Tag: Domestic court proceedings

Categories
2022 Children and young people Committee on the Rights of the Child Deciding Body Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Germany Keywords Paris Agreement Right to life Rights at stake State concerned Year

Leonie Frank et al. v. Saarland

Summary:
This case is one of ten separate constitutional complaints and one subsidiary popular complaint supported by the NGO Deutsche Umwelthilfe against ten German States (“Bundesländer”). It was brought by two young people against the German State of Saarland in the wake of the Neubauer v. Germany judgment of the German Bundesverfassungsgericht. They contest the State’s failure to chart a course towards greenhouse gas emissions reductions by adopting legislation on climate protection. Like in the eleven related cases, the plaintiffs here argue that the Bundesländer share responsibility for protecting their lives and civil liberties, along with those of future generations, within their respective spheres of competence. According to the plaintiffs, the lack of legislation on climate action on the state level violates the German Constitution and the reductions regime under the Paris Agreement. They also submit that they have a fundamental right to defend themselves against future rights impacts caused by the lack of climate measures.

Saarland does not have a climate law as an initiative from 2015 failed to move forward.

On 18 January 2022, the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court dismissed all eleven complaints for lack of adequate prospects of success. In alignment with its argumentation in Neubauer v. Germany, the First Senate recognized that the burden of CO2 emissions reductions must not be unilaterally offloaded onto future generations. However, the First Senate stated the individual legislators of the Bundesländer have not been been given an overall reduction target to comply with, even at the expense of freedom protected by fundamental rights. Thus, according to the First Senate’s decision, a violation of the obligations to protect the complainants from the dangers of climate change cannot be established. As regards to the Bundesländer, the First Senate clarified that they still have a responsibility to protect the climate, particularly by virtue of Article 20a of the German Constitution.

Rights invoked:
The applicants invoked violations of freedoms guaranteed under the domestic Constitution, especially those in Art. 2(2) of the German Constitution (right to life and physical integrity and freedom of the person), in combination with Article 20a of the Constitution (protection of the natural foundations of life and of animals). They invoked these rights in their ‘intertemporal dimension’, i.e. taking on the framing of the Neubauer case, which considered that failure to act now on climate change means excessively impacting future freedoms.

Date of decision:

18 January 2022

Suggested citation:
German Bundesverfassungsgericht, Leonie Frank et al. v. Saarland, Decision of the First Senate of 18 January 2022 – 1 BvR 1565/21 et al.

Related proceedings:
For the other related cases see:

Luca Salis et al. v. Sachsen-Anhalt

Lemme et al. v. Bayern

Emma Johanna Kiehm et al. v. Brandenburg

Alena Hochstadt et al. v. Hessen

Otis Hoffman et al. v. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

Tristan Runge et al. v. Sachsen

Jannis Krüssmann et al. Nordrhein-Westfalen (NWR)

Cosima Rade et al. v. Baden-Württemberg

Matteo Feind et al. v. Niedersachsen

Links:

For the decision in German, see here.

Categories
2022 Children and young people Deciding Body Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Germany Keywords Paris Agreement State concerned Uncategorized

Otis Hoffman et al. v. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

Summary:
This case is one of ten separate constitutional complaints and one subsidiary popular complaint supported by the NGO Deutsche Umwelthilfe against ten German States (“Bundesländer”). It was brought by three young people and two children against the German State of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in the wake of the Neubauer v. Germany judgment of the German Bundesverfassungsgericht. They contest the State’s failure to chart a course towards greenhouse gas emissions reductions by adopting legislation on climate protection. Like in the eleven related cases, the plaintiffs here argue that the Bundesländer share responsibility for protecting their lives and civil liberties, along with those of future generations, within their respective spheres of competence. According to the plaintiffs, the lack of legislation on climate action on the state level violates the German Constitution and the reductions regime under the Paris Agreement. They also submit that they have a fundamental right to defend themselves against future rights impacts caused by the lack of climate measures.

On 18 January 2022, the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court dismissed all eleven complaints for lack of adequate prospects of success. In alignment with its argumentation in Neubauer v. Germany, the First Senate recognized that the burden of CO2 emissions reductions must not be unilaterally offloaded onto future generations. However, the First Senate stated the individual legislators of the Bundesländer have not been been given an overall reduction target to comply with, even at the expense of freedom protected by fundamental rights. Thus, according to the First Senate’s decision, a violation of the obligations to protect the complainants from the dangers of climate change cannot be established. As regards to the Bundesländer, the First Senate clarified that they still have a responsibility to protect the climate, particularly by virtue of Article 20a of the German Constitution.

