Tag: Domestic court proceedings

Categories
Business responsibility / corporate cases Domestic court Fossil fuel extraction Right to a healthy environment

Ugandan Farmers v. EACOP Ltd.

Summary:
In May 2026, it was reported that a group of Ugandan farmers and environmental advocates were preparing a case that would challenge the construction of the nearly-completed East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) in UK courts. The pipeline, which is set to transport crude oil from Uganda to Tanzanian, is operated by a corporate actor registered in the United Kingdom (EACOP Ltd.), with TotalEnergies as a majority stakeholder in the project. The claimants in this case argue that the project threatens their right to a healthy environment, as guaranteed by the Ugandan Constitution.

This case follows other legal efforts to halt the pipeline project by litigating, among others, before the East African Court of Justice in Arusha.

More information on this case will be shared as it becomes available.

Last updated:
24 June 2026.

Categories
Biodiversity Children and young people Deforestation Domestic court Non-discrimination Right to a healthy environment Right to life

Abe Lim et al. v. Malaysia

Summary:
On 28 February 2026, a case was filed at the Kuala Lumpur High Court that challenges Malaysia’s inaction on deforestation, linking it explicitly with the obligation to combat climate change. The applicants, all Malaysian youth, argue that their government’s inaction on deforestation breaches the constitutional rights enshrined in the Malaysian Constitution (MC), namely the right to life (Art. 5(1) MC), which the Malaysian courts have previously recognized as encompassing the right to a healthy environment, and the right to equality (Art. 8(1) MC), given that deforestation disproportionately burdens youths and future generations. They argue that the government breached the expectations of maintaining forest cover that it had consistently created since 1992, and that it was bound to protect forests under the public trust doctrine. They seek a mandatory order requiring the government to take all necessary steps to prevent deforestation by avoiding dips below 50% forest cover, and to report on its progress in this regard. To make this claim, the applicants draw on expert reports, including a report on “50% Forest Cover: Assessing Malaysia’s Compliance with Forest-Climate Commitments” that notes the global and local cooling effect of forests, as well as their capacity for carbon sequestration. The expert report notes that:

Studies from the Amazon suggest that ecosystem degradation above 25% of a total forest area could result in a “tipping point” and cause the entire ecosystem to systematically die out; this not only results in a loss of biodiversity but causes a forest complex to become a net-emitter of CO2 (Gatti et al., 2021). The risk of deforestation causing a Malaysian rainforest to reach this “tipping point”, whether in isolated forest patches or in larger complexes, have not been sufficiently studied and so remains a major threat to Malaysia’s progress in achieving its net-zero target.

Hearing:
On 21 July 2026, a hearing was held in this case before the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

Application document and attached expert report:

1.-Application-for-Judicial-Review–002Download
5.-Applicants–Expert-Affidavit–002Download

Suggested citation:
Kuala Lumpur High Court, Abe Lim et al. v. Malaysia, WA-25-96-02/2026, filed 28 February 2026, pending case.

Last updated:
24 June 2026.

Categories
2026 Biodiversity Class action Deforestation Domestic court Mexico Right to a healthy environment

Community Representative of San Bartolo Coyotepec v. State of Oaxaca

Summary:
On 11 March 2024, a representative of the community of San Bartolo Coyotepec in Mexico’s State of Oaxaca filed an amparo petition with the Ninth District Court of the State of Oaxaca, arguing that the human right to a healthy environment had been violated because municipal, state, and federal authorities had failed to protect Benito Juárez National Park and the corresponding Ecological Reserve and Protected Natural Area. On 20 March 2025, the case was rejected by the Ninth District Court given the failure to demonstrate a concrete, direct, and imminent harm resulting from the alleged failure to protect the designated areas.

The applicant appealed, arguing that the first instance judge had failed to reason his decision, had shifted the burden of proof to his detriment, and had improperly evaluated the evidence concerning the progressive deterioration of the protected natural areas in question.

