Category: State concerned

Categories
2021 Brazil Deforestation Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment

Laboratório do Observatório do Clima v. Minister of Environment and Brazil

Facts of the case:

This is a class action suit brought before the 7th Federal Environmental and Agrarian Court of the Judiciary Section of Amazonas, by a network of 71 civil society organizations against the Environmental Ministry and the Brazilian Government. The petitioners allege that the respondents are committing a systematic violation of the right to an ecologically balanced environment as well as Brazil’s obligation under the Paris Agreement by- failing to update and implement Brazil’s ‘National Policy on Climate Change’ pursuant to the federal climate legislation, especially in the face of the updates in IPCC’s 6th Assessment Report; downgrading the ambition in Brazil’s ‘Nationally Determined Contributions’ communication under the Paris Agreement; failing to address the problem of deforestation in the Amazon; disproportionately favouring and intensifying the use of fossil fuel over renewable sources in its energy sector; and reducing the powers and capabilities of institutions for environmental protection that make up the national system for environmental protection and climate control, and thereby paralysing the accountability processes.

The reliefs sought by the petitioners include a declaration of non-compliance with constitutional law, and a mandatory injunction. As for the latter, the respondents ask for the preparation of an updated National Policy on Climate Change which takes into consideration all sectors of the economy, is in strict compliance with the federal climate legislation and principles recognised in the Paris Agreement, informed by the IPCC’s latest Assessment Report and the Paris Agreement’s 1.5ºC temperature target.   

Date of institution of proceedings:

26 October 2021

Admissibility:

TBD

Merits:

TBD:

Reliefs Awarded:

TBD

Status of the case:

Pending.

Further information:

On 11 November 2021, Judge Mara Elisa Andrade scheduled a conciliatory hearing between the parties to the case, which was subsequently cancelled on 25 November 2021 owing to the defendants’ lack of interest in settling the dispute through conciliation.

Case documents:

Petition (in Portuguese)

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

Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v. France (‘L’affaire du siècle’)

Summary:
The L’affaire du siècle (French for “affair of the century”) is a French climate justice campaign initiated by four organisations (Fondation pour la nature et l’homme, Greenpeace France, Notre affaire à tous and Oxfam France) on 17 December 2018 to bring the French State to justice for its inaction in the fight against global warming. After the French State rejected the campaigners’ demand, a legal action against the State was filed with the Paris Administrative Court on 14 March 2019.

On 3 February 2021, in a decision that the associations described as ‘a historic victory for the climate’, this court confirmed the existence of a causal link between environmental damage and the failure of the State to adequately combat climate change. It ordered the State to submit written observations within a two-month time frame.

On 14 October 2021, in its final decision, the court instructed the French State to take immediate and concrete measures to combat climate change and to repair the damage caused by its inaction by 31 December 2022.

Rights invoked:
Among other things, the applicant organisations relied on Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the French Charter of the Environment, as well as the “right to a preserved climate system”. The plaintiffs argued that this right stems from national and international law such as the Stockholm Declaration, the World Charter for Nature, the Rio Declaration, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement, the Climate action and renewable energy package for 2020.

Findings on the merits:
The court found that the State had not respected its greenhouse gas reductions commitments and had therefore committed a “fault”. It accordingly held that, “[i]n line with the commitments that it had made within the framework of the first carbon budget, which it failed to respect, the State must be regarded as responsible […] for part of the ecological damage observed”.

The Administrative Court of Paris thereby confirmed on 3 February 2021 that there was a causal link between the environmental damage and the inaction of the French government in combating climate change. In other words, it recognized that the government’s inaction had caused ecological damage, and that the State should be held responsible for at least part of this damage. The court ordered the government to show, within two-months, the measures it intended to take against climate change. The court reserved the rest of its judgment until after it had received these submissions.

In its final decision on 14 October 2021, the Administrative Court of Paris instructed the Prime Minister and the relevant ministers to take all possible measures to combat climate change and to repair the ecological damage and prevent it from getting worse. The Court specified the damage in the amount of the uncompensated share of greenhouse gas emissions under the initial carbon budget, i.e. 15 million tons of CO2 equivalents. It ordered that the recuperation of this damage must be effective no later than 31 December 2022. However, the Court did not consider it appropriate to impose a penalty on its order.

