibition of discrimination and the right to an adequate standard of living.

On this basis, the plaintiffs argue that the existing Russian climate policy measures are not only incompatible with domestic law, but that they also violate Russia’s international legal obligations under the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement, the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the ECHR. The plaintiffs also contest the emphasis on carbon absorption (and not GHG emissions reductions) in the current Russian strategy, which they argue does not suffice to do Russia’s “fair share” to keep global warming below the Paris Agreement’s targets of 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius.

Status:
Pending

Further information:
A summary of the plaintiff’s submissions in this case is available via ClimateCaseChart.com.

Suggested citation:
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Ecodefense and Others v. Russia, pending case, submitted on 11 September 2022.

Last updated:
4 August 2023

Categories
Australia Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Fossil fuel extraction Indigenous peoples rights Non-discrimination Private and family life Right to life Right to property

Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v. Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors

Summary:

The case concerns the applications by Waratah Coal Pty Ltd. (WC) for a ‘mining license’ and an ‘environmental authority’ under the Australian mining regulation and environmental protection legislation. These would allow it to mine coal in areas of the Galilee Basin, including parts of a protected area under the nature conservation law.  

The case reached the Land Court of Queensland on account of objections by environmental groups to WC’s applications. The Land Court of Queensland’s role was to provide a recommendation to the governmental authorities responsible for deciding on the applications after reviewing their merits (considering the compatibility of the proposed project with the environmental laws in Australia). However, the Court also found that the human rights implications of the coal mining project were relevant. The justification for this was that the court was directly bound by the Human Rights Act 2019 to not make a decision that is incompatible with human rights.

In its lengthy judgment, Court concluded on the basis of the evidence available to it and the interests at stake that it could not recommend the approval of WC’s applications.

Claims:

The objectors to WC’s applications raised several contentions in regards to the local and global environmental impacts of allowing coal mining in the Galilee Basin (including its contribution to climate change), as well as interference with private property rights. WC refuted these contentions and found that several issues raised by the objectors were irrelevant to the decision of their applications.  

In regards to climate change, WC disagreed that the emissions produced by foreign consumers of the mined coal are a relevant consideration. It argued that approving the mining of coal does not entail approving its combustion, and that the responsibility for the emissions from the latter falls on importing countries which decide to do so.  WC also argued that the mine will make no difference to total emissions because it would displace lower quality coal with higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  

Decision:

The Court framed its recommendation as pertaining to the specific coal mining project in question rather than coal mining in general. It was not convinced by the evidence put forth by WC with respect to the adequacy of its plans of offsetting the environmental impacts which would follow from the coal mining project.

In relation to climate change, the Court found that the mitigation of climate change was amongst the public interests which needed to be considered in the balance against the public interest considerations in support of the project (such as economic development). While the Court acknowledged that the project itself would not necessarily put Australia over its greenhouse gas emissions budget or lead to an exceedence of the temperature limits set by the Paris Agreement, Australia’s limited carbon budget and the risks of exceeding the 1.5° and 2°degree C temperature limits, and Queensland’s intention to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, were strong factors which supported the refusal of the project. 

The Court rejected WC’s contentions in regards to foreign emissions from the combustion of the coal mined by WC, finding that not considering them would be inconsistent with the public interest criterion in the environmental protection legislation.

The Court found that the human rights to life, protection of children, culture of First Nations People, privacy and home, property, and the enjoyment by certain groups of rights without discrimination were engaged by the coal mining project. In its assessment, the project constituted a ‘limit’ to these rights owing to its causal link with climate change which, in turn, affects the enjoyment of these rights. The Court concluded that the economic and other public interest benefits of the project were not sufficient to justify the limitation of human rights which would result from the project.

Links:

For full judgment of 25 November 2022, see here.

Suggested case citation:

Land Court of Queensland, Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21, 25 November 2022, President Fleur Kingham.

