Category: Year

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.

Categories
2020 Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Ireland Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to life

Friends of the Irish Environment v. Government of Ireland

Summary:
In this case, brought before the Irish Supreme Court by the environmental activist group Friends of the Irish Environment, the Supreme Court quashed the Irish National Mitigation Plan of 2017 on the grounds that it was incompatible with the Irish Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 (the 2015 Climate Act). The Supreme Court ordered the creation of a new, Climate Act-compliant plan.

Facts:
The case was premised on evidence that Ireland was set to miss its 2030 mitigation targets by a substantial degree.

Domestic instances:
The applicant’s claim was unsuccessful before the High Court. After the High Court proceedings were concluded, the Irish Supreme Court agreed to hear the case directly, without first seizing the Court of Appeal with the case. In doing so, the Supreme Court noted the “general public and legal importance” of the case, and the fact that the seriousness of climate change, the climate science, and the emissions at stake were not contested.

Merits:
In a unanimous seven-judge judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Clarke on 31 July 2020, the Supreme Court found that the Mitigation Plan did not reach the level of detail required under the 2015 Climate Act and was ultra vires that Act.

However, the judges did not allow the applicants’ rights-based arguments. Because Friends of the Irish Environment was a corporate entity, it did not enjoy the right to life or bodily integrity under the ECHR and the Irish Constitution, and lacked standing to bring these claims. Chief Justice Clarke CJ accepted that constitutional rights could be engaged in environmental cases, but held that the Irish Constitution does not contain a right to a healthy environment.

Date of judgment:
31 July 2020

Suggested citation:
Supreme Court of Ireland, Friends of the Irish Environment v. The Government of Ireland and Others, Judgment of 31 July 2020, [2020] IESC 49.

Further reading:
Orla Kelleher, ‘The Supreme Court of Ireland’s decision in Friends of the Irish Environment v Government of Ireland (“Climate Case Ireland”)’ in EJIL Talk!, 9 September 2020.

The full text of the judgment is available here.

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:
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 of 27 March 2017. 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.

Date of decision:
Pending.

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.

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:
26 January 2026.

Categories
2020 Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Indigenous peoples' rights Public trust doctrine Standing/admissibility United States of America

Juliana et al. v. USA et al.

Summary:
On 12 August 2015, the Juliana v. the United States case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The 21 youth plaintiffs in this case, who were represented by the NGO “Our Children’s Trust”, asserted that the government had violated the youngest generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty and property through its climate change-causing actions. Among other things, they argued that they had suffered psychological harms, damage to property, impairment to their recreational interests, and that their medical conditions had been exacerbated by the effects of climate change. They sought declaratory relief and an injunction ordering the government to implement a plan to phase out fossil fuels. Moreover, they stated that the government had failed to protect essential public trust resources by encouraging and permitting the combustion of fossil fuels. After extensive proceedings, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the dismissal of the case in 2024, and the US Supreme Court refused to grant certoriari in March 2025, effectively ending the case.

The Ninth Circuit’s 2020 decision:
The Government filed a large number of motions to stay or deny these procedings. However, U.S. District Court of Oregon Judge Ann Aiken declined to dismiss the lawsuit. She ruled that access to a clean environment constitutes a fundamental right. Judge Aiken’s judgment was reversed by a Ninth Circuit Panel on 17 January 2020 due to the plaintiffs’ lack of standing to sue. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized the gravity of the evidence on the plaintiffs’s injuries from climate change. The panel of judges also recognized the existence of harms to the applicants, and the plausibility of arguing that these harms had been caused by climate change. Nevertheless, the Court held that the plaintiffs’ requested remedies should be addressed by the executive and legislative branches and not by the courts. As a result, they “[r]eluctantly” held that “such relief is beyond [their] constitutional power.”

One of the three judges affirmed the plaintiff’s constitutional climate rights in a dissent, arguing that the case sought to enforce the US Constitution’s most basic principle: “that the Constitution does not condone the Nation’s willful destruction.” Accordingly, she held that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the government’s conduct, and had presented sufficient evidence to press their constitutional rights claims at trial.

