Category: Year

Categories
2022 Biodiversity Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Fossil fuel extraction Gender / women-led Human dignity Non-discrimination Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to life Right to water Sea-level rise South Africa Standing/admissibility

African Climate Alliance et. al. v. Minister of Mineral Resources & Energy et. al. (#CancelCoal case)

Summary:
On 10 November 2021, three South African NGOs (the African Climate Alliance, Vukani Environmental Justice Movement in Action and groundWork) initiated a constitutional challenge against the South African government’s plans to augment its coal-fired electricity capacity. Also known as the #CancelCoal case, this challenge invokes the protection of environmental rights, the rights of children, the right to life and human dignity, the right to water, healthcare and food, and the right to equality and protection from discrimination. Noting that South Africa is one of the top 15 current global greenhouse gas emitters, the plaintiffs argue that the procurement of 1500 MW of new coal-fired power stations threatens the rights of present and future generations in South Africa, who will be “left to deal with the consequences of extreme weather events, heatwaves, droughts, coastal flooding, famine, cyclones and social upheavals”. They submit that the constitutional rights violations caused by the new coal plants “will disproportionately impact the poor and the vulnerable, including women, children and young people”.

More details on the challenge:
In terms of standing, the applicant organizations brought their case in their own direct interest, in the interests of their members, in the public interest, and in the interest of the environment, noting the “far reaching consequences for present and future generations”.

The applicants invoke section 24 of the South African Constitution, which recognizes the right to a healthy environment. They argue that, by ratifying international agreements on climate change, including the Paris Agreement, the State recognizes the threat for this right posed by climate change. They also invoke section 28(2) of the Constitution, which guarantees the protection of the best interests of the child, arguing that “children are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and the further health risks caused by coal-fired power stations”. Noting that South Africa’s first NDC, submitted in 2015 and revised in 2021, committed to peaking emissions from 2020-2025, with net zero to be achieved by 2050, they submit scientific evidence from the IPCC to show the level of threat at hand and the different emissions reductions pathways discussed. Coal, they argue, “is the single most significant contributor to climate change”, and South Africa’s plants to procure more coal-fired power plants is “directly at odds” with global calls for action against coal, despite its vulnerability to the impacts of climate change, including from heat, storms, drought, rising sealevels, loss of species and biodiversity, and the psychological harms linked to climate change, as well as economic costs associated with responding to the effects of climate change, which will “divert scarce resources allocated to alleviating powerty and promoting sustainable development”.

The applicants also argue that the government’s references to “clean coal” are scientifically unfounded, and that it is unrealistic to argue that carbon capture technologies will mitigate the impacts of the new coal plants. “Climate change is the ultimate collective action problem”, they submit, and collective efforts are needed. South Africa’s support for coal undermines the global efforts in this regard, is inconsistent with South Africa’s “fair share” obligations, and is detrimental to the environment in a number of ways.

Invoking the constitutional right to equality together with environmental rights, the applicants argue that the action in question produces unfair discrimination “on intersecting grounds of race, gender, and social origin. This is because poor, black South Africans, and particularly women and children, are the primary victims of ecological degradation and air pollution caused by coal-fired power. They will also be the worst affected by the climate crisis”, as recognized in the government’s Environmental Impact Assessment (para. 358 of the application).

In terms of remedies, the applicants seek the review and setting aside of the decisions to procure new coal plants.

Further developments:
On 8 December 2021, the President of South Africa issued notice that he does not intend to oppose the application and shall abide by the decision of the court. On the same date, the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy issued notice of his intention to oppose the application.

On 12 December 2022, in what was described as an “early victory” in the case, the Pretoria High Court ordered the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy to release records relating to the decision to seek new coal power, and to pay the costs of the application.

Further reading:

The full application form in this case is available from climatecasechart.com, as are further documents on the case.

Suggested citation:
High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division (Pretoria), African Climate Alliance and others v. Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and others, case no. 56907/2021, filed on 10 November 2021.

Last updated:
26 June 2023.