On 20 October 2025, the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico accepted the case for review. On 24 February 2026, the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of Justice ordered that the case be remanded to the Ninth District Court to amend the ruling that denied constitutional protection, gather evidence and determine whether the applicant’s human right to a healthy environment had been violated. It established that, pursuant to Article 4 of the Mexican Constitution, which enshrines the right to a suitable environment, any person who inhabits or uses an ecosystem and benefits from its environmental services may go to court to demand its protection, without needing to prove direct individual harm.

In doing so, the Court explicitly linked the case to climate change. It noted the interconnectedness of the three aspects of the ‘triple planetary crisis’ (climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution), and held that none of these aspects can be treated in isolation from each other. It noted the applicant’s framing of the territory in question as a carbon sink. It also extensively cited the 2025 advisory opinions on climate change of the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR). It particularly emphasized the IACtHR’s finding that “urged States to maximize the scope of protection of the right to the environment, recognizing that this right protects not only individuals, but also the components of the environment—such as forests, rivers, seas, and other ecosystems—as autonomous legal interests, even in the absence of certainty or immediate evidence of a direct risk to specific individuals” (para. 43). In doing so, it noted that according to the IACtHR climate change poses an imminent risk to life, health, food security, and the balance of ecosystems on a global scale (para. 42), as well as extensively citing the ICJ’s discussion of the right to a healthy environment in its climate advisory opinion (para. 35).

With this decision, the Court reaffirmed the “adjacent environment” doctrine in environmental matters. This means that individuals who live in or use the area of influence of an ecosystem and receive its environmental benefits may file an amparo petition, even if they do not live immediately adjacent to the Protected Natural Area. Furthermore, the Court noted that environmental protection must be analyzed in accordance with the precautionary principle, meaning that the absence of scientific certainty regarding the benefits of the ecosystem in question cannot be used to deny its protection or to disregard the relationship between people and the natural environment.

Suggested citation:
Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico, Community Representative of San Bartolo Coyotepec v. State of Oaxaca, direct amparo petition no. 6714/2025, 24 February 2026.

Amparo ruling:

AR450_2025Download

Last updated:
24 June 2026.

Categories
2026 Adaptation Domestic court Separation of powers Zambia

Climate Action Professionals Zambia v. Attorney General of Zambia

Summary:

Climate Action Professionals Zambia (CAPZ) is a non-governmental organisation consisting of young professionals and students advocating for climate change redress in Zambia. CAPZ filed a petition on 31 October 2025 against the Attorney General of Zambia challenging the state’s alleged failure to implement the key climate governance mechanisms envisaged by the Green Economy and Climate Change Act 18 of 2024 (GECCA). The GECCA mandates the state to establish key climate governance mechanisms to address climate change effects in the country. The GECCA was enacted on 20 December 2024, published on 26 December 2024, and came into force on 10 October 2025. The key climate governance mechanisms which the GECCA envisages include national adaptation and mitigation plans, a greenhouse gas inventory management system, and a green economy and climate change fund, amongst others.

In the petition, CAPZ argued that in spite of the GECCA’s entry into force, the state had failed to establish or implement several of the mechanisms envisaged by the GECCA, and thereby violated Article 257(g) of the Zambian Constitution which provides: ‘the State shall, in the utilisation of natural resources and management of the environment (…) establish and implement mechanisms that address climate change.’ CAPZ sought relief in the form of a declaratory order stating that the state had violated Article 257(g), as well as a mandatory order ordering the state to establish and implement the mechanisms within a given time period.

The Attorney General opposed the petition on the ground that neither the Constitution nor the GECCA imposed an immediate obligation to realise the mechanisms upon the GECCA’s entry into force. The Attorney General argued that Article 257(g) is directive in nature, requiring progressive implementation subject to capacity and resources, and the incomplete operationalisation of certain mechanisms does not amount to constitutional non-compliance. The Attorney General also raised a separation of powers concern, stating that the point of question in the matter concerned policy and administrative matters, and not constitutional interpretation.

The Constitutional Court decided the case on 25 March 2026 and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The Court characterised the specific mechanisms at issue as being within the realm of statutory implementation, not constitutional obligations. Being a matter of statutory compliance, rather than constitutional compliance, it should have been brought before the ordinary courts rather than the Constitutional Court.

