Category: State concerned

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
Argentina Climate activists and human rights defenders Domestic court Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment Right to health Uncategorized

Hahn et al. v APR Energy S.R.L.

Summary:

The legal action centred on the construction and operation of Matheu II and Matheu III, thermoelectric power plants in Pilar, Argentina. The plaintiffs, comprising a coalition of individuals and non-governmental organizations, argued that these projects lacked the necessary environmental assessments and contended that relying on fossil fuels for power generation ran contrary to international agreements such as the American Convention on Human Rights, the Paris Agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, among others. Initially, the Federal Court of Campana granted precautionary measures to halt construction, citing environmental and procedural concerns, safeguarding collective interests, and mitigating potential harm. However, in December 2022, they allowed limited operation of Matheu III, considering global energy challenges. In June 2023, the court denied an extension for Matheu III, citing noise pollution concerns raised by the Municipality of Pilar and emphasizing the need to balance energy production with local environmental well-being.

Claim:

The legal action was undertaken with the primary objective of preventing the construction and operation of the thermoelectric power stations Matheu II and Matheu III. The plaintiffs asserted that these plants had initiated construction without fulfilling the proper environmental assessment. Furthermore, they argued that the use of fossil fuels in power generation was in violation of international human rights treaties, climate agreements, and domestic regulations. They asserted that the operation of these power plants posed a significant threat to the environment, public health, and the fundamental human right to enjoy a healthy and balanced environment.

Decision:

Initially, the Federal Court of Campana ruled in favor of the plaintiffs by issuing precautionary measures that temporarily halted the construction and operation of the power plants. These measures were based on environmental and procedural considerations, as well as protecting collective interests and preventing potential harm, as stipulated in domestic law. However, the court’s decisions did not explicitly address the issue of climate impact.

Subsequently, Araucaria, one of the plant operators, secured a partial adjustment to the precautionary measures in December 2022. This modification permitted the temporary and limited operation of Matheu III, partially due to concerns stemming from the global energy crisis and the resultant surge in energy prices, driven in part by geopolitical events like the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

However, in June 2023, the Federal Court of Campana chose not to extend the authorization for the partial operation of Matheu III. The decision was prompted by concerns raised by the Municipality of Pilar regarding noise pollution. This ruling reflects the court’s consideration of local environmental and public health concerns, highlighting the importance of balancing energy production with environmental and societal well-being.

Links:

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

Status of the case:

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

Suggested citation:

Hahn et al. v. APR Energy S.R.L (Juvevir Asociación Civil v. APR Energy and Araucaria Energy) (Federal Court of Campagna, Argentina), Case No: FSM 116712/2017

Last updated:

03 November 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.

Categories
Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to life Right to property Romania

Declic et al. v. The Romanian Government

Summary:

In January 2023, Declic (a prominent Romanian NGO) alongside a number of individuals initiated Romania’s first-ever climate lawsuit against the government, specifically targeting Prime Minister Nicoale Ciucă and the Ministers of Environment and Energy. The lawsuit alleges that the government has failed to implement adequate measures to address and mitigate the foreseeable risks associated with the climate crisis, violating its legal obligations under the Paris Agreement. The plaintiffs are seeking fines for each day of government inaction and demanding a court order mandating immediate and comprehensive actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels, achieve climate neutrality by 2050, and increase the share of renewable energy in final energy consumption to 45% while improving energy efficiency by 13% by 2030.

Claim:

The plaintiffs assert that the government is in breach of its duty of care by applying insufficient greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2030, falling well below the EU-wide reduction goal of 55% below 1990 levels. They argue that the absence of annual carbon budgets and mechanisms for monitoring and reporting progress towards climate goals hinders the meaningful assessment of the government’s measures to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Furthermore, the lawsuit questions whether the measures taken by the government are sufficient to prevent climate change from becoming dangerous to humanity and the environment, considering the discretionary power of the government. The plaintiffs also challenge whether the government’s climate mitigation and adaptation measures meet objective standards and pass reasonableness tests set by international bodies like the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Finally, the court is called upon to determine whether the government’s measures are compatible with the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Romanian Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, including the right to life, privacy, property, health, and a healthy and ecologic environment.

Links:

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

Status of the case:

The case is currently pending before the Cluj Court of Appeal of Romania.

Suggested citation:

Declic et al. v. The Romanian Government (Cluj Court of Appeal, Romania, filed January 2023).