Rights invoked:
The applicants invoked violations of freedoms guaranteed under the domestic Constitution, especially those in Art. 2(2) of the German Constitution (right to life and physical integrity and freedom of the person), in combination with Article 20a of the Constitution (protection of the natural foundations of life and of animals). They invoked these rights in their ‘intertemporal dimension’, i.e. taking on the framing of the Neubauer case, which considered that failure to act now on climate change means excessively impacting future freedoms.

Date of decision:

18 January 2022

Suggested citation:
German Bundesverfassungsgericht, Otis Hoffman et al. v. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Decision of the First Senate of 18 January 2022 – 1 BvR 1565/21 et al.

Related proceedings:
For the other related cases see:

Luca Salis et al. v. Sachsen-Anhalt

Lemme et al. v. Bayern

Emma Johanna Kiehm et al. v. Brandenburg

Alena Hochstadt et al. v. Hessen

Leonie Frank et al. v. Saarland

Tristan Runge et al. v. Sachsen

Jannis Krüssmann et al. Nordrhein-Westfalen (NWR)

Cosima Rade et al. v. Baden-Württemberg

Matteo Feind et al. v. Niedersachsen

Links:

For the decision in German, see here.

Categories
2022 Children and young people Deciding Body Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Germany Keywords Paris Agreement Right to life Rights at stake State concerned Year

Alena Hochstadt et al. v. Hessen

Summary:
This case is one of ten separate constitutional complaints and one subsidiary popular complaint supported by the NGO Deutsche Umwelthilfe against ten German States (“Bundesländer”). It was brought by three young people against the German State of Hessen in the wake of the Neubauer v. Germany judgment of the German Bundesverfassungsgericht. They contest the State’s failure to chart a course towards greenhouse gas emissions reductions by adopting legislation on climate protection. Like in the eleven related cases, the plaintiffs here argue that the Bundesländer share responsibility for protecting their lives and civil liberties, along with those of future generations, within their respective spheres of competence. According to the plaintiffs, the lack of legislation on climate action on the state level violates the German Constitution and the reductions regime under the Paris Agreement. They also submit that they have a fundamental right to defend themselves against future rights impacts caused by the lack of climate measures.

In June 2021, Hessen’s Climate Change Act was introduced to the state parliament and is currently under debate. According to the plaintiffs, the Climate Change Act in its current version does not fulfil the constitutional obligations for climate protection.

On 18 January 2022, the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court dismissed all eleven complaints for lack of adequate prospects of success. In alignment with its argumentation in Neubauer v. Germany, the First Senate recognized that the burden of CO2 emissions reductions must not be unilaterally offloaded onto future generations. However, the First Senate stated the individual legislators of the Bundesländer have not been been given an overall reduction target to comply with, even at the expense of freedom protected by fundamental rights. Thus, according to the First Senate’s decision, a violation of the obligations to protect the complainants from the dangers of climate change cannot be established. As regards to the Bundesländer, the First Senate clarified that they still have a responsibility to protect the climate, particularly by virtue of Article 20a of the German Constitution.

Rights invoked:
The applicants invoked violations of freedoms guaranteed under the domestic Constitution, especially those in Art. 2(2) of the German Constitution (right to life and physical integrity and freedom of the person), in combination with Article 20a of the Constitution (protection of the natural foundations of life and of animals). They invoked these rights in their ‘intertemporal dimension’, i.e. taking on the framing of the Neubauer case, which considered that failure to act now on climate change means excessively impacting future freedoms.

Date of decision:

18 January 2022

Suggested citation:
German Bundesverfassungsgericht, Alena Hochstadt et al. v. Hessen, Decision of the First Senate of 18 January 2022 – 1 BvR 1565/21 et al.

Related proceedings:
For the other related cases see:

Luca Salis et al. v. Sachsen-Anhalt

Lemme et al. v. Bayern

Emma Johanna Kiehm et al. v. Brandenburg

Otis Hoffman et al. v. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

Leonie Frank et al. v. Saarland

Tristan Runge et al. v. Sachsen

Jannis Krüssmann et al. Nordrhein-Westfalen (NWR)

Cosima Rade et al. v. Baden-Württemberg

Matteo Feind et al. v. Niedersachsen

Links:

For the decision in German, see here.

