Category: 2020

Categories
2020 Business responsibility / corporate cases Deciding Body Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation France Keywords Paris Agreement Rights at stake State concerned Year

Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v. Total

Summary:
On 25 June 2026, the Paris Court of Appeal ruled that TotalEnergies had failed to prepare an adequate vigilance plan under the French Law on the Duty of Vigilance of 27 March 2017, among other things because it had failed to include “scope 3” emissions, those associated with combustion of its fossil fuel products, in its “vigilance plan” required under the law.

The case began in 2019, when along with 13 municipalities and four other NGOs, the French environmental organization Notre Affaire à Tous requested the oil company Total to take measures to prevent human rights and environmental violations. After a meeting with Total in June 2019, the complainants issued a “mise en demeure” (a letter of formal notice) to the oil giant that is responsible for more than two-thirds of France’s greenhouse gas emissions. They granted Total three months to include reasonable greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in its “due diligence plan” before they would file a lawsuit.   

On 28 January 2020, the complainants asked the District Court of Nanterre to order Total to align its practices with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. According to the complainants, Total has not provided sufficient detail in its “vigilance plan” to reduce its emissions and that the company is still not in compliance with international climate agreements, such as the 2015 Paris Agreement. Among other requests, the complainants ask the Court to order Total to reduce its net emissions by 40% by 2040 (compared to 2019).

The complainants argued that Total’s obligation to take measures to prevent human rights and environmental violations stems from the French Law on the Duty of Vigilance. This law obliges a company to establish a detailed “vigilance plan” which identifies and seeks to mitigate the risks to human rights, fundamental freedoms, the environment, and public health that may result directly or indirectly from a company’s activities.

Total claimed that the Nanterre District Court lacked jurisdiction and requested that the case be brought before the Commercial Court. On 11 February 2021, the pre-trial judge rejected this request and confirmed the jurisdiction of the District Court. In order to settle this dispute, the Versailles Court of Appeal confirmed the District Court’s jurisdiction and based its decision on “the legislator’s intention to entrust actions relating to ecological damage to specially designated judicial courts only.”

Voluntary interventions:
Amnesty International France and the municipality of Poitiers voluntarily intervened in the initial proceedings as ancillary parties (‘voluntary intervention’). In 2022, they were joined by voluntary interventions from the City of New York and the City of Paris, both in support of the plaintiffs, arguing that they had a significant interest in climate mitigation.

In its 2024 ruling (below), the Paris Court of Appeal found that Amnesty International and the City of Poitiers lacked an interest in the case, noting with regard to the latter that it had failed to establish that the territory under its jurisdiction is subject to specific harm related to climate change. Likewise, the City of New York had insufficiently demonstrated its authority to intervene voluntarily in these proceedings, rendering the intervention null and void pursuant to Article 117 of the French Code of Civil Procedure.

However, the Court held that the City of Paris had a legitimate interest in preserving its rights by supporting the legal actions brought before the Paris Judicial Court aimed at mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. It declared the City of Paris’s voluntary intervention admissible, noting its engagement with mitigation action.

Dismissal of the preventive suit in July 2023:
On 6 July 2023, a pre-trial judge dismissed the preventive lawsuit on procedural grounds, noting that the plaintiffs’ notice to sue and their claims in the summons were not identical, as well as standing concerns in climate litigation generally.

Appeal:
The plaintiffs appealed the 2023 decision to the Paris Court of Appeal. On 18 June 2024, Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal of the case, meaning that it will proceed to trial. The Court declared the claims by the associations Notre Affaire à Tous, Sherpa, Zéa, and France Nature Environnement admissible. In doing so, it held that claims made in summons may be more expansive than those in a notice to sue, and also that claims under the French Civil Code concerning environmental harm have a different purpose than those brought under the French law on the duty of vigilance, meaning that the former is not displaced by the existence of the latter.

Concerning the standing of the plaintiff municipalities, the Court noted the general competence clause, based on article L2121-29 of the general code of local authorities, that grants them competence concerning the affairs of the municipality affecting a local public interest, with their action being limited to the territories they administer. However, it held that the applicant municipalities had insufficiently shown a specific interest to sue, e.g. specific climate-related impacts on their territory.

