Category: Year

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

In Re Tax Benefits for Aviation

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

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

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 The court determined that the contested provision was no longer in force, leading to a lack of standing for the applicants.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

Link:
The case document is accessible below.

20230627_19868_decisionDownload

Status of the case:
Decided.

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

Last updated:
12 December 2023.

Categories
2022 Children's rights/best interests Climate activists and human rights defenders Domestic court Mexico Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to water Standing/admissibility

Youth v. Government of Mexico

Summary:

On 5 December 2019, the plaintiffs filed for protection against several authorities and acts. Notably, they claimed that the President of the Republic, the Head of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, the Inter-Ministerial Commission on Climate Change, and other authorities had failed to issue regulations and policies regarding climate change which they were required to by national law. The plaintiffs claim that the failure to issue such regulations and policies had violated their constitutionally protected rights. They invoke, among other rights, the right to health protection, the right to a healthy environment, the right to water and the rights of children.

In a decision by the District Court in Administrative Matters in Mexico City, on 20 May 2022, the case was dismissed on the basis that the plaintiffs lacked a legitimate interest, as required to claim the alleged legislative omissions. The court argued that the plaintiffs could not prove a link between themselves and the environmental services of the allegedly violated ecosystem, as required by Mexican law.

The Collegiate Court in Administrative Matters in Mexico City, the appeals court, overruled this decision on 21 September 2022. It stated that the plaintiffs do have a legitimate interest because the legislative omissions affect the entire national territory and the applicants intend to counteract climate change and prevent its effects. Hence, a special link to ecosystems or the environment is not required because, as long as the plaintiffs reside in the national territory, such a link is established.

The case was forwarded to the Supreme Court of Mexico, where it is currently pending, to clarify the issue of the alleged human rights violations.

Stauts of Case:

The Supreme Court decision is pending

Suggested case citation:

Collegiate Court in Administrative Matters of Mexico City, Youth v. Government of Mexico, Judgment of 21 September 2022, R.A. 317/2022.

Case documents:

complaint_20191205_ESDownload
district_court_decision_20220520_ESDownload
appeals_court_decision_20220921_ESDownload

Date last updated:

29 November 2023

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

Greenpeace Netherlands v. State of the Netherlands (Bonaire)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading:

English translation of the judgment of 28 January 2026:

ECLI_NL_RBDHA_2026_1347Download

Judgment of 28 January 2026 (Dutch):

ECLI_NL_RBDHA_2026_1344Download

Pre-litigation letter of 11 May 2023:

pre-litigation-letter-BonaireDownload

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

Brief eerste kamer BonaireDownload

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

Date last updated:
6 May 2026.

Categories
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
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
2023 Colombia Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Just transition litigation Participation rights Right to culture Self-determination Uncategorized

Pirá Paraná Indigenous Council and Another v. Ministry of Environment and Others (Pirá Paraná Case)

Summary:

On July 15th, 2022, the Pirá Paraná Indigenous Council, in collaboration with the Association of Indigenous Traditional Authorities of the River Pirá Paraná, initiated a ‘tutela’ proceeding against private corporations and Colombian authorities. This expedited legal procedure is only available when regular mechanisms are deemed inadequate to ensure the protection of the plaintiffs’ rights. The legal action arises from concerns related to the Baka Rokarire project, particularly its carbon credit initiatives, within the Indigenous territory situated in the heart of the Amazon rainforest, located in the Vaupés region. The central issue at hand is the potential violation of Indigenous fundamental human rights, including self-determination, self-governance, and the preservation of cultural diversity and integrity. The claimants argue that the individual who represented the Indigenous community in the project lacked proper legitimacy, while public authorities allegedly failed to safeguard Indigenous rights throughout the project’s registration and development. Private companies are accused of neglecting human rights due diligence standards and deliberately excluding Indigenous authorities from the decision-making process.

Claim:

The plaintiffs argue that the Baka Rokarire project, especially its carbon credit initiatives, violate their fundamental human rights as Indigenous people. Importantly, the lawsuit filed by the Pirá Paraná community does not contest land ownership rights but instead focuses on preserving the integrity of the territory, which holds great cultural and ancestral significance for Indigenous populations. Their primary concern centers around the absence of genuine Indigenous representation in the project’s agreement. Furthermore, they accuse public authorities of failing to fulfill their responsibilities in safeguarding Indigenous rights during the project’s registration and execution. Private companies involved are accused of neglecting human rights due diligence standards and intentionally excluding Indigenous authorities from the project’s development. The main argument is that the potential negative impact on Indigenous rights justifies legal intervention.

Decision:

Initially, based on the subsidiarity of the tutela mechanism, the Judicial Court deemed the case inadmissible, citing that the plaintiffs could have pursued other available legal avenues. The court’s rationale was that the tutela mechanism was not the suitable course of action in this instance, as there was no clear evidence indicating the presence of irreparable damage in the case. The Administrative Tribunal upheld this decision. However, in April 2023, a significant development occurred when Colombia’s Constitutional Court took the unprecedented step of reviewing the case. This marks the first-ever evaluation of a case involving the voluntary carbon market, potentially setting a legal precedent that will delineate the boundaries of activities permitted within territories inhabited by Indigenous communities in carbon credit projects. The Constitutional Court’s review will also encompass an examination of whether the tutela mechanism is the appropriate means for challenging these projects, especially concerning Indigenous rights. This decision to review represents a noteworthy opportunity to provide clarity regarding Indigenous rights and cultural preservation within the context of carbon offset initiatives.

Links:

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

Status of the case:

The case is currently pending before the Constitutional Court of Colombia.

Last updated:

05 October 2023.

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

Anton Foley and others v. Sweden (Aurora Case)

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

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

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

Inadmissibility ruling:
The Nacka District Court referred a question to the Swedish Supreme Court concerning whether such a case against the state could be brought before a court. On 19 February 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that the group members’ claim, as formulated in the district court, could not be admissible. In doing so, it engaged with the KlimaSeniorinnen ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, summarizing the high victim status standard set in that case and its emphasis of cases brought by associations. It also noted that the ECtHR established that it would not tolerate actio popularis cases. The Supreme Court found that the case before it was (a) brought not by an association but by individuals who did not argue that they were particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change as per the KlimaSeniorinnen victim status test, and (b) sought an order on the State to take specific measures, which raised issues of the separation of powers and the margin of appreciation of the State authorities. However, the Court left open the admissibility of differently-argued cases, for example cases brought by an association or requesting only a declaration that the state had violated the ECHR by failing to take sufficient measures to counteract the effects of climate change.

Date filed:
25 November 2022

Status of case:

Plaintiffs withdrew the case on 30 June 2025, and the environmental association Aurora initiated a new climate lawsuit before the Nacka District Court on 06 February 2026. The database entry on Aurora v. Sweden (Aurora Case II) is available here.

The plaintiffs’ appeal against an order for payment of legal costs is pending before the Supreme Court.

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

The ruling of the Supreme Court is available here.

A press release concerning the inadmissibility decision (in Swedish) is available here.

Suggested citation:

Supreme Court of Sweden, Anton Foley and others v. Sweden, Ö 7177-23, 19 February 2025.

Last updated:
21 February 2025