Further proceedings:
On 9 March 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint and adjust the remedy sought in the case. After settlement talks ended without resolution in November 2021, and Judge Aiken granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in June 2023. The plaintiffs argued that the government’s failure to address climate change violated their rights under the Fifth and Ninth Amendments and the Public Trust Doctrine. The amended complaint requested the court to issue an injunction restraining the defendants from carrying out policies, practices that render the national energy system unconstitutional in a manner that harms the plaintiffs.

In December 2023, the court partially denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, allowing claims related to the right to a climate system capable of sustaining life under the Due Process Clause and the Public Trust Doctrine to proceed. However, in February 2024, the government filed an emergency petition for a writ of mandamus, which was granted by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in May 2024. This order required the district court to dismiss the case and preclude any further amendments. Subsequently, the district court dismissed the case.

These were complex proceedings, with several intermediate filings and actions. However, on 24 March 2025, the US Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ petition for a writ of certoriari. The plaintiffs had sought review of the order of the Ninth Circuit of May 2024, which granted the government’s request for a writ of mandamus and ordered the district court to dismiss the case. At the time of writing, this seems to have effectively ended the case.

Proceedings before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights:
On 23 September 2025, the NGO Our Children’s Trust announced that it had filed a petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights alleging climate-related violations of human rights by the government of the United States of America on behalf of some of the plaintiffs in the present case. A separate database entry on those proceedings can be found here.

Further reading:
The full text of the Ninth Circuit’s order on interlocutory appeal is available here.

Documents on the proceedings before the Supreme Court can be found here.

For scholarly comment on this case, see among others:

  • Melissa Powers, ‘Juliana v United States: The next frontier in US climate mitigation?’ 27 RECIEL 199 (2018).
  • William Montgomery, ‘Juliana v. United States: The Ninth Circuit’s Opening Salvo for a New Era of Climate Litigation’, 34 Tul. Env’t L.J. 341 (2021).
  • Nathanial Levy, ‘Juliana and the Political Generativity of Climate Litigation’, 43 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 479 (2019).
  • Chloe N. Kempf, ‘Why Did So Many Do So Little? Movement Building and Climate Change Litigation in the Time of Juliana v. United States‘, 99 Tex. L. Rev. 1005 (2020-2021).

Suggested citation:
Juliana and Others v. the United States and Others, 947 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2020).

Last updated:
15 January 2026.

Categories
2019 Climate-induced displacement Human Rights Committee New Zealand Non-refoulement Prohibition of torture Right to life

Ioane Teitiota v. New Zealand

Summary:

The applicant submitted that New Zealand had violated his right to life under the ICCPR by removing him to Kiribati, an island state where, he submitted, the situation was becoming increasingly unstable and precarious due to sea level rise caused by global warming. The HRC accepted the claim that sea level rise and climate change-related harms can trigger non-refoulement obligations, but found that there is still time to take measures to protect the population of Kiribati.

Admissibility:

Concerning the imminence of the risk faced, the Committee noted that the author was not alleging a hypothetical future harm, but a real predicament caused by a lack of potable water and employment possibilities, and a threat of serious violence caused by land disputes. The author had sufficiently demonstrated, for the purpose of admissibility, the existence of a real risk of harm to his right to life, given the impact of climate change and associated sea level rise on the habitability of Kiribati and on the security situation on the islands.

Merits:

The HRC found that environmental degradation can compromise the effective enjoyment of the right to life, and if severe it can violate that right. The Committee accepted the author’s claim that sea level rise is likely to render Kiribati uninhabitable. Without robust national and international efforts, the effects of climate change in receiving States may expose individuals to a violation of articles 6 or 7 ICCPR, thereby triggering the non-refoulement obligations of sending States. However, it noted that the time frame of 10 to 15 years, as suggested by the author, could allow for intervening acts by Kiribati, with the assistance of the international community, to take affirmative measures to protect and, where necessary, relocate its population.

Remedies ordered:

None

Separate opinions:

Yes

Implementation measures taken:

N/A

Date:

24 October 2019

Status of case:

final

Suggested case citation:

Human Rights Committee, Ioane Teitiota v. New Zealand, No. 2728/2016, Communication of 24 October 2019.

Full text:

For the full-text of the decision in the case, click here.