Ruling of 25 June 2026:
On 25 June 2026, the Paris Court of Appeal ruled that Total had failed to prepare an adequate vigilance plan, among other things because it had failed to include ‘scope 3’ emissions, those associated with combustion of its fossil fuel products, in the plan.

The court ruled that:

  • 1) the climate risks and impacts to which the company may contribute through its operations fall within the scope of the duty of care law of parent companies and contracting entities.
  • 2) The negative climate impacts caused by the release of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, resulting from TotalEnergies’s operations, must be identified in the company’s risk assessment as part of its due diligence plan, as part of the duty of companies to take action based on their specific circumstances regarding serious risks and harms related to climate change.
  • 3) Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions are considered emissions resulting from the group’s activities under the law, due, in particular, to the inherent link between oil and gas production and the combustion of these products by users. Consequently, TotalEnergies’ due diligence plan, which did not include Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions, is incomplete. The court ordered TotalEnergies to complete its due diligence plan within six months, with provisional enforcement, by including Scope 3 emissions and related measures in its risk mapping.

The court clarified that since climate risks pose a serious, present, and future threat to the enjoyment of human rights—as recognized by the scientific community and international courts—companies must take these risks into account in their due diligence plans, as identifying them is an essential part of preventing serious human rights abuses. It held that the duty of vigilance law is not intended to hold companies liable for the risks related to climate change that result from all human activity on the planet since the Industrial Revolution. Instead, it calls on them to take preventive action, in accordance with their specific circumstances, to address the serious risks and harms to which their activities contribute, in line with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct—which served as the framework for the legal provisions of the French law—by establishing a duty of care that is a duty of means rather than a duty of result. In doing so, it held that since climate risks constitute a serious, present, and future threat to the enjoyment of human rights according to the consensus view of scientists and international courts, companies must take these risks into account in their due diligence plans, as their identification is part of preventing serious human rights violations (citing the ECtHR’s judgment in KlimaSeniorinnen and the ICJ’s climate advisory opinion).

The case was adjourned until 21 January 2027, before the pretrial judge of the 34th Civil Chamber of the Paris Judicial Court, for review of the incorporation of these measures into the due diligence plan.

Suggested case citation:
Nanterre District Court, Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v. Total SA, complaint of 28 January 2020.

Paris Court of Appeal, Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v. Total SA, N° RG 23/14348, Judgment of 18 June 2024.

Paris Court of Appeal, Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v. Total SA, N° RG 23/14348, Judgment of 25 June 2026.

Case documents:

The ruling of 25 June 2026, and related press release (both in French) are available for download below.

Jugement-34e-chambre-25-juin-2026Download
CP-25.06.2026-34eme-chambreDownload

Links:

  • For the full complaint (in French), see here.
  • For an unofficial translation of the complaint (in English), see here.
  • For the order confirming the jurisdiction of the Nanterre District Court (in French), see here.
  • For the 2024 judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal, see here.

Last updated:
25 June 2026.

Categories
2020 Climate activists and human rights defenders Domestic court Fossil fuel extraction Mexico Right to a healthy environment Right to health Separation of powers

Mexican Center for Environmental Law v Mexico

Summary:
This case revolves around the 2020 amendments to Mexico’s General Law on Climate Change, specifically the termination of the Climate Change Fund established in 2012. The fund’s purpose was to attract and direct resources, both national and international, towards climate change initiatives. The Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA) filed a petition seeking legal protection to annul this aspect of the reform, arguing that it was regressive in safeguarding the human right to a healthy environment and exacerbated transparency issues. The initial court ruling dismissed the request, stating that the reform did not impede any rights but rather reallocated resources to the Federal Expenditure Budget. CEMDA appealed to a Collegiate Tribunal, which, recognising the case’s significance, referred it to the Mexican Supreme Court. On 12 April 2023, the Supreme Court maintained that judges should not assess the suitability of public policies, emphasising that climate change strategy falls under the executive and legislative branches’ jurisdiction. The Court upheld the prior decision, rejecting CEMDA’s claim.