Last updated:

03 August 2023.

Categories
2022 Biodiversity Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Fossil fuel extraction Gender / women-led Human dignity Non-discrimination Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to life Right to water Sea-level rise South Africa Standing/admissibility

African Climate Alliance et. al. v. Minister of Mineral Resources & Energy et. al. (#CancelCoal case)

Summary:
On 10 November 2021, three South African NGOs (the African Climate Alliance, Vukani Environmental Justice Movement in Action and groundWork) initiated a constitutional challenge against the South African government’s plans to augment its coal-fired electricity capacity. Also known as the #CancelCoal case, this challenge invokes the protection of environmental rights, the rights of children, the right to life and human dignity, the right to water, healthcare and food, and the right to equality and protection from discrimination. Noting that South Africa is one of the top 15 current global greenhouse gas emitters, the plaintiffs argue that the procurement of 1500 MW of new coal-fired power stations threatens the rights of present and future generations in South Africa, who will be “left to deal with the consequences of extreme weather events, heatwaves, droughts, coastal flooding, famine, cyclones and social upheavals”. They submit that the constitutional rights violations caused by the new coal plants “will disproportionately impact the poor and the vulnerable, including women, children and young people”.

More details on the challenge:
In terms of standing, the applicant organizations brought their case in their own direct interest, in the interests of their members, in the public interest, and in the interest of the environment, noting the “far reaching consequences for present and future generations”.

The applicants invoke section 24 of the South African Constitution, which recognizes the right to a healthy environment. They argue that, by ratifying international agreements on climate change, including the Paris Agreement, the State recognizes the threat for this right posed by climate change. They also invoke section 28(2) of the Constitution, which guarantees the protection of the best interests of the child, arguing that “children are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and the further health risks caused by coal-fired power stations”. Noting that South Africa’s first NDC, submitted in 2015 and revised in 2021, committed to peaking emissions from 2020-2025, with net zero to be achieved by 2050, they submit scientific evidence from the IPCC to show the level of threat at hand and the different emissions reductions pathways discussed. Coal, they argue, “is the single most significant contributor to climate change”, and South Africa’s plants to procure more coal-fired power plants is “directly at odds” with global calls for action against coal, despite its vulnerability to the impacts of climate change, including from heat, storms, drought, rising sealevels, loss of species and biodiversity, and the psychological harms linked to climate change, as well as economic costs associated with responding to the effects of climate change, which will “divert scarce resources allocated to alleviating powerty and promoting sustainable development”.

The applicants also argue that the government’s references to “clean coal” are scientifically unfounded, and that it is unrealistic to argue that carbon capture technologies will mitigate the impacts of the new coal plants. “Climate change is the ultimate collective action problem”, they submit, and collective efforts are needed. South Africa’s support for coal undermines the global efforts in this regard, is inconsistent with South Africa’s “fair share” obligations, and is detrimental to the environment in a number of ways.

Invoking the constitutional right to equality together with environmental rights, the applicants argue that the action in question produces unfair discrimination “on intersecting grounds of race, gender, and social origin. This is because poor, black South Africans, and particularly women and children, are the primary victims of ecological degradation and air pollution caused by coal-fired power. They will also be the worst affected by the climate crisis”, as recognized in the government’s Environmental Impact Assessment (para. 358 of the application).

In terms of remedies, the applicants seek the review and setting aside of the decisions to procure new coal plants.

Further developments:
On 8 December 2021, the President of South Africa issued notice that he does not intend to oppose the application and shall abide by the decision of the court. On the same date, the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy issued notice of his intention to oppose the application.

On 12 December 2022, in what was described as an “early victory” in the case, the Pretoria High Court ordered the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy to release records relating to the decision to seek new coal power, and to pay the costs of the application.

Further reading:

The full application form in this case is available from climatecasechart.com, as are further documents on the case.

Suggested citation:
High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division (Pretoria), African Climate Alliance and others v. Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and others, case no. 56907/2021, filed on 10 November 2021.

Last updated:
26 June 2023.

Categories
2023 Canada Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Non-discrimination Paris Agreement Right to life Standing/admissibility Vulnerability

Mathur et al. v. HM the Queen in Right of Ontario

Summary:
On 25 November 2019, seven Canadian young people and the NGO Ecojustice brought a case against the State of Ontario, arguing that it had failed to take adequate action to mitigate its greenhouse gas emissions and contesting the State’s “dangerously inadequate GHG reduction target” as set out under the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act of 2018. Under this legislation, Ontario aims to reduce GHG emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. To contest the adequacy of this target, and the previous repeal of the more ambitious Climate Change Act (with its target of 45% reductions by 2030), the applicants invoked sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom (the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right to equal protection under the law). Arguing that they have a serious and genuine interest in this case, which also impacts all Ontario youth and future generations, they noted that climate change will cause heat-related fatalities, harms to human health, increased fire activity and the spread of disease, increased flooding and other extreme weather events, harmful algal blooms and exposure to contaminants, harms to Indigenous peoples, and psychological harms and mental distress.

