Category: Right to life

Categories
China Emissions reductions/mitigation Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Fossil fuel extraction Paris Agreement Participation rights Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to life Right to water Rights at stake

Violations of Human Rights by Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) and China due to Coal Fired plants in BiH

Summary:

On 17 March 2021, two UN Special Rapporteurs, Marcos A. Orellana (Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes) and David R. Boyd (Special Rapporteur on the issues of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment), issued communications to Bosnia Herzegovina (BiH) and China regarding alleged human rights violations stemming from the operation of coal power plants in BiH, supported by Chinese State-Owned Enterprises and financed by the China Development Bank. Civil society complaints raised concerns about water and air pollution, negative impacts on climate change, and adverse health effects, including respiratory issues and cardiac arrest. The communication highlighted violations of international human rights obligations related to a healthy environment, life, health, bodily integrity, safe drinking water, and sanitation. It also emphasised the exacerbation of climate change conditions through increased greenhouse gas emissions. Procedural environmental human rights were allegedly affected due to failures in providing information, access to justice, and effective remedies for health impacts caused by the plants. The communication sought measures from both BiH and China, including ensuring plant compliance with national and international laws, harmonising environmental permitting procedures, monitoring health impacts, and preventing negative human rights and environmental outcomes. China was also asked to provide information on the global impacts of pollution caused by Chinese-supported plants and measures to ensure Belt and Road Initiative projects align with the Paris Agreement’s climate objectives.

China responded to the communication on 27 May 2021, rejecting the allegations as false and emphasising its commitment to international responsibility for climate change. China stated that the Tuzla plant, one of the plants in question, is intended to replace outdated units, complying with EU carbon emissions standards and contributing to local development and reliable energy supply. BiH had not responded yet.

Claim:

The case revolves around the alleged violations of human rights related to pollution, waste, and climate change resulting from the operation of Chinese-supported coal-fired plants in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The claim is that both Bosnia Herzegovina and China have failed to meet international human rights obligations for human and environmental rights, including the right to a healthy environment, life, health, bodily integrity, safe drinking water, and sanitation. The construction and operation of these plants are accused of exacerbating climate change conditions by increasing greenhouse gas emissions. The communication seeks measures to address these concerns, emphasising the responsibility of states under international human rights law to prevent, investigate, punish, and redress such abuses.

Links:

The case documents can be found here. The documents are also available for download below:

DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile-CHNDownload
DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile-BIHDownload
DownLoadFile-response0CHNDownload

Status of the case:
The case is currently pending before the UN Special Rapporteurs.

Suggested citation:
Violations of Human Rights by Federation of Bosnia Herzegovina (BiH) and China due to Coal Fired plants in BiH, AL BIH 2/2021 and AL CHN 2/2021 (17 March 2021).

Last updated:
15 January 2024.

Categories
Brazil Class action Deforestation Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Human dignity Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to life Right to subsistence/food

Institute of Amazonian Studies (IEA) v Brazil

Summary:

The IEA v. Brazil case centres on the severe deforestation crisis in the Brazilian Amazon, a major global climate concern. The Institute of Amazonian Studies (IEA), an NGO, initiated a public civil action, not only demanding the Brazilian government’s compliance with national climate laws but also advocating for the recognition of a new fundamental right to a stable climate for both current and future generations. IEA contends that the government has failed to meet emissions targets outlined in the National Policy on Climate Change, specifically the Plan to Prevent and Combat Deforestation in the Legal Amazon. The NGO seeks court orders to enforce compliance with these plans and, in case of non-compliance, calls for reforestation and resource allocation. Importantly, IEA asserts the existence of a fundamental right to climate stability implicit in the Brazilian Constitution, crucial for human life and ecological balance. This right encompasses various aspects such as an ecologically balanced environment, dignified life, inviolability of life, freedom, equality, security, property, health, food, and housing. The case also challenges the burden of proof, with IEA requesting a reversal, arguing that the government, holding evidence, should prove compliance with climate policies and lack of influence on deforestation rates.