Categories
2023 Canada Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Non-discrimination Paris Agreement Public trust doctrine Right to life Standing/admissibility Vulnerability

Mathur et al. v. HM the Queen in Right of Ontario

Summary:
On 25 November 2019, seven Canadian young people and the NGO Ecojustice brought a case against the State of Ontario, arguing that it had failed to take adequate action to mitigate its greenhouse gas emissions and contesting the State’s “dangerously inadequate GHG reduction target” as set out under the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act of 2018. Under this legislation, Ontario aims to reduce GHG emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. To contest the adequacy of this target, and the previous repeal of the more ambitious Climate Change Act (with its target of 45% reductions by 2030), the applicants invoked sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom (the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right to equal protection under the law). Arguing that they have a serious and genuine interest in this case, which also impacts all Ontario youth and future generations, they noted that climate change will cause heat-related fatalities, harms to human health, increased fire activity and the spread of disease, increased flooding and other extreme weather events, harmful algal blooms and exposure to contaminants, harms to Indigenous peoples, and psychological harms and mental distress.

Claims made:
Noting the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and the leading role of developed countries under the Paris Agreement, the applicants argued that Ontario’s current emissions reductions target compromises their right to life, liberty and security of the person “in a serious and pervasive manner that does not accord with the principles of fundamental justice”. They furthermore submitted that the target violated the right to liberty of Ontario’s youth and future generations, because it impacted their ability to make choices about their futures. They invoked the principle of “societal preservation” and human dignity, and argued for the recognition of a right to a stable climate system. Concerning the right to equal protection under the law, they argued that youth and future generations are in a uniquely vulnerable situation given their age and exclusion from political participation and the fact that they will be disproportionately impacted by climate change.

Relief sought:
Among other things, the applicants sought the invalidation of the existing emissions reductions targets and the rules for setting such targets, a declaration that it violates unwritten constitutional principles about avoiding harm, a recognition of the right to a stable climate system, and an order that Ontario must set out a science based GHG reduction target consistent with its share of global emissions.

Decision on admissibility:
On 12 November 2020, the Superior Court of Justice for Ontario rejected a motion from the government to dismiss the case. The government had invoked the absence of a right to a stable climate from the Charter, the plaintiffs’ alleged lack standing to represent future generations, and the absence of sufficient evidence or a reasonable cause of action.

Hearing:
A hearing in this case was heard from 12-14 September 2022.

2023 Judgment:
On 14 April 2023, the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario delivered its judgment in the case. The Court found that, although the policies in question were justiciable given that the applicants had challenged specific state acts and legislation, the applicants had not established a violation of their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In her judgment, Justice Vermette noted that the issue of establishing Ontario’s “fair share” of the remaining carbon budget was not a justiciable issue, and “should be determined in another forum” (para. 109). Justice Vermette did consider it “indisputable that, as a result of climate change, the Applicants and Ontarians in general are experiencing an increased risk of death and an increased risk to the security of the person” (para. 120). However, she disagreed with the applicants’ characterization of the emissions reductions target as “authorizing, incentivizing, facilitating and creating the very level of dangerous GHG that will lead to the catastrophic consequences of climate change for Ontarians”, finding that “the target does not authorize or incentivize GHG” (para. 122).

While the target was not legally meaningless, and justiciable under the Charter, Justice Vermette found (contrary to the arguments of the applicants) that the question at issue was whether the Charter imposed positive obligations. Leaving this question open, albeit acknowledging that “the Applicants make a compelling case that climate change and the existential threat that it poses to human life and security of the person present special circumstances that could justify the imposition of positive obligations under section 7 of the Charter”, Justice Vermette found that any putative deprivation of Charter rights at stake was not contrary to “the principles of fundamental justice”, i.e. neither arbitrary nor grossly disproportionate. This test applies because the relevant right in the Charter, i.e. its Article 7, stipulates that “[e]veryone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

Concerning the equality claim under Article 15 of the Charter, Justice Vermette found that Ontario’s climate policy did not distinguish based on age, but made a temporal distinction, and that accordingly there was no violation of that provision either.

Proceedings on Appeal:
An appeal by the applicants was heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal — the highest court in the state of Ontario — in January 2024. On 17 October 2024, this court unanimously ruled that the case should be referred back to the previous instance, the Superior Court of Justice for Ontario, for a new hearing, finding that the case raised important issues and that the lower court judge’s analysis was flawed on key points. The Court of Appeal ordered a new hearing in the case before the Superior Court of Justice.

The Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously found that the previous instance had erred in framing this case as seeking to impose new positive obligations on the State of Ontario (para. 5). Instead, it found that through state law, specifically the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act of 2018, the government of Ontario had “voluntarily assumed a positive statutory obligation to combat climate change”. The ruling also invited the applicants to broaden the scope of their case by incorporating arguments made by amicus curiae and to adduce further evidence.