Claims made:
Noting the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and the leading role of developed countries under the Paris Agreement, the applicants argued that Ontario’s current emissions reductions target compromises their right to life, liberty and security of the person “in a serious and pervasive manner that does not accord with the principles of fundamental justice”. They furthermore submitted that the target violated the right to liberty of Ontario’s youth and future generations, because it impacted their ability to make choices about their futures. They invoked the principle of “societal preservation” and human dignity, and argued for the recognition of a right to a stable climate system. Concerning the right to equal protection under the law, they argued that youth and future generations are in a uniquely vulnerable situation given their age and exclusion from political participation and the fact that they will be disproportionately impacted by climate change.

Relief sought:
Among other things, the applicants sought the invalidation of the existing emissions reductions targets and the rules for setting such targets, a declaration that it violates unwritten constitutional principles about avoiding harm, a recognition of the right to a stable climate system, and an order that Ontario must set out a science based GHG reduction target consistent with its share of global emissions.

Decision on admissibility:
On 12 November 2020, the Superior Court of Justice for Ontario rejected a motion from the government to dismiss the case. The government had invoked the absence of a right to a stable climate from the Charter, the plaintiffs’ alleged lack standing to represent future generations, and the absence of sufficient evidence or a reasonable cause of action.

Hearing:
A hearing in this case was heard from 12-14 September 2022.

Judgment:
On 14 April 2023, the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario delivered its judgment in the case. The Court found that, although the policies in question were justiciable given that the applicants had challenged specific state acts and legislation, the applicants had not established a violation of their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In her judgment, Justice Vermette noted that the issue of establishing Ontario’s “fair share” of the remaining carbon budget was not a justiciable issue, and “should be determined in another forum” (para. 109). Justice Vermette did consider it “indisputable that, as a result of climate change, the Applicants and Ontarians in general are experiencing an increased risk of death and an increased risk to the security of the person” (para. 120). However, she disagreed with the applicants’ characterization of the emissions reductions target as “authorizing, incentivizing, facilitating and creating the very level of dangerous GHG that will lead to the catastrophic consequences of climate change for Ontarians”, finding that “the target does not authorize or incentivize GHG” (para. 122).

While the target was not legally meaningless, and justiciable under the Charter, Justice Vermette found (contrary to the arguments of the applicants) that the question at issue was whether the Charter imposed positive obligations. Leaving this question open, albeit acknowledging that “the Applicants make a compelling case that climate change and the existential threat that it poses to human life and security of the person present special circumstances that could justify the imposition of positive obligations under section 7 of the Charter”, Justice Vermette found that any putative deprivation of Charter rights at stake was not contrary to “the principles of fundamental justice”, i.e. neither arbitrary nor grossly disproportionate. This test applies because the relevant right in the Charter, i.e. its Article 7, stipulates that “[e]veryone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

Concerning the equality claim under Article 15 of the Charter, Justice Vermette found that Ontario’s climate policy did not distinguish based on age, but made a temporal distinction, and that accordingly there was no violation of that provision either.

Further reading:

  • The judgment in the case is available here.
  • A comment on the judgment in this case, as well as its context, is available from Christie A. MacLeod, Annafaye Dunbar, and Rosemarie Sarrazin (Miller Thomson) here.

Suggested citation:
Superior Court of Justice for Ontario, Mathur v. Ontario, 2023 ONSC 2316, 14 April 2023.

Last updated:
22 June 2023.

Categories
Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Imminent risk Non-discrimination Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment Right to life South Korea

Do-Hyun Kim et al. v. South Korea

Summary:

On 13 March 2020, nineteen teenagers from across South Korea initiated proceedings against their government (the National Assembly of Korea and the President of Korea), arguing that insufficient emissions reductions efforts were violating their constitutional rights. Their constitutional complaint is currently pending before the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Korea.