Categories
2022 Children and young people Deciding Body Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Germany Keywords Paris Agreement Right to life Rights at stake State concerned Year

Emma Johanna Kiehm et al. v. Brandenburg

Summary:
This case is one of ten separate constitutional complaints and one subsidiary popular complaint supported by the NGO Deutsche Umwelthilfe against ten German States (“Bundesländer”). It was brought by three young people and three landowners against the German State of Brandenburg in the wake of the Neubauer v. Germany judgment of the German Bundesverfassungsgericht. They contest the State’s failure to chart a course towards greenhouse gas emissions reductions by adopting legislation on climate protection. Like in the eleven related cases, the plaintiffs here argue that the Bundesländer share responsibility for protecting their lives and civil liberties, along with those of future generations, within their respective spheres of competence. According to the plaintiffs, the lack of legislation on climate action on the state level violates the German Constitution and the reductions regime under the Paris Agreement. They also submit that they have a fundamental right to defend themselves against future rights impacts caused by the lack of climate measures.

On 18 January 2022, the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court dismissed all eleven complaints for lack of adequate prospects of success. In alignment with its argumentation in Neubauer v. Germany, the First Senate recognized that the burden of CO2 emissions reductions must not be unilaterally offloaded onto future generations. However, the First Senate stated the individual legislators of the Bundesländer have not been been given an overall reduction target to comply with, even at the expense of freedom protected by fundamental rights. Thus, according to the First Senate’s decision, a violation of the obligations to protect the complainants from the dangers of climate change cannot be established. As regards to the Bundesländer, the First Senate clarified that they still have a responsibility to protect the climate, particularly by virtue of Article 20a of the German Constitution.

Rights invoked:
The applicants invoked violations of freedoms guaranteed under the domestic Constitution, especially those in Art. 2(2) of the German Constitution (right to life and physical integrity and freedom of the person), in combination with Article 20a of the Constitution (protection of the natural foundations of life and of animals). They invoked these rights in their ‘intertemporal dimension’, i.e. taking on the framing of the Neubauer case, which considered that failure to act now on climate change means excessively impacting future freedoms.

Date of decision:

18 January 2022

Suggested citation:
German Bundesverfassungsgericht, Emma Johanna Kiehm et al. v. Brandenburg, Decision of the First Senate of 18 January 2022 – 1 BvR 1565/21 et al.

Related proceedings:
For the other related cases see:

Luca Salis et al. v. Sachsen-Anhalt

Lemme et al. v. Bayern

Alena Hochstadt et al. v. Hessen

Otis Hoffman et al. v. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

Leonie Frank et al. v. Saarland

Tristan Runge et al. v. Sachsen

Jannis Krüssmann et al. Nordrhein-Westfalen (NWR)

Cosima Rade et al. v. Baden-Württemberg

Matteo Feind et al. v. Niedersachsen

Links:

For the decision in German, see here.

Categories
Adaptation Argentina Children and young people Deforestation Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to life Rights of nature Victim status

Asociación Civil por la Justicia Ambiental v. Province of Entre Ríos et al. (Paraná Delta case)

Summary:
This case, brought to the Supreme Court of Argentina after severe fires in a wetland ecosystem in the Paraná Delta (Delta del Paraná) in Argentina, was filed by two NGOs and a group of local children (represented by their parents) as a collective environmental ‘amparo’ claim against the local and provincial governments. The applicants invoke their rights to a healthy environment, to life, to health, and to physical integrity under the Argentinean Constitution, as well as invoking the Convention on the Rights of the Child and drawing on the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement.

The action concerns alleged protection failures concerning the preservation of the wetlands of the Paraná Delta, and concerns more than three thousand fires ensuring from the indiscriminate burning of grasslands. The claimants urge the Supreme Court to declare the declare the Paraná Delta a subject of rights given that it consitutes an essential ecosystem in its region, including due to the ecosystem services it performs related to the mitigation and adaptation to climate change. The also request the court to order the respondents to prepare and implement measures to regulate and protect the ecosystem given its endangerment in the face of climate change and the need to protect it for future generations. They argue that a guardian should be designated for this ecosystem, and that local communites should be involved in decision-making relevant to its management, considering in this regard the terms of the Escazú Agreement.

Current status of the case:

The case was filed on 3 July 2020. Given the existence of other similar complaints, the Supreme Court decided on 21 December 2021 that it would issue one judgment concerning all relevant complaints.

Suggested citation:

Supreme Court of Argentina, Asociación Civil por la Justicia Ambiental v. Province of Entre Ríos et al., Doc. CSJ 542/2020, decision of 28 December 2021.