Further reading:

Adaena Sinclair-Blakemore, ‘Teitiota v New Zealand: A Step Forward in the Protection of Climate Refugees under International Human Rights Law?’ Oxford Human Rights Hub, 28th January 2020, available here.

Keywords:

climate refugees, affectedness, non-refoulement

    Categories
    2019 Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Gender / women-led Non-discrimination Pakistan Paris Agreement Private and family life Public trust doctrine Right to a healthy environment Right to life Uncategorized Vulnerability

    Maria Khan et al. v. Federation of Pakistan et al.

    Summary
    Five people identifying themselves as women filed a writ petition, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, against the Federation of Pakistan, the Ministry of Climate Change, the Ministry of Energy, the Alternative Energy Development Board, and the Central Power Purchasing Agency. The petitioners alleged a violation of their fundamental rights, recognized by Articles 4 (inalienable rights), 9 (right to life), 14 (right to privacy) and 25 (equality of citizens, notably regardless of sex) of the Constitution of Pakistan, as the respondents infringed their right to a clean and healthy environment and a climate capable of sustaining human life (as recognized in the Leghari v. Pakistan case) by failing to take climate change mitigation measures, and specifically measures to develop renewable energy resources and transition to a low-carbon economy.

    The petitioners highlighted that Pakistan had ratified the Paris Agreement and submitted its INDC, committing to a reduction of 20% of its 2030 projected GHG emissions, but then failed to engage in any renewable energy power project. This was seen to represent an abdication of the respondents’ responsibilities under the Public Trust Doctrine (namely their duty to act as trustees of the natural resources of the country), and a violation of the jurisprudence of the seized Court on environmental and climate justice.

    Notably, the petitioners claimed that being women and mothers, they are particularly endangered by global warming and disadvantaged in the context of the climate crisis, as documented in scientific research and international reports. Therefore, the respondents have allegedly violated Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan in that climate change disproportionately affects the rights of the petitioners and more broadly of all Pakistani women.

    The remedies demanded by the petitioners are: the declaration of the violation of the above-mentioned fundamental rights and of the breach of Pakistan’s commitments under the Paris Agreement; the declaration of a positive duty on the respondents to encourage and support the development of renewable energy projects to reduce GHG emissions and mitigate climate change impacts; the order to implement and enforce the Paris Agreement to the fullest extent possible and to create and implement an integrated policy towards climate resilient development.

    Date of filing:
    14 February 2019, Misc. Writ 8960/19

    Date of last hearing:
    21 January 2021

    Jurisdiction:
    High Court of Lahore, Pakistan

    Documents:

    • Petition (in English, via Sabin Center for Climate Change Law’s Global Climate Litigation Database)
    • Order (in English, via Sabin Center for Climate Change Law’s Global Climate Litigation Database)

    More information:
    Independently of the above-summarized judicial proceeding, on 21 July 2022, the Government of Pakistan adopted the “Climate Change Gender Action Plan of the Government and People of Pakistan” (you can read it here).

    Last Updated:
    18 May 2023

    Categories
    2019 Deforestation Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation India Paris Agreement Public trust doctrine Right to life

    Riddhima Pandey v. Union of India and Others

    Summary:

    The petitioner, Riddhima Pandey, a 9-year old girl residing in the Indian State of Uttarakhand, approached the National Green Tribunal (a special tribunal exercising jurisdiction over environmental cases) in order to review the State and concerned authorities’ inaction on mitigation measures in the face of climate science, and the systemic failure to implement environmental laws (in a manner that addresses climate change). The petitioner based her claim on the ground that the States duty to take the concerned climate action arose out of the public trust doctrine, which the Supreme Court of India has previously held to be based in fundamental rights, directive principles and the preamble of the Indian Constitution. The application in this case was explicitly inspired by the petition in Juliana v. US where also, the child petitioners invoked the public trust doctrine to contest the US government’s inaction.

    The petitioner prayed for the court to, among other things, direct the concerned governmental authorities to properly account for the climate related impacts of industrial and infrastructure projects while granting environmental clearances, account for climate impacts of every individual case of forest diversion and ensuring sufficient compensatory afforestation, direct the government to prepare a national greenhouse gas emissions inventory as well as a national carbon budget against which particular projects’ emissions impacts could be assessed.