The applicants in this case are part of the Korean Youth Climate Action Group, which has led the Korean ‘School Strike for Climate’ movement. They argued that, by not taking action to prevent the threats posed by climate change, the government had violated the right of younger generations to life and the pursuit of happiness (Article 10 of the Constitution), which they argue also enshrines the right to resist against human extinction, along with the right to live in a healthy and pleasant environment (Article 35(1) of the Constitution). They also contested inter-generational inequalities under the constitutional prohibition of discrimination (Article 11 of the Constitution) and invoked the duty of the State to prevent environmental disasters (Article 34(e) of the Constitution). In doing so, the applicants invoked the fatal risk posed by climate change and the irrevocable damage to be suffered by younger generations. As a major emitter of greenhouse gas emissions, they argued, Korea has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of climate change by taking stronger emissions reductions action.

No action has been taken in this case to date. However, on 30 December 2022, the Korean National Human Rights Commission issued an official statement to the President of Korea regarding climate change and human rights. Citing IPCC reports, UN findings, other instances of climate litigation (such as Urgenda and Neubauer) and the existence of different vulnerabilities, it found that “[a]s the climate crisis has far-reaching impacts on multiple human rights, including the rights to life, food, health and housing, the government should regard protecting and promoting the rights of everyone in the midst of climate crisis as its fundamental obligation and reform related laws and systems to address the climate crisis from a human rights perspective.”

Status of the case:

Pending.

Relevant developments:

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

More information on the case:

For a recent press report on the case, see here.

On the ational Human Rights Commission of Korea’s intervention, see this article in the Korea Herald.

The submissions in the case, including an unofficial English translation of the complaint prepared by the applicants’ counsel, are available via ClimateCaseChart.

Suggested citation:

Constitutional Court of Korea, Do-Hyun KIM and 18 others v. South Korea, pending case filed on 13 March 2020.

Last updated:
23 June 2023

Categories
Access to a remedy Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights Gender / women-led Imminent risk Non-discrimination Private and family life Right to life Standing/admissibility The United Kingdom Victim status

Plan B. Earth and Others v. the United Kingdom

Summary:

On 11 July 2022, an application against the United Kingdom was filed before the European Court of Human Rights by the NGO Plan B. Earth and four individual applicants. The applicants argued that the United Kingdom’s government violated their rights under Articles 2, 8 and 14 of the ECHR by failing to take practical and effective measures to tackle the threat of anthropogenic climate change. They also submitted that they had suffered violations of their procedural rights under Articles 6 and 13 ECHR because they had been denied a full hearing of their case.

Citing the UK Government’s acknowledgment of the fact that climate change is a serious threat to humanity, the applicant NGO submitted that its membership included those “who are exposed to disproportionate and discriminatory impacts and risks, whether by virtue of age, gender, mental health or membership of racially marginalised communities, or because their family life is inextricably linked to communities on the frontline of the crisis.” The applicants also cited the State’s positive obligation to safeguard the right to life, and argued that the Paris Agreement, and its temperature goal of 1,5 degrees Celsius, are relevant in determining the scope of these positive obligations. They argued that practical and effective measures are required to ensure climate mitigation, adaptation, finance flows and loss and damage, and that the respondent State has failed in all four regards.

Victim status:

As concerns the applicants’ victim status, they argued that they were “victims” of the alleged Convention violations. They referred to domestic rules that increase the cost risk by £5,000 for each additional claimant in environmental cases; this rule serves to deter class actions, and therefore prevents applicants from sharing the cost and other risks involved in litigation. They noted that the first applicants’ members include individuals exposed to disproportionate and discriminatory impacts and risks as concerns their age, gender, membership of racially marginalised communities, family life inextricably linked with communities in the Global South, and mental health, and those who are at the intersection of such increased risks. They also noted that, given the high risk of overwhelming and irreversible interference with the applicants’ rights, denying them victim status would render their Convention rights theoretical and illusory.

Status of case:

The ECtHR declared the application inadmissible, holding that the applicants were not sufficiently affected by the alleged breach of the Convention or its Protocols to claim to be victims of a violation within the meaning of Art. 34 of the Convention. This decision was taken by a Committee judicial formation, as the result of a written procedure without a public decision.