Claim:

The IEA’s main contentions involve compelling the Brazilian government to adhere to climate policies, implement deforestation reduction plans, and acknowledge a fundamental right to climate stability. Additionally, the NGO seeks a reversal of the burden of proof, placing the responsibility on the government to demonstrate compliance with climate regulations and its non-influence on deforestation rates.

Legal developments:

In July 2021, the Federal District Court of Curitiba initially declined jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Court of Amazonas. However, this decision was subsequently suspended on 20 August 2021 by the Federal Appellate Court, following a ruling from the reporting judge. The Appellate Court reversed the lower court’s decision, returning the case to the Federal District Court.

During this process, the question of whether the case should be consolidated with another one, Federal Prosecutor’s Office v. IBAMA, concerning the operationalisation of monitoring bases in critical areas within the Amazon, was also considered. The Court determined that the two cases were distinct in terms of typology, structure, objective, cause of actions, and demands. Specifically, it highlighted the differences between IEA v. Brazil, aimed at ensuring the federal government takes steps to implement climate policies, and Federal Prosecutor’s Office v. IBAMA, which addresses environmental law matters.

On 7 December 2021, the Third Chamber of the Appellate Court affirmed the decision to return the case to the Federal District Court. The Court emphasised that, although both lawsuits dealt with illegal deforestation, they had different focuses. IEA v. Brazil concentrated on reducing Brazilian emissions through deforestation reduction, while Federal Prosecutor’s Office v. IBAMA addressed an environmental law case focused on combating deforestation in ten “ecological hotspots” within a specific timeframe, namely the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court underscored the distinction between climate litigation and environmental litigation in making its determination.

Links:

The case documents are accessible here and here.

Status of the case:

The case is currently pending before the Federal Court of Curitiba.

Suggested citation:

Institute of Amazonian Studies v. Brazil, Federal Regional Court, Fourth Region, ACP No. 5048951-39.2020.4.04.7000, 29 March 2022 (Brazil).

Last updated:

12 January 2024

Categories
Children and young people Children's rights/best interests Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Fossil fuel extraction Non-discrimination Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to life Right to property United States of America

Genesis B. v United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Summary:
On 10 December 2023, 18 children from California, aged 8 to 17, initiated a constitutional climate lawsuit titled Genesis B. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The lawsuit targets not only the EPA but also its administrator, Michael Regan, and the U.S. federal government. The central claim put forth by the young plaintiffs is that the EPA, responsible for regulating greenhouse gas emissions, is deliberately allowing life-threatening climate pollution to be emitted by fossil fuel sources under its jurisdiction. According to the plaintiffs, this negligence is causing substantial harm to the health and welfare of children. Furthermore, the children argue that the EPA is engaging in discrimination against them as a distinct group of individuals by discounting the economic value of their lives and their future when making decisions about the permissible levels of climate pollution. The plaintiffs assert that such actions violate their constitutional rights, specifically the right to equal protection of the law and the right to life.

This legal action is part of a sequence of constitutional climate cases initiated by the nonprofit legal organisation Our Children’s Trust and led by youth activists. Notably, Our Children’s Trust achieved a significant milestone in August 2023 with the Held and Others v. Montana case. In this instance, a judge sided with plaintiffs who contended that the state’s policies favouring fossil fuels encroached upon their constitutional entitlement to a clean and healthful environment

Claim:
The youth involved in Genesis B. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency asserted that the EPA’s actions violated their fundamental constitutional rights, specifically the right to equal protection of the law and the right to life and liberty. They sought a declaratory judgment from the federal court and are urging the court to establish a unique standard of judicial review that recognises and protects the equal protection rights of children. Ultimately, the plaintiffs aimed to compel the EPA to cease permitting life-threatening levels of fossil fuel climate pollution and, in alignment with scientific recommendations, phase out fossil fuel pollution by 2050.

Dismissal of the case:
On 9 April 2026, the case was dismissed for lack of standing by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which agreed with the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Ninth Circuit Court found that the plaintiffs had not alleged a viable injury to their constitutional (equal protection) rights, given that discrimination against children had not been proven to be a motivation of the contested policies. Even if they had been able to show cognizable injuries from climate change, the link between governmental discounting policies and those injuries was “too speculative and tenuous” to meet standing criteria. Citing its own findings in Juliana, the Court held that recognizing a rights violation in this case could not redress the alleged injuries.