Claim:
The contention in this case asserts that eliminating the Climate Change Fund through the 2020 amendments to Mexico’s General Law on Climate Change infringes the constitutional right to a healthy environment. CEMDA contends that this modification impedes the effective addressing of climate change by dismantling a dedicated fund intended to attract public and private resources for climate-related actions. In addition, CEMDA maintains that the reform gives the government discretionary power to utilise these same resources to support fossil fuels, potentially putting Mexico’s international commitments to environmental preservation at risk. Thus, the fundamental issue at hand is whether the elimination of the Climate Change Fund breaches the constitutional right to a healthy environment.

Decision:
On 12 April 2023, the Mexican Supreme Court ruled that the elimination of the Climate Change Fund does not violate the constitutional right to a healthy environment. The Court held that it is not within the jurisdiction of judges to evaluate the suitability of public policies; such decisions fall under the purview of the executive and legislative branches. The Court emphasised that the modification of the strategy to combat climate change, including the dissolution of the Climate Change Fund, is a matter of public policy, and legislators have the freedom to determine appropriate mechanisms. The Supreme Court concluded that CEMDA’s arguments failed to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of the reform. Moreover, the Court found no evidence that the resources formerly allocated to the Climate Change Fund, post-modification, would not be used correctly, transparently, and equitably. Consequently, the lower court’s decision was upheld, and CEMDA’s claim was rejected.

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

Status of the case:
Decided.

Suggested citation:
Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA) v Mexico [2020] Amparo No 1200/2020, decided 12 April 2023.

Last updated:
12 December 2023.

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

Lho’imggin et al. v. Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
2020 Business responsibility / corporate cases Deciding Body Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Keywords Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to life Rights at stake The United Kingdom Year

R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) v Heathrow Airport Ltd

Summary:
On 26 June 2018, the UK Secretary of State for Transport adopted the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS), which governs the construction of a third runway at Heathrow Airport. This led to challenges from several environmental campaigners, including Friends of the Earth Ltd and Plan B Earth. Among other grounds, it was argued that the Secretary of State had disregarded the UK Government’s commitments under the Paris Agreement (ratified on 17 November 2016 by the UK) when designating the ANPS.

In 2019 the Divisional Court dismissed all of the objectors’ claims in two separate judgments. However, in 2020 the Court of Appeal allowed part of Friends of the Earth’s and Plan B Earth’s grounds, and held that the ANPS was unlawful (see judgment here). The Secretary of State did not appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision. However, Heathrow Airport Ltd, owner of Heathrow Airport, sought and was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court (UKSC). Heathrow Airport stated that it had already invested a large sum of money in promoting the third runway. On 16 December 2020, the Supreme Court unanimously decided to allow Heathrow Airport’s appeal on all grounds, ruling that the ANPS was lawful. However, the judgment states clearly that the climate must be considered at the planning permission stage of the third runway.

Human rights claims:
Under Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, Friends of the Earth et al. argued against interpreting section 5(8) of the Planning Act 2008 in a way that excluded consideration of the Paris Agreement temperature limit. This would result in the development of large-scale national projects posing an unacceptable risk to people’s lives and homes, in breach of Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The Supreme Court found that this reasoning must fail for two reasons. First, this argument had already been raised as a separate ground before the Divisional Court, where it was rejected. This decision was not appealed to the Court of Appeal, and was therefore not considered subject to the UKSC proceedings. Secondly, even if this argument were within the scope of the appeal, it would not have succeeded because any effect of the third runway on the lives and families of those affected by the consequences of climate change would result not from the designation of the ANPS but from granting permission to develop the construction project. As Heathrow Airport Ltd. had conceded, and the respondents agreed, the ANPS requires the third runway to be evaluated against the emissions targets in place if and when an application to develop the runway were to be made (para 113 of the UKSC judgment).

Further information:
Shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision, Plan B Earth announced in a press release that it intends to take the judgment to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that reliance upon the 2 degrees Celsius target is a violation of the right to life (see here). Additionally, Plan B Earth served a pre-action letter on the UK Government alleging that its failure to develop a plan to address climate change is a violation of human rights as well as domestic and international law (see here).