According to Plan B Earth’s press release following the decision, the panel was composed of three judges, among which the UK Judge Tim Eicke.

Publication of decision:

Pending

Date of decision:

13 December 2022 (according to the ECtHR’s press release).

More information:

  • For the full text of the application form, click here.
  • For a press release from Plan B Earth on the filing, click here.
  • For the full claim before the High Court of Justice, click here.
  • For the Court of Appeals’ judgment, click here.

Suggested citation:
European Court of Human Rights, Plan B. Earth and Others v. the United Kingdom, Appl. no. 35057/22, Decision of 13 December 2022.

Last updated:
15 March 2023.


Categories
2020 Canada Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Non-discrimination Right to life Separation of powers

Lho’imggin et al. v. Canada

Summary:
This case was brought by two houses of the Wet’suwet’en indigenous group against Canada on 10 February 2020. The plaintiffs argue that the Canadian government has violated their constitutional and human rights by failing to meet its international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They argue that the effects of warming are already being felt on their territories, including in the form of negative health effects. They also argue that the historical treatment and ongoing discrimination against indigenous peoples in Canada exacerbate the trauma of climate change. They invoke, among other things, their rights to life, liberty and security of person, and the right to equality.

The Federal Court granted a motion to strike out the claim on 16 November 2020, finding that the case was not justiciable, lacked a reasonable cause of action, and did not seek legally available remedies. The plaintiffs appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal on 10 December 2020; the appeal was still pending in August 2022.

Relief sought:
The applicants seek several different forms of relief. These include declaratory relief concerning Canada’s obligations to reduce its emissions and respect the plaintiffs’ rights, including the rights of future member of the Wet’suwet’en indigenous group. The plaintiffs also seek an order requiring the government to amend its environmental assessment statutes that apply to extant high GHG emitting projects, and an order requiring a complete, independent and timely annual account of Canada’s cumulative greenhouse gas emissions in a format that allows a comparison to be made with Canada’s fair carbon budget.

Findings of the Federal Court:
Among other things, the Federal Court found that “this matter is not justiciable as it is the realm of the other two branches of government. This broad topic is beyond the reach of judicial interference. [It did] not find that there is a sufficient legal component to anchor the analysis as this action is a political one that may touch on moral/strategic/ideological/historical or policy-based issues and determinations within the realm of the remaining branches of government.” It also found, concerning this case, that “not only is there not sufficient legality, but the remedies sought are not appropriate remedies, but rather solutions that are appropriate to be executed by the other branches of government.”

Further reading:
The full text of the judgment of the Federal Court is available via climatecasechart.

Suggested citation:
Federal Court of Ottowa, Lho’imggin et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen, Order of 16 November 2020, 2020 FC 1059.

Categories
2021 Canada Children and young people Class action Domestic court Non-discrimination Right to a healthy environment Right to life

ENVironnement JEUnesse v. Canada

Summary:
In 2018, the environmental NGO ENvironnement JEUnesse applied for leave to bring a class action case against the Canadian government on behalf of citizens of Québec aged 35 and under. The NGO sought a declaration from that the Canadian government had violated its obligation to protect these citizens’ fundamental rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Québec Charter of Rights and Freedoms by setting insufficent greenhouse gas reduction targets and by failing to create an adequate plan to reach these targets. Specifically, they invoked their rights to life, to a healthy environment, and to equality. On 11 July 2019, the Superior Court of Quebec dismissed the motion to authorize the institution of a class action, finding that the proposed class, with its 35-year age limit, had been created arbitrarily. An appeal by ENVironnement JEUnesse was denied on 13 December 2021.

Remedies sought:
As well as a declaratory judgment, the NGO sought punitive damages and an order to cease interference with the plaintiffs’ rights.

Judgment:
In their judgment of 13 December 2021, the three judges of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and denied the certification of the proposed class. They referred to the role of the legislature in making the complex social and economic choices required here. They also considered that the remedies sought by the applicants were not specific enough to be implemented by a court. Lastly, the judges upeld the previous instance’s finding concerning the arbitary constitution of the class, with its 35-year age limit.

Further procedural steps:
The applicants announced that they would launch an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Further reading:
The judgment of the Court of Appeal (in French) can be found below.

The Judgment (in French)Download

The declaration of appeal can be found here.