Case documents:

The judgment can be found here. The documents are also available for download below:

Climate Action Professionals Zambia v Attorney General – Decision-1Download
Climate Action Professionals Zambia v Attorney General – PetitionDownload

Date of Decision:

25 March 2026.

Suggested citation:

Constitutional Court of Zambia, Climate Action Professionals Zambia v. Attorney General of Zambia, (2025/CCZ/0025) [2026] ZMCC 7, 25 March 2026, Judge Chinsunka.

Status of the case:

Decided.

Last updated:

01 June 2026.

Credits:

This database entry was contributed by Michaela O’Donoghue, LLD Candidate in the Urban Law and Sustainability Governance Chair, Stellenbosch University, South Africa.

Categories
Adaptation Climate-induced displacement Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Imminent risk Loss & damage Switzerland

Tétaz v. Canton of Valais

Summary:
On 27 May 2026, a case was brought against the Swiss canton of Valais concerning its liability for the Blatten landslide disaster, which took place one year previously, on 28 May 2025. On that date, the collapse of the Birch glacier destabilized the mountainside above the village, the Petit Nesthorn, causing a landslide of ice, mud, and debris that buried 90% of the village of Blatten in Valais’s Lötschental valley. Although the residents of the village were evacuated, the events resulted in one death. In addition, 130 houses as well as the local church were swept away and buried under debris 200 m thick.

One year after the disaster, legal collective “Avocat.e.s pour le Climat” brought a case on behalf of Jean-Marc Tétaz, a philosopher and theologian who lost his home and his life’s work, a library comprising 5000 sources, as well as ongoing research work and handwritten family memoirs, in the disaster. In a conciliation request filed with the municipal court of Sion, he claims the balance of damage not covered by liability insurance, including for the loss of his books, manuscripts, and work notes, as well as lost earnings from publishing projects that cannot be completed. The damage claim amounts to 211,900 Swiss Francs.

The case reportedly argues that the canton of Valais failed act to avoid the disaster or provide information to the public despite having been aware of the risks since 2022, when an “imminent danger” was identified, with a collapse deemed “very likely”, by scientists from the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, who modeled the potential consequences of a landslide at the Petit Nesthorn. According to the plaintiff in this case, the canton of Valais dismissed the scientists’ finding and failed to inform local residents of the dangers, which would have allowed him to relocate his library.

The plaintiff links the glacial instability and permafrost thaw that caused the Blatten disaster with climate change, citing scientific studies that identify climate change as having a role in the disaster. He argues that the cantonal government negligently ignored the risks given its lack of an ambitious climate policy.

More information on this case, and its legal foundations, will be added when it becomes available.

Suggested citation:
Municipal court of Sion, Tétaz v. Canton of Valais, conciliation request filed 27 May 2026.

Last updated:
30 May 2026.

Categories
Business responsibility / corporate cases Class action Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Fossil fuel extraction Imminent risk Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to life The Netherlands

Milieudefensie et al. v. Shell Plc (No. 2)

Summary:
On 21 April 2026, the Dutch NGO Milieudefensie delivered summons to oil and gas giant Shell Plc, in its second collective legal action against the company following the first Milieudefensie case (decided on appeal in 2024). This second case, under Section 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC), is brought on behalf of current and future generations of Dutch citizens after the corporate actor moved its seat from the Netherlands to the United Kingdom. Milieudefensie summoned Shell to appear at a hearing to be held at the District Court of Amsterdam on 29 July 2026.

In its 273-page summons, Milieudefensie covers issues of jurisdiction, the requirements for a collective suit under Section 3:305a DCC, the scientific evidence underpinning its case, the risk of reaching climate tipping points for Europe and for the Netherlands, international climate policy and the global 1.5-degree temperature target, the important role played by non-state actors and their corporate responsibilities to respect human rights, the inhibiting influence of the oil and gas industry, including Shell, on infrastructural carbon lock-ins, including through its historical undermining of climate science and strategies to delay climate action, as well as its lobbying against the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or CS3D) of 13 June 2024.