Link:
The original petition is available for download below, as is the Ninth Circuit’s finding:

Doc1Complaint2023.12.10Download
25-2473Download

Suggested citation:
US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Genesis B. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, No. 25-2473 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-10345MWF-AGR, 9 April 2026.

Last updated:
24 June 2026.

Categories
2022 Austria Disability and health-related inequality Domestic court Non-discrimination Private and family life Right to health Right to life Rights at stake

In Re Tax Benefits for Aviation

Summary:
The applicant, a consumer utilising both rail and air services, applied for relief, citing a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis and health issues exacerbated by the climate crisis. She argued that existing Austrian tax laws favouring aviation over rail travel contributed to environmental problems and violated her constitutional rights, including the right to equality before the law, the right to life, and the right to private and family life. Specifically, the applicant contended that tax benefits for aviation companies created an unjustified disparity in treatment between equivalent means of transport, negatively impacting consumers who choose rail travel.

Claim:
The applicant claimed that the tax advantages granted to aviation companies, in contrast to railway companies, violated her fundamental rights. These rights included the right to equality before the law, with the applicant asserting that the tax benefits led to unequal treatment of equivalent means of transport in direct competition. Additionally, she argued a violation of her right to life, contending that climate change, exacerbated by tax benefits to aviation, posed a threat to human life, and that the state failed in its positive obligation to adopt measures to prevent such threats. The applicant also alleged a violation of her right to private and family life, asserting that the state’s encouragement of climate-damaging behavior through tax benefits violated its positive obligations to protect health, well-being, and bodily integrity from environmental hazards.

Decision:
On 27 June 2023, the Constitutional Court of Austria dismissed the application as inadmissible. The court cited the amendment to the Value-Added Tax Act as of 1 January 2023, which extended value-added tax (VAT) exemptions from aviation and maritime shipping to cross-border rail transport. The court determined that the contested provision was no longer in force, leading to a lack of standing for the applicants. Additionally, the court held that the obligation to pay VAT was directed at businesses, excluding consumers from challenging relevant provisions. The same rationale applied to the mineral oil tax, as it was not payable by consumers, and they were deemed not affected in their legal sphere, thus lacking the entitlement to challenge tax provisions.

Link:
The case document is accessible below.

20230627_19868_decisionDownload

Status of the case:
Decided.

Suggested citation:
In Re Tax Benefits for Aviation [2022] G 106-107/2022-10, V 140/2022-10 (Constitutional Court of Austria).

Last updated:
12 December 2023.

Categories
2023 Adaptation Climate activists and human rights defenders Domestic court European Convention on Human Rights Private and family life Right to life Sea-level rise The Netherlands

Greenpeace Netherlands v. State of the Netherlands (Bonaire)

Summary:
On 28 January 2026, the Commerce team of the Hague District Court issued a judgment in a case brought by Greenpeace and seven residents of the Caribbean island of Bonaire against the Dutch government. In examining the case, which concerned both alleged mitigation and adaptation failures, the Court found several violations of the human rights guaranteed in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In particular, and extensively discussing the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) KlimaSeniorinnen judgment of 9 April 2024, the Court found that the Dutch State had failed to fulfil its positive obligations towards the inhabitants of Bonaire under Article 8 ECHR, because the authorities’ mitigation and adaptation measures taken as a whole in relation to them did not meet the Netherlands’ obligations under the international climate regime (the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, discussing also the Kyoto Protocol). Additionally, given that the Dutch State took mitigation and adaptation measures for the inhabitants of Bonaire much later and less systematically than for the inhabitants of the European Netherlands, it found violations of the ECHR’s non-discrimination norms.