    Date of decision:

    15 January 2019

    Tribunal’s decision:

    The National Green Tribunal dismissed the case, reasoning that there is no reason to presume that the existing environmental legislations and regulations already address climate change and require that climate related impacts be sufficiently accounted for during environmental impact assessments.

    Status of the case:

    Decided.

    Suggested case citation:

    National Green Tribunal (New Delhi, India), Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India and Others, Application No. 187/2017, judgment of 15 January 2019)

    Case documents:

    For the petition filed before the National Green Tribunal on 25 March 2017, click here.

    For the order of the National Green Tribunal on 15 January 2019, click here.

    Categories
    2018 Biodiversity Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Imminent risk Margin of appreciation Nepal Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to life Right to subsistence/food

    Padam Bahadur Shrestha v. Office of Prime Minister and Others

    Summary:
    The petitioner, Padam Bahadur Shrestha, had applied to the concerned authorities in Nepal to enact a separate law on climate change in August 2018, but did not receive a response. He thus filed a petition with the Supreme Court of Nepal alleging that the situation in Nepal is marked by absence of a special climate change legislation, inadequacies in existing environmental legislation in addressing climate change, and poor implementation of the State’s climate change policy. He argued that this suffices to establish a violation of the right to life, right to live in a healthy and clean environment, right to health care and right to food found in Articles 16, 30, 35, and 36 of the Nepali Constitution.

    Date of decision:

    25 December 2018

    Court’s decision:

    The Supreme Court of Nepal found that an amendment to the existing laws and introduction of a new consolidated law that addresses climate change was necessary and issued detailed directions on what features the new law must contain. It based this order on the reasons that such would facilitate Nepal’s compliance with its obligations under international law, including the Paris Agreement and that climate mitigation and adaptation directly concern fundamental rights including the right to life, right to have nutritious food and the right to a clean environment. It further held that although the Environmental Protection Act of 1997 addressed environmental protection along the dimension of climate change, its provisions were inadequate regarding climate change mitigation and adaptation.

    Status of the case:

    Decided.

    Suggested case citation:

    The Supreme Court of Nepal, Padam Bahadur Shreshta v Office of the Prime Minister and Others, NKP, Part 61, Vol. 3, judgment of 25 December 2018.

    Case documents:

    For the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nepal (in Nepali), click here.

    For an unofficial English translation of the judgment (authored by Hardik Subedi), click here.

    Categories
    2018 Colombia Domestic court

    DeJusticia (Rodríguez Peña and others) v. Colombia

    Summary:
    On 5 April 2018, the Colombian Supreme Court of Justice ordered the protection of the Colombian Amazon from deforestation, ruling in favor of a group of 25 children and young people who had, with the support of advocacy organisation Dejusticia, contested the Colombian government’s failure to protect their rights to life, health and to a healthy environment with a tutela action. In its ruling, the Supreme Court also recognized the Amazon rainforest as a subject of rights.

    Facts:
    The applicants in this case were 25 children and young people, aged between 7 and 25 years. They submitted that, in their lifetimes, the average temperature in Colombia is expected to increase by between 1.6°C and 2.14°C. They invoked the Paris Agreement and domestic law no. 1753 of 2015, which, they argued, require the government to reduce deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions, including a reduction to net zero of the rate of deforestation in the Colombian Amazon by 2020. Citing ongoing deforestation and the failure to reduce deforestation, they detailed the projected effects of that deforestation for local ecosystems and the wider environment.

    Admissibility:
    The District Court that previously examined this case had found that a tutela action was not appropriate to this action because of the collective nature of the issue at hand. However, the Supreme Court found that a tutela can be filed where there is a connection between the violation of collective and individual rights if the person filing the tutela is directly affected, the violation of rights at stake is not hypothetical but clearly demonstrated, and the action sought is oriented towards restoring individual rights, and not collective ones.

    Key findings:
    The Supreme Court found that the fundamental rights to life, health, the minimum subsistence, freedom, and human dignity are connected to and dependent on the environment and healthy ecosystems. It held that the ongoing and increasing deterioration of the natural environment has severe impacts on current and future life and on fundamental rights. It also cited the decreasing ability to exercise the fundamental rights to water, clean air, and a healthy environment.