Date of decision:
16 December 2020

Suggested case citation:
UK Supreme Court, R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) v. Heathrow Airport Ltd, UKSC 2020/0042, Judgment of 16 December 2020, [2020] UKSC 52

Case documents:
For the full judgment, click here.

To watch a webcast of the hearing, click here.

Further reading:
Joanne Hawkins, ‘A lesson in un-creativity: (R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) v Heathrow Airport Ltd [2020] UKSC 52’, 23(4) Environmental Law Review (2021), 344-349. Available here.

Categories
2020 Business responsibility / corporate cases Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation France Standing/admissibility

Les Amis de la Terre, Survie v. Total SA

Summary:

Total S.A. is a French energy company with oil projects in Uganda and Tanzania. According to the French “loi de vigilance”, companies with a certain size that meet certain criteria must develop a “plan de vigilance” documenting how they and the companies in their supply chain respect human rights and the environment in their business activities. The applicants claim that Total’s environmental plan (part of the “plan de vigilance”) is not suitable for achieving the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement. In addition to better respect for human rights, the NGOs have demanded that Total take more effective measures to protect the environment. The first instance court, the Nanterre Civil Court of Justice, found that it had no jurisdiction over the case and that it fell instead within the jurisdiction of the commercial courts. The applicant NGOs appealed. The Court of Appeal of Versailles confirmed the judgment of the first instance, and the NGOs are now considering filing an appeal before the French Supreme Court.

Admissibility:
The Court confirmed the judgment of the first instance court, which had decided that the dispute fell within the jurisdiction of the commercial court. 

Date of filing:
16 March 2020

Date of decision:
10 December 2020

Suggested citation:
Court of Appeal of Versailles, Les Amis de la Terre, Survie v. Total SA, case no. RG20/01692, decision of 10 December 2020.

Full judgment:
The full judgment is available here.

Categories
2020 Climate activists and human rights defenders Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Extraterritorial obligations Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to life The Netherlands

Greenpeace Netherlands v. State of the Netherlands (KLM)

Summary:

During the Covid-19 pandemic, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines struggled with serious financial difficulties. To support the airline during the crisis, the Dutch government granted KLM a bailout package totalling 3.4 billion Euros. Along with the support package, a number of conditions were imposed on KLM. These included a set of sustainability requirements and a requirement to reduce CO2 emissions. As a result, Greenpeace Netherlands sued the Dutch government before the District Court of the Hague on 7 October 2020. Greenpeace claimed that the conditions imposed were not sufficient to achieve the climate goals of the Paris Agreement and that the state should either have imposed a cap on CO2 emissions on the airline or should not have granted the bailout package at all. In Greenpeace’s view, the state has thus breached its duty of care to prevent dangerous climate change, following the ruling of the Dutch Supreme Court in the Urgenda Foundation case, thereby allegedly violating of Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

In its ruling of 9 December 2020, the court ruled against Greenpeace, reasoning that neither the Paris Agreement nor other international climate agreements oblige the Dutch government to reduce CO2 emissions from international aviation. According to the court, the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 stipulates that cooperation with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is required for CO2 reduction in international aviation. The Paris Agreement therefore only contains the obligation to reduce domestic emissions, but not emissions from international air traffic. Furthermore, the court found that the conditions requested by Greenpeace go beyond the ICAO’s resolution on CO2 emissions and that the conditions imposed by the Dutch government are in accordance with all international obligations in this regard. The court concluded that there was no obligation of the State of the Netherlands which was violated by granting KLM the bailout package with its conditions.

Date of decision:

9 December 2020

Suggested case citation:

District Court of The Hague, Greenpeace Netherlands v. State of the Netherlands, Judgment of 9 December 2020, C/09/600364 / KG ZA 20-933, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:12440.