Background to the case:
On 11 May 2023, Greenpeace and seven residents of the Caribbean island of Bonaire sent a pre-litigation letter (Dutch: sommatie) to the office of the Prime Minister of the Netherlands. The letter claimed that the Netherlands does not sufficiently protect the authors from climate change and thereby violates their human rights. Since 2010, Bonaire has been a special municipality of the Netherlands and part of the Caribbean Netherlands. In the pre-litigation letter, the plaintiffs claim that the duties of care arising from Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the right to life and the right to family life, have been breached. The inaction of the Netherlands in sufficiently addressing climate change, they argue, violates these human rights. Therefore, they made the following demands:

  1. The Netherlands must implement the necessary measures to protect Bonaire from the consequences of climate change.
  2. The State shall develop and implement a policy which guarantees a 100% reduction of Dutch emission of all greenhouse gases in 2030 when compared to 1990 levels.
  3. Lastly, as part of and to realize the demands above, the State must implement all necessary measures to ensure that, in January 2040 at the latest, the joint volume of the national emission of all greenhouse gases will have been reduced by 100% when compared to 1990 emissions levels.

With the pre-litigation letter to the Prime Minister, the plaintiffs asked for negotiations to find a mutually agreeable decision on their demands. Given the lack of successful negotiations, the plaintiffs initiated proceedings under the Dutch Act on Redress of Mass Damages in Collective Action (WAMCA, alternatively translated as the Settling of Large-scale Losses or Damage (Class Actions) Act), which restructured the Dutch legal system’s approach to mass litigation and collective redress since coming into force in 2020.

Admissibility:
On 25 September 2024, Greenpeace announced that a court in the Hague had ruled that its action on behalf of the public interest of the people of Bonaire was admissible. A hearing was set to follow in 2025.

Judgment of 28 January 2026:
The District Court of Hague (Court) found that individuals residing in Bonaire were owed positive obligations arising from the application of Article 8 of the ECHR in the context of climate-related risks as identified in the judgment in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen et al. v. Switzerland. It further found that the non-discrimination norms found in Article 14 of the ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol 12 to the ECHR were applicable to the case in light of the difference in treatment of the residents of Bonaire arising out of the lack of a climate adaptation applicable to Bonaire, when in contrast, a coherent and integrated climate adaptation policy was being implemented for the European Netherlands since 2016.

In its reasoning, it assessed the Netherlands’ and the EU’s climate mitigation laws as falling short of the minimum requirements of ambition and stringency, which it derived from decisions of the Conference of Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC read with provisions of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. It negatively appraised the Netherlands’ reliance on a ‘grandfathering’ approach, which it found to be ‘controversial’ although not prohibited. These shortcomings informed its negative ‘overall assessment’ of the Netherlands’ climate mitigation framework for compliance with Article 8 of the ECHR, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights in the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen judgment. Next, regarding the positive obligation to effectively implement climate mitigation measures, it held that the State’s admission that the 2030 emissions reduction was ‘highly unlikely’ to be met as a decisive factor in determining a breach of that obligation.

Regarding adaptation measures, the Court found that although initial steps have been taken (for instance, the setting up of a local project for the development of an adaptation plan) the fact that no concrete timeline for the implementation of adaptation measures exists despite the known climate risks (especially that of partial submergence significant parts of land territory by 2050), and that the State has carried out insufficient scientific research and committed no financial resources for certain adaptation-related policies in Bonaire were assessed negatively. On this basis the Court concluded that the State had breached its positive obligation to sufficiently and in a timely manner, take appropriate adaptation measures in Bonaire. Finally, it found that the State did not fulfil its obligations to provide relevant environmental information to the residents of Bonaire and allow for their participation in climate-related decision making at least until 2023.

The Court found that the State did not provide an adequate justification of the unequal treatment of Bonaire as it related to its inclusion within the Netherland’s overall climate adaptation policy and the commitment of resources for the implementation of adaptation measures. It thus found that the State had breached its obligation of non-discrimination under Article 14 of the ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol 12 to the ECHR.

Order:
Based on the above, the Court partially allowed the plaintiffs’ claim for specific performance against the state and ordered the State to ensure incorporate ‘absolute’ emissions reduction targets compatible with the minimum requirements arising out of COP decisions and the Paris Agreement into its national climate legislation and provide insight into Netherlands’ ‘remaining emission allowance’; to draft and implement an appropriate national adaptation plan that also includes Bonaire; and pay legal costs to the plaintiffs. It rejected the plaintiffs’ requests that the Court order the State to adopt specific emissions reduction targets, and a binding national carbon budget determined in accordance with its fair share of the global carbon budget for 1.5˚C.