Last updated:

03 November 2023.

Categories
2017 Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Non-discrimination Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to life Right to property Right to subsistence/food Right to water Rights at stake The Philippines Uncategorized

Segovia et al. v. Climate Change Commission

Summary:

In 2017, a group of petitioners, including Children of the Future, filed a complaint with the Supreme Court of the Philippines, alleging that the government’s failure to fulfil its environmental responsibilities and violations of environmental laws had caused significant environmental damage, endangering the well-being, health, and property of all Filipinos. The petitioners claimed that the government’s lack of enforcement of environmental laws contributed to deteriorating air quality in Metro Manila, infringing upon their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthy environment and life. They also raised concerns about the unequal application of laws, especially in favour of car owners. The petitioners proposed measures to reduce fossil fuel consumption and sought writs of kalikasan, a legal remedy under the Philippines Constitution to protect environmental rights. The Court dismissed the application on the ground that the applicants failed to demonstrate how the authorities breached the relevant environmental law.

Claim:

The petitioners requested that the Supreme Court review and consider their complaint against the government’s environmental practices. They asserted that the government’s actions violated their constitutional rights to a healthy environment and life. They claim that the government’s lack of enforcement of environmental laws and its prioritization of car owners have caused substantial harm to the environment and their well-being. They seek the issuance of writs of kalikasan to safeguard their environmental rights and request the Court’s intervention in compelling the government to implement measures to promote sustainability. The key question at hand is whether the Philippine government’s Climate Change Commission breached the constitution by not implementing ambitious climate-related transportation policies.

Decision:

After a thorough review, the Supreme Court acknowledged the concerns of the petitioners and the significance of environmental protection. The court acknowledged that the Rule of Procedure for Environmental Cases provides leeway in terms of standing, making petitions like this permissible. However, in this specific case, the court found that the petitioners had not presented sufficient evidence to prove that the government has engaged in unlawful activities or infringed upon specific environmental laws, thereby violating their environmental rights. A petition for the writ of kalikasan must convincingly establish a clear violation of environmental statutes and regulations, rather than solely relying on the repeated assertion of constitutional rights and unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct.

The Court also took note of the government’s diligent efforts to enforce environmental laws and prioritize initiatives aimed at addressing and mitigating the effects of climate change. As a result, the petition was dismissed.

Links:

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

Status of the case:

Judgment

Suggested citation:

Supreme Court of the Philippines, Segovia et al. v. Climate Change Commission, G.R. No. 211010, 7 March 2017.

Last updated:

20 October 2023.

Categories
2022 Class action Climate activists and human rights defenders Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Indigenous peoples rights New Zealand Right to life Self-determination

Smith v. Attorney-General

Summary:

In March 2022, a prominent Māori landowner and advocate for tribal climate concerns took a significant step by bringing a case before the High Court of New Zealand. The central argument of the case was that the government had violated fundamental human rights, particularly the right to life and minority rights, due to its inadequate response to climate change. The plaintiff’s core contention was that successive governments had consistently failed to address the severe consequences of climate change, with a particular emphasis on its disproportionate impact on the Māori community.

Initially, the case centred on a single cause of action, which involved the government’s breach of duty to take all necessary steps to reduce New Zealand emissions and actively protect the plaintiff and his descendants from the adverse effects of climate change. Later, following a court order issued by Justice Johnston in May 2020, the plaintiff expanded the case to include two additional distinct causes of action. These additional claims were based on alleged violations of the rights to life and the rights of minorities as outlined in sections 8 and 20 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and the government’s failure to act in accordance with its obligations as stipulated in the Treaty of Waitangi (one of New Zealand’s founding documents, agreed in 1840 between the British Crown and Māori leaders). The Court eventually dismissed all three claims.

Claim:

The plaintiff’s claim was multi-faceted, asserting that the government’s actions, or lack thereof, constituted violations of human rights, particularly the right to life and minority rights, with a focus on the Māori population. The claim included allegations concerning the breach of duty, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and the Treaty of Waitangi.

Decision:

On July 15, 2022, the Court rendered a decision in favour of the government, dismissing all three claims presented by the plaintiff. The Court found the plaintiff’s common law duty of care claim untenable, reasoning that it failed to define specific legal obligations and exceeded the boundaries of incremental development of new duties. Moreover, the Court asserted that the creation of an effective remedy, such as court-monitored monitoring, would necessitate an institutional expertise, democratic participation, and accountability beyond the capabilities of the court process alone.

The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s assertion regarding the right to life, deeming it untenable due to the absence of substantial evidence indicating a ‘real and identifiable’ threat to individuals or groups. Instead, the Court viewed climate change as a general threat impacting all New Zealanders due to its broad-reaching consequences. The Court further noted that the plaintiff’s argument concerning the breach of minority rights lacked merit since the relevant regulations primarily prohibited the Crown from infringing upon minority rights rather than imposing positive duties.

Additionally, the Court clarified that claims based on the Treaty and fiduciary obligations were not valid, as they hinged on the same general duty initially put forth in the first cause of action, which the Court had already rejected as unsound. The Court emphasized that the plaintiff’s contention that this duty was owed exclusively to the Māori population, rather than the wider public, further undermined its validity.