In doing so, the Court found that:

[6]          The interveners raised relevant, important issues that were not determined by the application judge, either because they were not raised before her or did not affect her analysis, or because she declined to address them since they were not pleaded in the notice of application. They included whether the Target breached the Charter rights of Indigenous peoples in Ontario and their s. 35 rights under the Constitution Act, 1982; the integration of the public trust doctrine; the application of international law, including international environmental law, in the interpretation of Charter rights; the application of the best interests of the child principle; and the recognition and impact of certain unwritten constitutional principles, including societal preservation and ecological sustainability.

Further reading:

  • The original application is available in full from Climate Case Chart, as is the admissibility order.
  • The 2023 judgment in the case is available here.
  • A comment on the judgment in this case, as well as its context, is available from Christie A. MacLeod, Annafaye Dunbar, and Rosemarie Sarrazin (Miller Thomson) here.
  • The 2024 ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal can be found here.

Suggested citation:
Superior Court of Justice for Ontario, Mathur v. Ontario, 2023 ONSC 2316, 14 April 2023.

Ontario Court of Appeal, Mathur v. Ontario, 2024 ONCA 762, 17 October 2024.

Last updated:
13 November 2024.

Categories
2023 Business responsibility / corporate cases Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Fossil fuel extraction Italy Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to health Right to life Right to property

Greenpeace Italy, ReCommon, et al. v. ENI, Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance, et al.

Summary:
Greenpeace Italy, together with ReCommon (an Italian association involved in questioning corporate and State power) and twelve Italian citizens from different regions of the country manifestly affected by climate change impacts, filed a lawsuit against ENI, a major oil & gas multinational company, and the Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance, which, also through Cassa Depositi e Prestiti S.p.A. (an important public financial institution), has a relevant influence on the corporation.

The applicants asked the Court to ascertain and declare that the defendants share liability for the moral and material damages they suffered to their health, life and properties due to climate change impacts, and for further endangering these same assets.
The claimants allege ENI contributed to climate change as its activities, either industrial, commercial or for transportation of energy products, caused greenhouse gas emissions far beyond the limits suggested by the scientific community, notwithstanding the temperature goals internationally recognized in the Paris Agreement, which implies emissions reductions both in the public and in the private sphere. The claimants argue that the Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance and Cassa Depositi e Prestiti S.p.A. (whose majority shareholder is the same Ministry), as shareholders of the oil&gas corporation, could have influenced its strategy concerning the ecological transition away from fossil fuels, but did not leverage their relevant influence in that direction.

The legal strategy is primarily based on Article 2043 of the Italian Civil Code, dedicated to liability for non-contractual damages and interpreted, according to previous case-law, as a tool for human rights protection. The applicants claimed a violation of their rights to life, health, and respect for private and family life, as enshrined in the Italian Constitution, in the European Convention on Human Rights, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and that ENI shall respect according to the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for multinational enterprises.
The claimants drew on attribution science to argue for the existence of a causal link, and recalled the reasoning of the Dutch courts in the Urgenda case, according to which even a quantitatively relatively low level of greenhouse emissions on the global scale contributes to climate change, meaning that there is a sufficient causal link between those emissions and their present and future adverse effects. In addition, the applicants rely subsidiarily on Article 2050 of the Italian Civil Code, dedicated to liability for dangerous activities, that implies a reversed burden of proof: the defendant shall prove that every measure was taken to prevent the damaging event.

Concerning remedies, the claimants did not ask the Court to quantify the damages. Recalling the case against Royal Dutch Shell (Milieudefensie), they asked the Court to order ENI to reduce its greenhouse emissions by 45% in 2030 compared to 2020 and to align to the 1.5°C temperature goal. They also asked the Court to impose a monetary sanction in case the order is not fulfilled. The applicants also asked the Court to order the Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance and Cassa Depositi e Prestiti S.p.A. to adopt a policy defining climate goals to foster as relevant shareholder of the corporation.

This is not the first instance of rights-based climate litigation in Italy: you can read about the previously filed lawsuit against the Italian State here in the Database (A Sud and Others v. Italy).