Case ducuments:

District-Court-Judgment-in-DutchDownload
Plaintiffs-advocacy-note-in-DutchDownload
Notice-of-possible-legal-procedure-in-DutchDownload

Date last updated:

11 January 2023

Categories
2020 Climate activists and human rights defenders Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Fossil fuel extraction Mexico Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment Uncategorized

Greenpeace Mexico v. Ministry of Energy and Others (on the National Electric System policies)

Summary:

In Spring of 2020 the Government of Mexico issued the following two policies: The Agreement of the National Centre of Energy Control (CENACE) “to ensure the Efficiency, Quality, Reliability, Continuity and Safety of the National Electric System, due to the recognition of the SARS-CoV2 virus disease epidemic (COVID-19)” and the Ministry of Energy’s “Reliability, Security, Continuity and Quality in the National Electrical System” policy. The directives provided for the closure of
renewable energy power plants and promoted oil-based power generation on the grounds that intermittent generation has a negative impact on the national power grid.

On 25 May 2020 Greenpeace filed a lawsuit against the Government of Mexico before the District Court in Administrative Matters in Mexico City. Greenpeace argued that the policies violated the constitutional rights to a healthy environment and sustainable development and Mexico’s international environmental commitments to reduce CO2 emissions.

Both the District Court and the First Circuit Collegiate Tribunal (appeals court) found the policies to violate constitutional rights and international climate agreements.

Claims:

Greenpeace claimed that the right to a healthy environment and numerous international agreements, namely the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement, had been violated. Both policies would diminish environmental protection and increase CO2 emissions. This would contravene the named conventions and would violate the constitutional right to a healthy environment.

Decision:

The appeals court ruled that, besides the fact that the authorities were not competent to issue the policies in question, the implementation of those policies would violate the right to a healthy environment. Encouraging the production and consumption of fossil fuels generates more greenhouse gas emissions which pollute the environment and thus damage the right to a healthy environment. In its decision, the court relied on the principles of in dubio pro natura, civic participation, non-regression, and the inclusion of future generations.

Date of decision:

17 November 2020

Suggested case citation:

Second District Court in Administrative Matters of Mexico City, Greenpeace Mexico v. Ministry of Energy and Others (on the National Electric System policies) , Judgment of 17 November 2020, 104/2022.

Case documents:

ComplaintDownload

Preliminary InjunctionDownload

District Court Judgment declaring policies unconstitutionalDownload

Date last updated:

26 March 2024

Categories
2020 Canada Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Fossil fuel extraction Non-discrimination Public trust doctrine Right to life Standing/admissibility

Cecilia La Rose v Her Majesty the Queen

Facts of the case:

Plaintiffs comprising of 15 children and youths from various parts of Canada sued the Government and Attorney General of Canada alleging violations of the right to life and right to equality under Sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the constitutional and common law duty to protect the integrity of common natural resources in public trust. According to the plaintiffs, the impugned conduct of the respondents consisted in: continuing to cause, contribute to and allow a level of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions incompatible with a Stable Climate System (defined as a climate capable of sustaining human life and liberties); adopting GHG emission targets that are inconsistent with the best available science about what is necessary to avoid dangerous climate change and restore a Stable Climate System; failing to meet the Defendants’ own GHG emission targets; and actively participating in and supporting the development, expansion and operation of industries and activities involving fossil fuels that emit a level of GHGs incompatible with a Stable Climate System.

The defendants, while accepting the plaintiffs’ concerns about the seriousness of climate change and its potential impacts, filed a motion to strike their claim alleging that their claim is not justiciable.

Date of decision:

27 October 2020

Admissibility:

On 27 October 2020 the Federal Court in Ottawa granted the defendants’ motion. The Court answered the question of justiciability of the claims of Charter violations for the reason that the impugned conduct is of undue breadth and diffuse nature, and that the remedies sought by the plaintiffs were inappropriate. The Court also found that it had no constitutional obligation to intervene on the matter as there is room for disagreement between reasonable people on how climate change should be addressed. On the issue of justiciability of the public trust doctrine invoked by the plaintiffs, the Court found that the question of existence of the doctrine is a legal question which courts can resolve. However, the Court found that the plaintiffs’ claim did not disclose a reasonable prospect of success for the purposes of its admissibility.

Merits:

NA

Status of the case:

The plaintiffs have appealed against the Federal Court’s order before the Federal Court of Appeal.