Links:

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

Status of the case:

Judgment

Suggested citation:

Michael John Smith v. The Attorney-General, [2022] NZHC 1693 (15 July 2022), The High Court of New Zealand.

Last updated:

20 October 2023.

Categories
2019 Climate activists and human rights defenders Deforestation Domestic court Human dignity Pakistan Public trust doctrine Right to freedom of expression Right to life Rights at stake Rights of nature

Sheikh Asim Farooq v. Federation of Pakistan etc.

Summary:

In Pakistan, civil society members have taken legal action against multiple government departments, including the Planning and Development Department, Punjab Environmental Protection Department, and Housing & Urban Development Department. They assert that these departments have neglected their responsibilities regarding the planting, protection, management, and conservation of trees and forests in Punjab. According to the petitioners, this neglect not only violates legal obligations but also infringes upon their constitutional rights, including the rights to life, liberty, dignity, and access to public places of entertainment. This case highlights the government’s failure to address these critical environmental issues.

Claim:

The central argument in this case is that the Pakistani government must be compelled to enforce environmental laws and policies, such as the Forest Act, the Trees Act, and various forestry and climate change policies. The petitioners argue that this action is essential to protect their fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution. They specifically cite Article 9 (right to life and liberty), Article 14 (right to dignity), Article 26 (right to access public places of entertainment), and Article 38(b) (provision of available leisure places). The petitioners assert that the government’s failure to safeguard natural resources and forests, in light of their drastic depletion and the doctrine of public trust, clearly violates their constitutional rights and warrants judicial intervention.

Decision:

Following the lawsuit, the Lahore High Court granted a writ of mandamus in favour of the petitioners. In its ruling, the court emphasised that international environmental principles, such as sustainable development, the precautionary principle, the public trust doctrine, inter-and intra-generational equity, water justice, food justice, in dubio pro natura, and the polluter pays principle, are integral to Pakistani jurisprudence.

The court stressed the government’s duty to effectively manage and protect forests and urban tree planting, citing specific laws to support its stance. The government was directed to actively adhere to environmental policies, particularly those related to climate change. The court also underscored the importance of environmental rights and the government’s responsibility to combat the impacts of climate change on forests and biodiversity. The court’s order included several instructions, such as enforcing policies, amending legal requirements, and mandating regular reporting on forest growth. It also addressed penalties for non-compliance and encouraged housing societies to support tree planting in green areas, with consequences for the unjustified removal of trees.

Links:

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

Status of the case:

Judgment

Suggested citation:

Sheikh Asim Farooq v. Federation of Pakistan, Writ Petition No. 192069 of 2018, Lahore High Court, Judgment of 30 August 2019.

Last updated:

20 October 2023.

Categories
Biodiversity Domestic court Just transition litigation Right to a healthy environment Right to assembly and association Right to freedom of expression Right to health Right to property South Korea

Korean Biomass Plaintiffs v. South Korea

Summary:

On September 28, 2020, a group of solar developers in Seoul, South Korea filed a complaint against the South Korean government, claiming that the government’s subsidies for biomass generation were unconstitutional. The plaintiffs include various stakeholders, such as solar cooperatives, cooperative members, residents near planned biomass facilities, ordinary citizens of South Korea, and even a Canadian citizen.

The central argument in their complaint revolves around the idea that the government’s support for biomass generation, classified as ‘renewable energy’ under South Korean legislation, qualifies for renewable energy certificates (RECs) and associated subsidies, which they argue infringes upon the environmental rights of the citizens. They assert that these subsidies lead to increased air pollution and climate-related damage.

The plaintiffs also argue that these policies negatively affect the property rights of renewable project owners. The subsidies allocated to biomass generation reduce the available support for solar and wind energy, which, in turn, impacts the expected profits for those involved in renewable energy projects.

The key issue at the heart of this case is whether South Korea’s subsidies for biomass generation violate the constitutional environmental rights of solar owners and residents living near these facilities.

Claim:

The claim made by the solar developers and other stakeholders in Seoul, South Korea, is that the government’s subsidies for biomass generation are unconstitutional and that these subsidies infringe upon the environmental rights of citizens. They argue that these subsidies contribute to increased air pollution and climate-related harm, affecting the well-being of the populace. Furthermore, they claim that these policies encroach upon the property rights of renewable project owners by reducing support for solar and wind energy, impacting the expected profits of those engaged in renewable energy projects. The core contention is that these subsidies for biomass generation violate the constitutional environmental rights of solar owners and nearby residents.

Decision:

The case is currently pending before the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Korea.

Links:

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

Suggested citation:

Korean Biomass Plaintiffs v. South Korea (28 September 2020, Constitutional Court).

Last updated:

20 October 2023.