Further developments:
At the end of July 2023, ENI filed a parallel lawsuit against Greenpeace Italy and ReCommon for defamation through their press and social media campaign (“La Giusta Causa”, The Just Cause) related to the climate case. Greenpeace Italy and ReCommon declared that they consider this lawsuit to constitute a SLAPP, Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

In September 2023 the defendants filed their written briefs. All three defendants (ENI S.p.A., the Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance, and Cassa Depositi e Prestiti S.p.A.) requested the Court to dismiss the complaint on several grounds, including: an absolute lack of jurisdiction in application of the principle of the separation of powers; a lack of jurisdiction concerning ENI’s operations in States other than Italy; a lack of standing for environmental associations and individuals when a public interest is concerned; indeterminate and ill-founded claims.

An oral hearing was held on 16 February 2024 and another hearing was planned for 13 September 2024. However, the plaintiffs, after the first instance judgment in the A Sud and Others v. Italy case, filed a request with the Italian Highest Court (Suprema Corte di Cassazione, Sezioni Unite Civili) for a separate and anticipated judgment on the sole jurisdiction issue. They also requested the highest court to file a demand with the Constitutional Court to challenge the Ministry of Economy and Finance’s interpretation of the Italian law ratifying the Paris Agreement. On 17 July 2024 the Civil Court of Rome confirmed the suspension of the first proceeding, pending the decision of the Highest Court, expected early in 2025 (or later, depending on whether the Constitutional Court will also be involved).

Notably, in their request to the Highest Court, the plaintiffs mentioned the judgment in the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz et al. v. Switzerland case (pp. 16-18, 27 of the original text of the request), and, in particular, the statements of the ECtHR related to the role of courts in democratic processes and in climate litigation (§412, §413, §639).

Date of filing:
9 May 2023

Jurisdiction:
Civil Court of Rome

Status of the case:
Pending

Suggested case citation:
Complete case citation: Greenpeace Italia, ReCommon, et al. v. Eni S.p.A., Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, et al., Tribunale di Roma, Seconda Sezione Civile, n. 26468/2023 [Greenpeace Italy, ReCommon, et al. v. Eni S.p.A., Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance, et al., Civil Court of Rome, Second Civil Section, n. 26468/2023]

Suggested case citation: Greenpeace Italia, ReCommon, et al. v. Eni S.p.A., Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, et al.

Documents:

More information:
More information can be found on the dedicated web pages of Greenpeace Italy and ReCommon.

Italian language: all the documents of the proceedings and a review of relevant literature can be found on this website hosting the Observatory on Italian climate change litigation, edited by the students in Comparative Climate Change Law at the University of Salento.

Last updated:
1 August 2024

Categories
2022 Brazil Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment

PSB et al. v. Brazil (Climate Fund)

Summary:

On 5 June 2020, four Brazilian political parties (Partido Socialista Brasileiro (PSB), Partido Socialismo e Liberdade, Partido dos Trabalhadores and Rede Sustentabilidade) filed a direct action of unconstitutionality for omission before the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (“Court”) related to the National Fund on Climate Change (“Climate Fund”) (case ADPF 708).

The Climate Fund was established in 2009 to direct its annually authorized budget to Brazilian projects that address the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to climate change and its effects.

The plaintiffs claimed that the Brazilian Federal Administration kept the Climate Fund inoperative during 2019 and 2020. According to the plaintiffs, the Brazilian government’s inaction regarding the Climate Fund is a violation of its constitutional and international legal environmental obligations.

Based on the constitutional right to a healthy environment, the plaintiffs requested the Court to declare the unconstitutionality of the Brazilian government’s omissions and to issue an injunction compelling the government to actualize the Climate Fund by resuming operations and reactivating its institutional governance of the Fund.

By its decision dated 4 July 2022, the majority of the Court (10 out of 11 judges) granted the plaintiffs’ application. The Court recognized the government’s failure to fully allocate the Climate Fund’s resources for 2019. It ordered the Federal Administration not to neglect the Climate Fund again and determined that the resources from the Climate Fund cannot be withheld.

The Court based its decision on the constitutional duty to protect the environment (Art. 225 of the Federal Constitution), the rights and international obligations assumed by Brazil, and the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Judge Luís Roberto Barroso noted that treaties on environmental law constitute “a species of the genus human rights treaties” and, for this reason, enjoy supranational status.

The Court’s decision attracted attention as it was the first time that the country’s highest court addressed the issue of climate change.