Suggested case citation:

Federal Court of Ottawa, Cecilia La Rose v Her Majesty the Queen, T-1750-19, judgment of 27 October 2020, 2020 FC 1008

Case documents:

For the complaint filed by the plaintiffs on 25 October 2019, click here.

For the Government’s statement of defence notified on 7 February 2020, click here.

For the plaintiff’s reply to the Government’s motion to strike, filed on 31 August 2020, click here.

For the Federal Court of Ottawa’s order dated 27 October 2020, click here.

For the Memorandum of Appeal filed by the plaintiffs on 5 March 2021, click here.

Further reading:

Camille Cameron, Riley Weyman, ‘Recent Youth-Led and Rights-Based Climate Change Litigation in Canada: Reconciling Justiciability, Charter Claims and Procedural Choices,’ 34(1) Journal of Environmental Law (2021), Pages 195–207. Available here.

Categories
2020 Austria Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Keywords Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to life Rights at stake Standing/admissibility State concerned Year

Greenpeace et al. v. Austria (The Zoubek Case)

Summary:
On 20 February 2020, Greenpeace Austria and other applicants called on the Austrian Constitutional Court to invalidate the preferential tax treatment of aviation companies over rail transportation companies in two Austrian tax laws. They claim that this preferential treatment would lead to an unjustified favoring of passenger air traffic and a disadvantage for less climate-damaging means of transport (e.g. railroads). Furthermore, the value-added tax exemption for cross-border flights and the kerosene exemption for domestic flights lead to higher prices for rail than for air travel and thus, contribute to climate change. Against this background, the applicants alleged that their rights under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) were violated, since the Austrian State has not fulfilled its duty to protect its citizens from the consequences of climate change.

On 30 September 2020, the Constitutional Court dismissed the application as inadmissible because it considered that the plaintiffs were not covered by the challenged legislation, which does not apply to rail transport, but only to air transport.

One of the applicants, who suffers from multiple sclerosis and Uhthoff’s syndrome, took this case to the European Court of Human Rights. He alleges a violation of his rights under, among others, Article 8 ECHR. The case, Müllner v. Austria, was filed at the ECtHR on 25 March 2021.

Date of decision:
30 September 2020

Status of case:
Dismissed

Suggested citation:
Austrian Verfassungsgerichtshof, Greenpeace et al. v. Austria, Decision of 30 September 2020 – G 144-145/2020-13, V 332/2020-13.

Links:
For the decision of the Constitutional Court, see here.

For the application, see here.

Categories
2020 Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Mexico Non-discrimination Right to a healthy environment Right to health

Greenpeace Mexico v. Ministry of Energy and Others

Summary:
This indirect amparo suit was brought by Greenpeace Mexico against the Mexican government, contesting the Mexican Sectoral Energy Plan for 2020-2024. Greenpeace argued that this policy promotes the use of fossil fuels over sustainable energy sources, thereby violating fundamental rights. The case invokes the pro persona principle and the human and constitutional rights to equality, a healthy environment, the protection of health, and access to renewable energy, as well as the legality principle. It also invokes the principle of progressive interpretation of human rights and the concept of positive and negative obligations.

In 2020, a Mexico City District Court ordered the suspension of the policy in an injunction.

Procedural steps:
The Third District Administrative Court for Mexico City declined to hear the case on grounds of lack of specialization in the matter. On 8 September 2020, the Mexico City District Court accepted to hear the case.

On 21 September 2020, the Mexico City District Court issued an injunction suspending the Sectoral Energy Plan (2020-2024). The court noted the imminence and irreparability of the harms at stake, finding that the it was an ‘indisputable fact’ that the limitation of the production and use of renewable energies encourages the operation of conventional electricity generation technologies using fossil fuels and thereby causing greater emissions, which affects human healthy and the environment. Because of this, the degree of imminence and irreparability of the risk at stake did not require specific proof, because it had been established through logical reasoning (p. 29).

Date of filing:
20 August 2020

Suggested citation:
Mexico City District Court, Greenpeace Mexico v. Ministry of Energy and Others, injunction no. 372/2020, 21 September 2020.

More information:
The full text of the injunction is provided on climatecasechart.com.