Milieudefensie sets out the framework for assessing Shell’s responsibility under Sections 3:296 and 6:162 DCC, fleshing this out by invoking the societal duty of care under domestic law, as well as the doctrine of hazardous negligence, human rights law (particularly Articles 2 and 8 ECHR, the rights to life and respect for private and family life), international customary law, international soft law, and legal principles including the precautionary principle, the climate law principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR), and the principle of intergenerational justice. In particular, the summons argues that

“[s]ince the Urgenda judgment, it has been widely recognised in court judgments that dangerous climate change leads to human rights violations. Not only the ECHR, but also the IACtHR and the ICJ have recently found this. Numerous (supreme) national courts have independently reached the same conclusion. Within Europe, for example, reference can be made to the case law of the [German] Bundesverfassungsgericht and the Court of Appeal in Brussels. Outside Europe, the situation is no different. For example, the Lahore High Court in Pakistan, the Supreme Court of Colombia, the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court, the District Court of Montana (United States) and the Supreme Court of India have all ruled that human rights can be relied on in order to be protected against the effects of climate change. In view of the above, there can be no misunderstanding that human rights (indirectly) have a horizontal effect when the unwritten duty-of-care standard is fleshed out. Nor can there be any debate about the fact that dangerous climate change leads to human rights violations and that human rights can be relied on for protection against dangerous climate change. The only question that remains is what assessment framework needs to be applied here. “

Milieudefensie argues that Shell bears a share of the responsibility to prevent dangerous climate change, discussing its level of knowledge and the foreseeability of harm by arguing that Shell has long known about the fact that fossil fuels cause climate change, with serious consequences for people and the environment, has known that it is making a substantial contribution to climate change and that it needs to take (precautionary) measures. It sets out Shell’s two-pillared obligations: first, a reduction obligation for Scope 1, 2 and 3 CO2 emissions, and second, an obligation not to develop new oil and gas fields.

Concerning the first pillar of obligations, Milieudefensie argues that “Shell must make an equitable contribution (a “fair share”) to preventing dangerous climate change and limiting global warming to 1.5°C by reducing its emissions.” In doing so, it invokes UN reports to argue that:

  • companies must demonstrate maximum ambition to achieve (net) zero CO2 emissions as quickly as possible, but by 2050 at the latest;
  • companies must set ambitious and credible interim targets for the short and medium term on the road to the above-mentioned goal of net zero CO2 emissions that represent a fair share of the global reduction target; and
  • the (interim) targets should cover all Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions and should aim for absolute CO2 emission reductions.  

It also submits that “Shell can be considered to be an influential Western company in several respects; it has both substantial emissions and large transition capabilities and a large historical responsibility. These are all relevant circumstances under the above-mentioned climate protocols (as evidenced by e.g. the reference to the CBDR principle and the need to take on a fair share of the global target) for asking Shell to take on an above-average responsibility and requiring it to reduce its emissions faster than the global average.”

As concerns the second pillar of obligations, Milieudefensie argues that Shell’s obligation not to pursue new fossil fuel projects is “based on the doctrine of hazardous negligence, human rights law, the legal principles discussed, soft law and other objective points of reference, is that Shell must cease the development and production of new oil and gas fields. After all, the carbon budget with a 50% probability of 1.5°C is already exceeded with the operation of the existing fossil-fuel infrastructure alone, and new oil and gas fields are therefore incompatible with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C by the end of this century. “

Milieudefensie concludes that Shell is breaching its societal duty of care under domestic law, and seeks the following provisionally enforceable remedies:

  • Emissions reductions, covering annual Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, as per the table below;
  • A prohibition of achieving these reductions through divestment, i.e. through transfer of shares or assets;
  • To prohibit Shell from making use of carbon credits for the purpose of achieving the emission reductions described;
  • To order Shell to achieve that the Shell Group ceases, continues to cease and does not start the production of new oil and gas from fields.

More information:
The full text of the summons (translated into English by Milieudefensie) is available below. For more information on the case, see here.

Summons Milieudefensie v. Shell (No. 2)Download

Suggested citation:
District Court of Amsterdam, Milieudefensie et al. v. Shell Plc (No. 2), summons issued 21 April 2026.