Date of decision:

4 July 2022

Case documents:

More information:

  • For further procedural information, visit Supremo Tribunal Federal.
  • For Prof. Ingo Wolfgang Sarlet’s and Tiago Fensterseifer’s comment on the decision, click here.
  • For Dr. Maria Antonia Tigre’s interpretation of the decision, click here.
  • For more case documents, such as an English translation of the decision, visit Climate Case Chart.

Suggested citation:

Brazilian Federal Supreme Court, PSB et al. v. Brazil, case ADPF 708, decision of 4 July 2022.

Last updated:

17 April 2023.

Categories
2022 Children and young people Deciding Body Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights Germany Keywords Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to life Rights at stake State concerned Uncategorized Year

Engels and Others v. Germany

Summary:

Following the Neubauer v. Germany case, nine teenagers and young adults brought an application to the European Court of Human Rights complaining that the new objectives of the German Climate Protection Act, as amended after the judgement of the the German Federal Constitutional Court and entered into force on 31 August 2021, are insufficient to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the level necessary for meeting the Paris Agreement temperature goals (well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels) and that this would violate Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Domestic proceedings:

On 24 June 2022 it was announced that the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht or BVerfG) had refused to hear a case following up on its groundbreaking Neubauer judgment of 24 March 2021. This follow-up litigation was brought by nine young people, who sought a further strengthening of German climate protection policy with the support of the NGO Deutsche Umwelthilfe. The applicants, who were aged 13 to 26 at the time of filing, were previously involved in the Neubauer case, where the BVerfG found that German climate policy posed a threat to the fundamental freedoms of future generations. In this follow-up case, they sought a judgment from the BVerfG demanding faster and more effective climate protection measures.

After the Neubauer judgment, the German government changed the German Federal Climate Change Act of 12 December 2019 (Bundes-Klimaschutzgesetz – KSG) governing national climate targets and the emissions allowed annually to provide for higher levels of mitigation action.In this case, the applicants argue that the new version of the KSG still does not guarantee that Germany will meet its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement, and that it therefore does not ensure the limitation of anthropogenic climate change to the Paris Agreement’s target of 1.5 degrees. The applicants argue that the revised KSG reduces emissions by only about 6.5 percent by 2030, and draw on IPCC reports showing that the 1.5-degree target could be exceeded in around ten years’ time.The legal argumentation brought forward here was similar to that in Neubauer. The applicants argued that their fundamental freedoms are under threat, and invoked Article 20a of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz).

Decision:
In an unreasoned decision, the BVerfG refused to accept this case for decision on 25 May 2022.

Application to the ECtHR:
Counsel in the case, together with the NGO Deutsche Umwelthilfe, announced that they would take this case the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg. A corresponding application was lodged before the Court in September 2022 and received application number 46906/22. The Court then adjourned the case pending the outcome of the three climate cases pending before its Grand Chamber (Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (no. 53600/20), Carême v. France (no. 7189/21) and Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others (no. 39371/20)).

Decision of the ECtHR:

In a three-judge Committee formation, in a decision dated 1 July 2025 and published on 28 August 2025, the ECtHR declared this case inadmissible. It did so by applying the victim status criteria set out in the Grand Chamber’s KlimaSeniorinnen judgment. The Committee held that:

  • Article 8 ECHR (the right to respect for private and family life, which also covers physical and psychological integrity) protects against the human rights impacts of climate change;
  • Article 2 ECHR (the right to life) requires there to be a “real and imminent” risk to life, meaning that it requires “an element of material and temporal proximity of the threat to the impugned harm”;
  • Victim status for individual applicants in climate cases is determined according to the high-threshold twin KlimaSeniorinnen criteria, which require (a) a high intensity of exposure and (b) a pressing need for protection.
  • In the key paragraph of its decision (para. 10), found that:

“[The applicants] referred to specific circumstances prevailing at their places of residence in Germany, but that the submissions were of a generalised nature. It is not apparent that they were exposed to the adverse effects of climate change, or were at risk of being exposed at any relevant point in the future, with a degree of intensity giving rise to a pressing need to ensure their individual protection. The applicants did not demonstrate that they had specific vulnerabilities nor that exceptional circumstances existed in relation to the adverse effects of climate change to which they were at risk of being exposed to in the future. It cannot be said that the applicants suffered from any critical medical condition whose possible aggravation linked to the adverse effects of climate change could not be alleviated by the adaptation measures available in Germany or by means of reasonable measures of personal adaptation (…). They did therefore not demonstrate that they were subjected to a high intensity of exposure to the adverse effects of climate change affecting them personally, nor that there had been a pressing need to ensure their individual protection from the harm which the effects of climate change may have on the enjoyment of their human rights (…). It follows that the applicants do not fulfil victim status-criteria under Article 34 of the Convention. Their complaint under Article 8 of the Convention is therefore incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.”