    The Court noted that imminent dangers, such as rising temperatures, polar thawing, species extinction, and meteorological events and natural disasters had been clearly demonstrated. It considered that ecosystems are currently being exposed to existential threats that will lead to the exhaustion of natural resources, increasing difficulties for human subsistence and the pollution and change of the environment. It held that humanity is principally responsible for this scenario, because its hegemonic position on the planet has led to the adoption of an anthropocentric and self-centred model, with characteristic features that are detrimental to environmental stability (“la humanidad es la principal responsable de este escenario, su posición hegemónica planetaria llevo a la adoptación de un modelo antropocéntrico y egoísta, cuyos rasgos característicos son nocivos para la estabilidad ambiental“). These characteristics are i) excessive demographic growth; ii) an expedited approach to development guided by consumerism and existing political-economic systems; and iii) the excessive exploitation of natural resources.

    The Court invoked the concept of social justice, and held that the protection of fundamental rights not only involves the individual, but also the “other.” This includes people in other nations as well as animal and plant species and future generations. In particular, it held that the environmental rights of future generations are based on the (i) ethical duty of intra-species solidarity and (ii) the intrinsic value of nature. Regarding the environmental rights of future generations, the Court discussed future violations by present-day omission, and the need to limit present generations’ freedom of action to ensure care and stewardship for natural resources and the future world.

    Citing various international human rights and climate change instruments, the Court considered that the conservation of the Amazon is a national and global obligation, calling it the main environmental axis of the planet and the “lung of the world” (p. 30 of the judgment). It considered that the disputed policies lead to deforestation in the Amazon, causing short, medium, and long term imminent and serious damage to the applicants in the tutela action and to all inhabitants of Colombia, both present and future, because it leads to rampant carbon dioxide emissions and threatens native flora and fauna.

    Invoking the principles of precaution, intergenerational equity, and solidarity, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no doubt that there is a risk of damage, given that the increase in GHG emissions resulting from deforestation in the Amazon rainforest would lead to estimated increases in Colombia’s temperature of up to 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100.

    The principle of solidarity meant that the Colombian State had a duty and shared responsibility to stop the causes of the greenhouse gas emissions caused by deforestation in the Amazon. This required the adoption of immediate mitigation measures to protect the right to a healthy environment.

    Leaving a concrete response to the relevant authorities, the Supreme Court highlighted the urgent need to adopt mitigation and corrective measures to combat illegal agriculture and mining; establish an active state presence post-conflict; prevent and mitigate fires, deforestation, and the expansion of agriculture in the region; address the consequences of large constructing projects, property titling and mining concessions; address the expansion of large-scale farming; preserve this important ecosystem; redress the lack of scientific calculations concerning the release of tons of carbon through burning and the loss of biomass; and confront climate change related to the destruction of the Amazon.

    Noting that the State had to date failed to take effective measures in this regard, the Court went on to declare that the Colombian Amazon was a subject of rights, and was per se entitled to protection, conservation, maintenance and restoration.

    Remedies:
    The Supreme Court held that the Colombian government had four months to present an action plan to reduce deforestation in the Amazon region.

    Within five months, the Government was furthermore ordered to formulate an intergenerational pact for the life of the Colombian Amazon, with the active participation of the plaintiffs, affected communities, scientific organizations, environmental research groups, and interested population in general. This was to include measures aimed at reducing deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions.

    It also ordered all municipalities in the Colombian Amazon, within the five months, to update and implement Land Management Plans, including action plans to reduce deforestation to zero where appropriate.

    Within forty-eight hours, the Government was ordered to intensify deforestation mitigation measures.

    Forum:
    Supreme Court of Colombia

    Date of decision:
    5 April 2018

    See also:
    The original submission of DeJusticia (in Spanish) is available here.

    The Supreme Court’s judgment (in Spanish) is available here and for download below.

    STC4360-2018-2018-00319-011Download

    Suggested citation:
    Supreme Court of Colombia, DeJusticia (Rodríguez Peña and others) v. Colombia, Judgment of 5 April 2018, STC4360-2018, No. 11001-22-03-000-2018-00319-01, Luis Armando Tolosa Villabona (reporting judge).