The Court noted that it is not its role to assess whether the totality of the measures taken is sufficient or not. Therefore, the specific measures to implement this recuperation may take various forms, and are left to the discretion of the French government. In its findings, the Court referred to the Commune de Grande-Synthe decision of the Conseil d’État (“Council of State”) of 1 July 2021. This decision states that the current measures are not sufficient to achieve the necessary reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Date of filing:
14 March 2019

Date of decision:
14 October 2021

Links:
For the full text of the final decision of 14 October 2021 (in French), see here.

For the full text of the first decision of 3 February 2021 (in French), see here.

For an unofficial translation of the first decision of 3 February 2021 (in English), see here.  

For an unofficial translation of the State’s reply (in English), see here.

For the plaintiff’s reply to the State’s arguments (in French), see here.

The applicant organisations are active on Twitter at @laffairedusiecl, and they have a website that can be found at https://laffairedusiecle.net/.

Suggested citation:
Paris Administrative Court, Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v. France (‘L’affaire du siècle’), Decision of 3 February 2021, Nos. 1904967, 1904968, 1904972, and 1904976/4.

Paris Administrative Court, Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v. France (‘L’affaire du siècle’), Decision of 14 October 2021, Nos. 1904967, 1904968, 1904972, and 1904976/4.

Further reading:
Christel Cournil, Antoine Le Dylio, Paul Mougeolle, ‘L’affaire du Siècle : French Climate Litigation between Continuity and Legal Innovations’, 14(1) Carbon & Climate Law Review (2020), 223-233. Available here.

Categories
2021 Domestic court Indigenous peoples' rights Just transition litigation Norway Right to culture

Statnett SF et al. v. Sør-Fosen sijte et al.

Summary:
In this judgment of 11 October 2021, the Supreme Court of Norway found that the construction of two wind power plants on the Fosen peninsula interfered with the rights of reindeer herders to enjoy their own culture under Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Supreme Court unanimously found that there had been an interference with this right, and accordingly invalidated the wind power licence and the expropriation decision.

Facts of the case:
In 2010, two wind power plants (the Roan and Storheia plants) received a license from the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate. These plants are located within the Fosen grazing district, where the Sør-Fosen sijte and Nord-Fosen siida keep their reindeer. In 2013, the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy rejected their claim that the construction of the wind power plants interfered with their right to cultural enjoyment. Construction on the plants commenced while the issue was pending before the courts, and the two plants – which are part of the largest onshore wind power project in Europe — were ready to become operational in 2019 and 2020, respectively.

Merits:
The main issue at stake before the Supreme Court was whether the development interfered with the reindeer herders’ rights under Article 27 ICCPR. That provision enshrines the right of persons belonging to an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority to enjoy their own culture, in community with the other members of their group. It was undisputed before the Supreme Court that reindeer husbandry is a protected cultural practice. The Supreme Court relied on the Court of Appeal’s finding that the winter pastures near Storheia and Roan had in practice been lost to reindeer husbandry, and that the wind power plants in question are a threat to the reindeer industry’s existence on Fosen peninsula absent remedial measures.    

The Supreme Court, relying on the work of the UN Human Rights Committee, held that the total effect of the development in question determines whether a violation of the ICCPR right has taken place. Although there is no room for a proportionality assessment, a balance must be struck if the rights under Article 27 ICCPR conflict with other fundamental rights. The Supreme Court established that the right to a healthy environment might constitute such a conflicting right.

The Supreme Court found that the herders’ cultural rights would face significant adverse effects and be violated if satisfactory remedial measures were not implemented. The Supreme Court agreed that a “green shift” and increased renewable energy production are important, but found that there were alternatives that were less intrusive for the reindeer herders less, so that there was no collision between environmental interests and the reindeers’ right to cultural enjoyment in this case.   

Remedial awards:
In its ruling, the Court of Appeal had previously stipulated sizeable compensation for the winter feeding of fenced-in reindeer, and on this basis it had found no violation of the right to cultural enjoyment. In the Supreme Court’s view, such a solution was too uncertain to be a determining factor in whether Article 27 ICCPR had been violated. In any event, the courts could not rely on such a measure as a part of the reindeer herders’ duty to adapt.  

Separate opinions:
N/A

Implementation:
N/A

Date of judgment:
11 October 2021

Links:
A summary of the judgment (in English) is available here.

The full text of the judgment (in Norwegian) is available here. An English translation is available here.

Suggested citation:
Supreme Court of Norway, Statnett SF et al. v. Sør-Fosen sijte, HR-2021-1975-S, Judgment of 11 October 2021.

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