  • The Court then went on to find that the applicants’ Article 2 claim was inadmissible ratione materiae, because there was no “real and imminent risk” to the applicants’ lives.

More information:
The decision by the German Bundesverfassungsgericht has not yet been published. For reporting on the case, see LTO.

Part of the application made to the ECtHR has been made public by the NGO Deutsche Umwelthilfe, which is supporting the applicants, here (in German). This document contains the supplementary argumentation appended to the standardized application form.

Decision of the ECtHR is displayed below in full.

ENGELS AND OTHERS v. GERMANYDownload

Suggested citation:
German Bundesverfassungsgericht, Judgment of the First Senate of 25 May 2022 – 1 BvR 188/22.

European Court of Human Rights, Engels v. Germany (no. 46906/22), Committee decision of 1 July 2025.

Last updated:

8 September 2025.

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
2021 Children and young people Domestic court Right to a healthy environment Right to life Right to property Separation of powers United States of America

Reynolds and Others v. Florida

Summary:
In this case, eight young people asserted that the “deliberate indifference” of the US state of Florida, its Governor Ron DeSantis, and other state agencies had violated their “fundamental rights of life, liberty and property, and the pursuit of happiness, which includes a stable climate system”. On 9 June 2020, the Circuit Court for Leon County dismissed their case, finding that it could not grant the relief requested in light of the separation of powers clause contained in the state’s constitution. The claims in question were considered nonjusticiable because they “are inherently political questions that must be resolved by the political branches of government.”. On appeal, on 18 May 2021, the First District Court of Appeal rejected the applicants’ appeal, affirming the lower court’s finding that the lawsuit raised nonjusticiable political questions.

Further information:
Both the Circuit Court’s judgment and the Court of Appeals’ affirmation of the first-instance judgment can be found at www.climatecasechart.com.

Categories
2021 Canada Children and young people Class action Domestic court Non-discrimination Right to a healthy environment Right to life

ENVironnement JEUnesse v. Canada

Summary:
In 2018, the environmental NGO ENvironnement JEUnesse applied for leave to bring a class action case against the Canadian government on behalf of citizens of Québec aged 35 and under. The NGO sought a declaration from that the Canadian government had violated its obligation to protect these citizens’ fundamental rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Québec Charter of Rights and Freedoms by setting insufficent greenhouse gas reduction targets and by failing to create an adequate plan to reach these targets. Specifically, they invoked their rights to life, to a healthy environment, and to equality. On 11 July 2019, the Superior Court of Quebec dismissed the motion to authorize the institution of a class action, finding that the proposed class, with its 35-year age limit, had been created arbitrarily. An appeal by ENVironnement JEUnesse was denied on 13 December 2021.

Remedies sought:
As well as a declaratory judgment, the NGO sought punitive damages and an order to cease interference with the plaintiffs’ rights.

Judgment:
In their judgment of 13 December 2021, the three judges of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and denied the certification of the proposed class. They referred to the role of the legislature in making the complex social and economic choices required here. They also considered that the remedies sought by the applicants were not specific enough to be implemented by a court. Lastly, the judges upeld the previous instance’s finding concerning the arbitary constitution of the class, with its 35-year age limit.

Further procedural steps:
The applicants announced that they would launch an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Further reading:
The judgment of the Court of Appeal (in French) can be found below.

The Judgment (in French)Download

The declaration of appeal can be found here.

Categories
2021 Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Fossil fuel extraction Imminent risk Indigenous peoples' rights Non-discrimination Right to life Right to property Sea-level rise United States of America

Aji P. and Others v. the State of Washington

Summary:
This case was brought by 13 young people aged between 8 and 18 who sued the US State of Washington, its Governor, and various other state agencies, arguing that the state had “injured and continue[d] to injure them by creating, operating, and maintaining a fossil fuel-based energy and transportation system that [the State] knew would result in greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, dangerous climate change, and resulting widespread harm.” In doing so, they invoked their “fundamental and inalienable constitutional rights to life, liberty, property, equal protection, and a healthful and pleasant environment, which includes a stable climate system that sustains human life and liberty.” They also invoked the impacts on indigenous peoples’ rights. The plaintiffs requested the judiciary to “[o]rder [the state] to develop and submit to the Court . . . an enforceable state climate recovery plan”.