In doing so, it held that the State has considerable policy-making discretion in choosing its measures to comply with its international obligations under the UN climate treaties, meaning that the Court ordered the State to take effective measures to fulfil its UN obligations in a timely manner, without issuing any concrete orders as to the measures to be taken, deferring to the other branches of government and the separation of powers in this regard (trias politica).

Appeal:
With a letter dated 10 April 2026, the Dutch government announced that it had decided to appeal this case. The letter (in Dutch) indicates that the government has identified “compelling (legal) reasons to have the ruling reviewed by the Court of Appeal in The Hague”. The government indicates its reservations about the legal framework applied by the district court and the obligations the court derives from decisions of UN climate conferences (COP decisions). The government also contests the court’s finding that emissions from international aviation and maritime shipping must be taken into account when setting national emission reduction targets; according to the government, this does not align with current international practice, under which these emissions are regulated through specialized UN organizations (ICAO and IMO).

The government also noted that it was seeking a motion to stay the provisionally enforceable nature of the ruling, which would otherwise require the government to immediately implement the judgment, even if an appeal is filed, and include absolute emission reduction targets for the entire economy in national targets, including emissions from international aviation and shipping.

The full text of the letter is available for download below.

Further reading:

English translation of the judgment of 28 January 2026:

ECLI_NL_RBDHA_2026_1347Download

Judgment of 28 January 2026 (Dutch):

ECLI_NL_RBDHA_2026_1344Download

Pre-litigation letter of 11 May 2023:

pre-litigation-letter-BonaireDownload

Letter communicating the government’s intention to appeal (10 April 2026):

Brief eerste kamer BonaireDownload

Suggested citation:
The Hague District Court, Greenpeace Netherlands v. State of the Netherlands (Bonaire), Judgment of 28 January 2026, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2026:1347.

Date last updated:
6 May 2026.

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Adaptation Disability and health-related inequality Domestic court European Convention on Human Rights Imminent risk Margin of appreciation Non-discrimination Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to housing Right to life Right to property Sea-level rise The United Kingdom Vulnerability

R (Friends of the Earth Ltd, Kevin Jordan and Doug Paulley) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Road & Rural Affairs

Summary:
On 17 October 2023, the reportedly first-ever adaptation case in the United Kingdom was brought against the government before the UK’s High Court of Justice. The plaintiffs in this case included Kevin Jordan, a homeowner from Norfolk (UK), who alleged that his home was acutely threatened by coastal erosion, with the road leading up to it having already collapsed into the sea. Jordan brought his case together with the NGO ‘Friends of the Earth’ and disability rights activist Doug Paulley, a care home resident who alleged that his health conditions were being exacerbated by climate-aggravated heatwaves. Together, the plaintiffs challenged the UK’s National Adaptation Programme (NAP). Domestic law requires the production of new NAP every five years, and the most recent version — NAP3 — was published in July 2023. The claimants argued that NAP3 is deficient for the following reasons:

  1. Failure to set sufficiently specific objectives;
  2. Failure to conduct and publish information on the assessment of the risks involved in implementing NAP3;
  3. Failure to consider the unequal impacts of NAP3 on protected groups (on the grounds of age, race and disability); and
  4. Violation of Articles 2, 8, 14 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the rights to life, respect for private and family life, non-discrimination and property, respectively), as enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998.