Categories
Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Farming Japan Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to life Right to property Right to pursue happiness

Call4 et al. v. Japan

Summary:
On 18 December 2025 and 4 April 2026, two lawsuits were filed in Japan against the Japanese government’s inaction on climate change. The first suit was filed with the Tokyo District Court on behalf of 452 plaintiffs from all over Japan, including victims of heatstroke, individuals who work in primary industries such as agriculture and fisheries, and children. The second suit, again with the Tokyo District Court, was filed on behalf of 454 additional plaintiffs.

The (in total) 906 plaintiffs in these twin cases summarize their claims as follows:

First, they challenge the legality of the government’s emissions reductions targets, given their inconsistency with the 1.5-degree warming target set out by the Paris Agreement. They challenge the reduction targets set out in the most recent Japanese NDC and the country’s 7th Global Warming Countermeasures Plan, both dated February 2025. Under these instruments, the government’s current targets aim for a 39% emissions reduction by 2030, a 52% reduction by 2035, and a 67% reduction by 2040 compared to 2019 levels, which the plaintiffs argue is incompatible with IPCC science, the 1.5-degree target, and Japan’s obligations as a highly developed nation.

Second, the plaintiffs argue that the government’s failure to enact effective legislation to achieve the 1.5-degree target is unconstitutional. They submit that “currently in Japan, there are no laws that set greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2030 or 2035, nor are there any legally binding emission standards.” They argue that “[t]he right to live peacefully in a stable climate without fear of harm to one’s life, health, or property is a human right that should be guaranteed by the Constitution”, as well as invoking the constitutionally guaranteed right to live peacefully.

In doing so, the plaintiffs draw on IPCC reports and explicitly refer to climate litigation in domestic and international jurisdictions, including the ICJ’s climate advisory opinion.

More information:
More information on the case, as well as case documents, are available here.

The applicants’ submissions in both cases (in Japanese) are available for download below.

Filing in the first caseDownload
Filing in the second caseDownload

Suggested citation:
Tokyo District Court, Call4 et al. v. Japan, filings of 18 December 2025 and 4 April 2026 (pending).

Categories
2026 Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Fossil fuel extraction Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Public trust doctrine Right to a healthy environment Right to culture Right to life Separation of powers United States of America

Kaarina Dunn et al. v. Public Service Comission of Wisconsin, et al.

Summary:
On 23 April 2026, a court in the US state of Wisconsin ruled in a youth climate case against the Wisconsin Public Service Commission and the Wisconsin State legislature. The case was filed by fifteen young people ranging in age from 8-17. The youth plaintiffs had challenged the constitutionality of statues governing the approval of fossil fuel-fired power plants because those statutes limit the ability of the first respondent, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, to consider air quality impacts of when issuing permits for such plants. In doing so, they had invoked their rights, under the Wisconsin state constitution, to liberty and to life, as well as the rights to a stable climate system and to access, enjoy and use navigable waters (both of which they considered inherent within the constitution). They also alleged a violation of Wisconsin’s public trust doctrine.

According to the Plaintiffs, climate change has rendered them unable to enjoy Wisconsin’s natural resources, like its rivers and lakes, as well as prevented them from engaging in recreational activities, like swimming and skiing. Some are deprived of their Indigenous cultural traditions, while others have experienced asthma and contracted Lyme disease.

The judge tasked with resolving this case, Judge Julie Genovese, ruled that “[w]hile the court is sympathetic to the youths and admires their willingness to access the courts in their quest to protect the planet, I conclude that the case must be dismissed because environmental policy is a nonjusticiable political question”. The judge discussed Wisconsin’s political question doctrine, which “dictates that courts will not decide questions that require the court to determine what the best or wisest public policy would be”, and “also embodies a practical component, recognizing that matters of economic and social policy are not reasonably “susceptible to judicial management or resolution.””