A number of amici filed briefs in the case. For example, the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Quinault Indian Nation, and Suquamish Tribe argued that local tribes were already seeing impacts on their traditional lands and abutting marine waters. The Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (ELAW-US) noted the well-documented impacts of climate change on human and constitutional rights. The League of Women Voters of Washington argued that access to judicial action was particularly important for minors who did not enjoy access to the right to vote. And a group of environmental NGOs submitted that “the right to a healthful and pleasant environment underlies our continued ability to claim our explicitly-guaranteed rights to life and liberty.”

On 8 February 2021, the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington held that it “firmly believe[d] that the right to a stable environment should be fundamental.” It also recognized “the extreme harm that greenhouse gas emissions inflict on the environment and its future stability.” However, it held that “it would be a violation of the separation of powers doctrine for the court to resolve the Youths’ claims.” It accordingly dismissed the claim.

On 6 October 2021, the Supreme Court of the State of Washington denied the petition for review in this case. González, C.J. (dissenting) noted that the plaintiffs “asked this court to recognize a fundamental right to a healthful and pleasant environment that may be inconsistent with our State’s maintenance of a fossil-fuel-based energy and transportation system that it knows will result in greenhouse gas emissions. These greenhouse gases hasten a rise in the earth’s temperature. This temperature change foreshadows the potential collapse of our environment. In its place is an unstable climate system, conceivably unable to sustain human life and continued enjoyment of ordered liberty under law. Today, we have an opportunity to consider whether these are the sorts of harms that are remediable under Washington’s law and constitution. We should have granted review to decide that question”.

Suggested citation:
Court of Appeals of the State of Washington (USA), Aji P. v. State, 16 Wash. App. 2d 177, 480 P.3d 438, 16 Wn. App. 2d 177 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).

Last updated:
5 July 2022

Categories
2022 Austria Belgium Cyprus Denmark European Court of Human Rights France Germany Greece Luxembourg Private and family life Right to life Sweden Switzerland The Netherlands The United Kingdom

Soubeste and 4 other applications v. Austria and 11 other States

Summary:
On 21 June 2022, it was reported that an application had been filed at the European Court of Human Rights concerning membership in the Energy Charter Treaty of 1994 (ECT), which entered into force in 1998. The case was brought by five young people, aged between 17 and 31, who allege that the 12 respondent States’ membership of the ECT stymies climate action, thereby violating their rights under Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) ECHR.

It was further reported that the 12 respondent States in this case are Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and Britain. In these States, corporate actors in the fossil fuel sector can bring legal action against the respective governments for losses of profits due to energy-related measures, thereby raising the costs of the green energy transition or making it illusory. The applicants argue that their Convention rights have been violated as a result.

In this regard, the IPCC pointed out in Chapter 14 of Working Group III report in the Sixth Assessment Cycle in 2022 (available here) that “bilateral and multilateral agreements, including the 1994 Energy Charter Treaty, include provisions for using a system of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) designed to protect the interests of investors in energy projects from national policies that could lead their assets to be stranded. Numerous scholars have pointed to ISDS being able to be used by fossil-fuel companies to block national legislation aimed at phasing out the use of their assets”. It also noted that “international investment agreements may lead to ‘regulatory chill’, which may lead to countries refraining from or delaying the adoption of mitigation policies, such as phasing out fossil fuels”.

Status of case:

The case was initially adjourned until the Grand Chamber has ruled in the climate change cases pending before it (see the ECtHR’s press release here).

On 24 July 2024, it was reported that the applicants had withdrawn their application after the European Union agreed to leave the ECT and the governments of France, Germany, Poland and the United Kingdom initiated the procedures to terminate their membership in the treaty.

Suggested case citation:

European Court of Human Rights, Soubeste and 4 other applications v. Austria and 11 other States (nos. 31925/22, 31932/22, 31938/22, 31943/22, and 31947/22), application filed on 21 June 2022 (not yet communicated).

Last updated:

15 March 2023