In regards to the alleged human rights violations, the plaintiffs invoked:

a. The well-established but urgent need for long-term policy and protected funding to enable care-homes (and similar healthcare settings) to adapt to excessive heat. This remains absent in NAP3 despite the increasing frequency and severity of annual heatwaves.
b. There being no new policy to manage overheating risks in existing health and social care buildings, such that they are properly refurbished as soon as reasonably practicable.
c. A lack of a commitment to provide adequate resources to support communities at imminent risk of being lost to erosion and flooding, including as to the established mental health and emotional wellbeing impacts for those affected.
d. Gaps, inconsistency and uncertainty in the potential allocation of funding provided for a range of areas, in particular for those communities that must (or are likely to have to) relocate and have their homes demolished.
e. There being no insurance or compensation schemes available for the worst affected by coastal erosion and who lose their homes.
f. No evidence of their being an express consideration, or reasoned analysis, of what a fair balance to strike would be between doing more to safeguard the human rights of vulnerable people and the interests of wider society.

https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/non-us-case-documents/2023/20231101_21608_complaint.pdf (emphasis added)

High Court Judgment:
In a judgment issued on 25 October 2024, the High Court of Justice for England and Wales rejected the applicants’ claims. Justice Chamberlain, in his judgment, found that there had been no error of law in this case. His ruling extensively considered the 2024 Verein KlimaSeniorinnen judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, but found that “[u]nlike in the field of mitigation, and subject to the arguments about the effect of the ECHR as interpreted in [Verein KlimaSeniorinnen] (…), there is no internationally binding quantified standard governing how States must adapt to climate change. It would be very difficult to devise any such standard because the risks of climate change differ widely from state to state (and indeed within states). In some places, the main risk may be from flooding, in other places extreme heat or drought. Elsewhere, there may be a combination of risks, which all have to be addressed but some of which are more urgent than others. Moreover, the profile of risks, and the priorities attached to addressing them, may change over time” (para. 92 of the High Court ruling).

Assessing the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen judgment overall, Judge Chamberlain found that while this judgment “represents a significant development of the case law in relation to climate change, not only as regards the standing of associations to bring claims before the Strasbourg Court, but also as regards the scope and extent of the positive obligations of the State and the margin of appreciation to be accorded when assessing whether those obligations have been discharged”, “the significance of the judgment for the UK’s climate change framework should not be overstated.” The Judge noted that KlimaSeniorinnen focused heavily on lacunae in domestic legislation and the targets set out in the Paris Agreement, whereas the law of the United Kingdom does not feature similar lacunae in mitigation target-setting.

Lawyers for the government in this case had sought to dismiss the findings of the ECtHR, as made in para. 552 of KlimaSeniorinnen, as an obiter dictum. This paragraph of the Strasbourg Court’s judgment reads as follows:

Furthermore, effective protection of the rights of individuals from serious adverse effects on their life, health, well-being and quality of life requires that the above-noted mitigation measures be supplemented by adaptation measures aimed at alleviating the most severe or imminent consequences of climate change, taking into account any relevant particular needs for protection. Such adaptation measures must be put in place and effectively applied in accordance with the best available evidence (…) and consistent with the general structure of the State’s positive obligations in this context (…).

Judge Chamberlain disagreed with the government as concerns the nature of this finding, noting the dangers of applying “common law concepts [the idea of obiter dicta] to the judgment of a court most of whose members come from different legal traditions.” Still, Judge Chamberlain noted that the Strasbourg Court’s findings were of a general nature (para. 101). He found that KlimaSeniorinnen “appears to indicate that the positive obligation imposed by Articles 2 and 8 [ECHR] extends to adopting and effectively implementing ‘adaptation measures aimed at alleviating the most severe or imminent consequences of climate change, taking into account any relevant particular needs for protection'”, stemming from the State’s underlying regulatory obligation. He notes that “[w]hat that means in the context of adaptation measures, however, is far from clear” (para. 103), given that adaptation measures were not central to the KlimaSeniorinnen case, and that the international legal framework in this regard is less well-developed than for mitigation measures. He went on to anticipate future rulings from the ECtHR, considering it

(…) likely that, if the Strasbourg Court had in a future case to apply the reasoning in [Verein KlimaSeniorinnen] to the adaptation context, it would say that:
(a) the narrow margin of appreciation in relation to the mitigation aims was justified by reference to the internationally agreed objective of carbon neutrality by 2050 and the impact of one State’s default on other States;
(b) neither of these features applies in the field of adaptation; and
(c) accordingly, in the field of adaptation, States are to be accorded a wide margin of appreciation in setting the relevant objectives and a wider margin still in setting out the proposals and policies for meeting them (by analogy with the margin accorded to the State in setting the means for achieving the mitigation objectives).