The judge concluded that:

“by substituting this court’s judgment for the legislature, the court
would be showing a lack of respect for the legislative and executive branches. Plaintiffs do not like these policy decisions. (…) Because Plaintiffs think it is technologically and economically feasible for Wisconsin to be carbon free by 2050, they conclude that by invalidating the statutes and thus their limitations, the PSC will decide to stop approving fossil fuel-fired plants, and Plaintiffs’ carbon free goal will be achieved. While the court may agree with Plaintiffs’ policy preferences, it would show a blatant lack of respect for our elected officials and the agency defendants to substitute my judgment for theirs, and strike the limitations imposed by the legislature and executed by the PSC. Accordingly, because the court concludes that the legislature’s policy decisions represent a nonjusticiable political question, this case must be dismissed.”

Full text of the judgment:
The full text of the judgment is available for download below.

Decision Wisconsin 2026Download

Submission on behalf of the state:
The submission made on behalf of the state government can be downloaded below.

Filing Legislature’s attorney Ryan WalshDownload
Categories
Belgium Business responsibility / corporate cases Domestic court Farming Fossil fuel extraction Private and family life Right to life

Falys et al. v. TotalEnergies (‘The Farmer Case’)

Summary:

In March 2024, Hugues Falys, a farmer located in Belgium, filed a legal action at the Commercial Court of Tournai (Belgium) against TotalEnergies. He was joined by Ligue des Droits Humains, Greenpeace Belgium and FIAN Belgium.

The objective of the legal action is to claim compensation for damages suffered by Falys as a result of climate breakdown, and to force TotalEnergies to move away from fossil fuels. The plaintiffs argue that Falys’s farm in Lessines (BE) has suffered a number of extreme weather events, including heatwaves and droughts, resulting in major financial losses, extra workload, stress and worry.

The civil liability action is based on articles 1382 and 1383 of the former Belgian Civil Code. In their submissions to the court, the plaintiffs have put forward human rights arguments as one line of interpretation of the relevant provisions, inter alia referring the ECtHR’s judgment in KlimaSeniorinnen multiple times.

Relevant developments:

On March 18 2026, the Commercial Court of Tournai found the action to be admissible, thereby recognising that carbon majors can be held accountable in Belgium for causing climate change even if their headquarters is in another state. With regards to the merits of the case, the Court postponed its judgment to 9 September 2026 to await the decision in a similar case against TotalEnergies in France.

See also:

Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v. Total.

Links:

For the main conclusions of the plaintiffs (in French), see here.

For an unofficial translation of the main conclusions of the plaintiffs (in English), see here.

For the Court’s admissibility judgment of 18 March 2026 (in French), see here.

Last updated:

20 March 2026.

Categories
Domestic court Fossil fuel extraction Norway Paris Agreement

Greenpeace Nordic and Finnish Association for Nature Conservation v. Finland

Summary:
On 18 February 2026, a climate case was filed against the government of Finland challenging its 2025 climate action plan in light of alleged failures to present an adequate emissions reductions pathway in line with its 2035 net neutrality target. The plaintiffs, NGOs Greenpeace Finland and Finnish Association for Nature Conservation, sought judicial review by the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court of the government’s plans for implementing climate targets under the 2022 Climate Act. These plans are detailed in the Government Report on the National Energy and Climate Strategy and Medium-Term Climate Plan, both of which were issued in December 2025. The plaintiffs argue that the measures envisaged by the government are insufficient to achieve the targets set out in the Climate Act, and alternative pathways towards the achievement of the targets have not been assessed, and thus the government is in breach of its statutory duty.    

Invoking the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen & Others v. Switzerland judgment by the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the climate advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, the plaintiffs allege that the shortcomings of the plan are unlawful, do not take into account the best available science and rely excessively on technological methods of removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, without adequately protecting carbon sinks. The current climate plan was published in December 2025, and is required under the Finnish Climate Act to present different options for how emissions and carbon sinks will develop over the next 30 years, as well as sector-specific measures.

The plaintiffs have approached the highest administrative court in Finland directly (rather than via the appellate route), arguing that the impugned government decisions implicate civil rights and obligations as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights in the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen & Others v. Switzerland judgment.

Further information:
A press release on the case is available here; the present summary will be updated once more information becomes available.

Suggested citation:
Finnish Supreme Administrative Court, Greenpeace Nordic and Finnish Association for Nature Conservation v. Finland, case filed on 18 February 2026 (pending).

Last updated:
13 March 2026.