Accordingly, he found that the current adaptation framework in the United Kingdom appears to “fall comfortably within the UK’s margin of appreciation under Articles 2 and 8 ECHR” and is not “contrary to any clear and consistent line of authority from the Strasbourg Court”. On this basis, he found that there was neither an error of law nor an incompatibility with human rights law evident in this case.

Friends-of-the-Earth-v-Secretary-of-State-for-Environment-Food-and-Rural-AffairsDownload

Application to the European Court of Human Rights:
In July 2025, Friends of the Earth announced that the case had been filed as an application before the European Court of Human Rights.

More information:
For reporting on the case, see coverage from the Guardian and the Independent.

Suggested citation:
High Court of Justice for England and Wales, R (Friends of the Earth Ltd, Kevin Jordan and Doug Paulley) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Road & Rural Affairs, [2024] EWHC 2707 (Admin), 25 October 2024.

Last updated:
13 November 2024

Categories
Climate activists and human rights defenders Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Non-discrimination Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment Right to culture Right to education Right to health Right to life Right to subsistence/food Right to water Self-determination Turkey Uncategorized

A.S. & S.A. & E.N.B v. Presidency of Türkiye & The Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change

Summary:

On 13 April 2023, Türkiye submitted its updated Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The NDC states that Türkiye aims to reduce its CO2 emissions by 41% by 2030 compared to the business-as-usual scenario with 2012 as its base year, and plans on peaking emissions by 2038 at the latest. This would increase CO2 emissions by 30% until 2030. Due to this further increase in CO2 emissions, climate activists Atlas Sarrafoğlu, Ela Naz Birdal and Seren Anaçoğlu filed a lawsuit against President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and the Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change before the Council of State (the highest administrative court in Türkiye) on 8 May 2023.

The plaintiffs claimed that Türkiye’s NDC is inadequate under the Paris Agreement and that the resulting increase in CO2 emissions violates their human rights under the country’s constitution, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the European Convention on Human Rights. The rights they claimed had been violated included: the right to life, the right to intergenerational equality, the right to the protection of one’s private life, the right to health, cultural rights, the right to develop one’s material and spiritual existence, the right to live in a healthy and balanced environment, the right to education, the right to work, and the right to healthy food and water. Because of the alleged inadequacy of the NDC under the Paris Agreement, they demanded its annulment and the creation of a more ambitious commitment.

Status of Case:

On 22 December 2023, The Wave reported that the Council of State had dismissed this case without examining it, arguing that the NDC did not constitute an administrative act and was accordingly not open to judicial annulment.

Further reading:

News Article by PAMACC: https://www.pamacc.org/index.php/k2-listing/item/1440-president-recep-erdogan-of-turkey-sued-for-slow-implementiion-of-the-paris-agreement

News Article by the Turkish human rights press agency “Bianet”: https://bianet.org/haber/young-climate-activists-file-lawsuit-against-erdogan-over-inadequate-emission-goals-278474

Date last updated:

22 December 2023.

Categories
Australia Children and young people Climate activists and human rights defenders Emissions reductions/mitigation Indigenous peoples rights Right to a healthy environment Right to culture Right to education Right to health Right to life Right to subsistence/food Uncategorized

Environmental Justice Australia (EJA) v. Australia

Summary:

In October 2021, Environmental Justice Australia (EJA) filed a complaint with three Special Rapporteurs of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. This complaint was made on behalf of five young individuals residing in Australia and pertains to the ‘human rights harms’ caused by the Australian government’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and its perceived inaction regarding climate change. EJA alleges that the Australian government is breaching international agreements, such as the Paris Agreement, and various United Nations instruments, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Claim:

The claim in this case asserts that the Australian government’s actions, particularly its NDC and its inaction on climate change, violate international agreements and human rights obligations. The complaint argues that these actions infringe upon several United Nations instruments, including the Paris Agreement, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The complainants contend that the government’s contributions to climate change potentially violate fundamental rights, including the right to health, life, family relations, an adequate standard of living, education, freedom from violence or exploitation, and the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. They also assert that these actions disproportionately impact young people, First Nations peoples, and individuals with disabilities, thus violating their rights as recognized in international law. The claim in the petition urges the Special Rapporteurs to intervene by seeking clarification from the Australian government regarding the alignment of its NDC with its human rights obligations and its consistency with a 1.5-degree climate pathway. It also requests an explanation of how the government’s NDC decision-making process has engaged young people in Australia. The claim further calls on Australia to establish a 2030 emissions reduction target that complies with its human rights obligations, especially regarding the rights of young people and the complainants.

Links:

The complaint is accessible for download here and below.

20211025_14762_complaintDownload

Status of the case:

Pending.

Suggested citation:

Environmental Justice Australia (EJA) v. Australia, United Nations Special Rapporteurs, 25 October 2021 (United Nations).

Last updated:

03 November 2023.

Categories
2021 Climate-induced displacement Domestic court Human dignity Italy Non-refoulement Right to life

I.L. v. Italian Ministry of the Interior and Attorney General at the Court of Appeal of Ancona

Summary:

In the case of I.L. v. Italian Ministry of the Interior and the Attorney General at the Court of Appeal of Ancona, decided on 24 February 2021 by the Supreme Court of Cassation in Italy, a significant precedent was established in humanitarian asylum cases. The decision mandated that Italian trial judges should collectively assess situations of environmental, social, or climate degradation when evaluating eligibility for humanitarian protection, in addition to considering situations of armed conflict. The case involved a Nigerian citizen, I.L., who sought refuge in Italy, primarily due to armed paramilitary conflict in the Niger Delta region that was being exacerbated by environmental degradation, particularly numerous oil spills.

Claim:

The applicant claimed that the lower courts committed a prejudicial error by not taking into account the environmental disaster situation in the Niger Delta as a basis for humanitarian protection. He argued that the trial judge’s decision violated Legislative Decree No. 286/1998, known as the Consolidated Immigration Act, by failing to extend humanitarian protection based on the environmental disaster in his home region. The central issue at hand was to ascertain whether individuals facing a real threat to their right to life in their country of origin, due to adverse social, environmental, and climate circumstances rather than armed conflict, should be granted humanitarian protection.

Decision:

The Supreme Court of Cassation accepted the applicant’s appeal and remanded the case back to the Court of Ancona. The Court found that the applicant’s two grounds for appeal were well-founded. It recognized the existence of severe environmental instability in the Niger Delta, resulting from indiscriminate exploitation by oil companies and ethnic-political conflicts. The trial judge’s failure to consider the environmental context and widespread insecurity when assessing humanitarian protection eligibility was seen as an error.

The Court’s decision drew on international legal precedent, including the Teitiota decision from the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which recognized that environmental degradation could hinder the right to life when a state is unable or unwilling to ensure ‘access to essential natural resources, such as arable land and drinking water’. The Court’s key findings and instructions are as follows:

  1. When assessing humanitarian protection, the evaluation of widespread dangerous conditions in the applicant’s country of origin should consider specific risks to the right to life and dignified existence arising from environmental degradation, climate change, or unsustainable development of the area.
  2. Danger to an individual’s life can depend on socio-environmental conditions, not solely armed conflict. Such socio-environmental factors include human action that seriously jeopardizes an individual’s survival and that of their relatives.
  3. Trial judges are instructed to establish an ‘essential level’ below which decent living conditions are not present and the fundamental right to life is not ensured. The judge must then verify the effective assurance of this minimum threshold, which should encompass both armed conflict and other circumstances that pose a serious risk to the individual and their family’s survival, such as social, environmental, or climatic degradation or unsustainable exploitation of natural resources.
  4. The Court determined that if the situation in the country of origin does not allow for a minimum guarantee of the right to life, humanitarian protection should be granted. Importantly, this assessment now includes environmental and climatic factors influencing an individual’s decision to leave their home.

Links:

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

Status of the case:

Judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation – Second Civil Section 

Suggested citation:

I.L. v. Italian Ministry of the Interior and Attorney General at the Court of Appeal of Ancona, Supreme Court of Cassation, N. 5022/2021, 24 February 2021.

Last updated:

03 November 2023.