Last updated:

18 March 2023

Categories
Adaptation Australia Domestic court Imminent risk Indigenous peoples' rights Sea-level rise Uncategorized Vulnerability

Pabai Pabai & Another v. Australia (Torres Strait Islander case)

Summary:
In a case modelled on the Dutch Urgenda case, a group of indigenous Torres Strait Islanders living on islands off Australia’s coast initiated domestic class action proceedings before the Federal court of Australia to claim that the Australian government has failed to protect them from climate change, leading to the progressive destruction of their ancestral islands.

This case was brought by two Torres Straits Islanders on behalf of the residents of Torres Strait Islands who have suffered loss and damage due to Australia’s conduct from about 1985. The claim categorically frames the harms allegedly suffered by the group and the risks they face as being caused by Australia’s failure to exercise due care in protecting them from climate-related harms. Apart from sea level rise, extreme weather events, harm to marine ecosystems and increased disease risks, the plaintiffs allege that Australia’s conduct threatens the loss of their distinctive customary culture- Ailan Kastom, which entails a spiritual connection with their land and the practice of marine hunting and fishing.

Context:
In another, separate climate claim, a group of eight Torres Strait islanders took a Communication to the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 2019, alleging that Australia had violated the human rights of low-lying islanders because of its failure to take climate action. On 21 July 2022, the Human Rights Committee adopted its Views in this case, known as the Billy and Others v. Australia case.

Petitioners:
This case was brought by two First Nations leaders on behalf of the remote Torres Strait islands of Boigu and Saibai. They brought the case on their own behalf and “on behalf of all persons who at any time during the period from about 1985 and continuing, are of Torres Strait Islander descent and suffered loss and damage as a result of the conduct of the Respondent”.

Arguments made:
While their claim is essentially based on the Torres Strait Islanders native title rights under the Native Title Act 1993, the plaintiffs also drew upon a wider body of norms regarding the Torres Strait Islanders as well as the environment in and around the Torres Strait Islands, emanating from international law, domestic law and policy commitments.  

Based on scientific evidence, the plaintiffs argued that climate change is already threatening their native title rights and distinctive customary culture. They alleged that, due to the progression of climate change and the increasing storms and rising sea levels that result from this, they face an increasing threat of floods and of rising salt concentrations in their soil. Some islands, they argue, could become uninhabitable if the global temperature rises to levels more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. One of the plaintiffs noted that that his people have lived on the islands in question for over 65,000 years.

The plaintiffs alleged that the Australian government owes a duty of care to Torres Strait Islanders. It must, in other words, take reasonable measures to protect them, their environment, their culture and their traditional way of life from the harms caused by climate change. Because current climate action and targets are not consistent with the best available climate science, they argue, they argued that this duty of care has been breached. They invoked the Torres Strait Treaty, which requires the Australian government to protect and preserve the marine environment in the region.

Relief sought:
The plaintiffs sought declarations that Australia owes a duty of care to the Torres Strait Islanders which requires reasonable protective measures aimed at the Islanders, their traditional way of life and the marine environment; and that Australia has breached this duty. They further requested the court to order an injunction requiring Australia to implement both climate adaptation and mitigation measures that are consistent with best available science and the payment of compensation for loss and damage.

The plaintiffs sought both mitigation and adaptation measures and relied on the duty of care recognized in the Sharma case.

Fact-finding:
In 2023, representatives of the Federal Court traveled to the Torres Strait to collect evidence from members of the community.

A hearing of expert evidence was held in this case on the premises of the Federal Court in Melbourne starting in late October 2023.  

Ruling of 15 July 2025:
On 15 July 2025, the Federal Court of Australia found that there had been no negligence in this case. In (Pabai v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2025] FCA 796), the court rejected both of the prima facie negligence and their alternative duty of care claims brought by the Torres Strait Islanders, represented by Pabai Pabai and Guy Paul Kabai. The Court found that the applicants failed to prove any of the essential elements of their case: duty, breach, causation, damages. The court orders the parties to confer and within six weeks of the judgment to provide agreed draft orders giving effect to the judgment or in the case of no agreement, competing draft orders and a note as to whether an oral hearing is requested to resolve outstanding issues.

Full text of the petition:
All documents related to the proceedings can be found on the Federal Court of Australia’s website (click here).

Citation:
Pabai v. Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2025] FCA 796.

Last updated:
12 September 2025.

Categories
2021 Brazil Deforestation Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment

Laboratório do Observatório do Clima v. Minister of Environment and Brazil

Facts of the case:

This is a class action suit brought before the 7th Federal Environmental and Agrarian Court of the Judiciary Section of Amazonas, by a network of 71 civil society organizations against the Environmental Ministry and the Brazilian Government. The petitioners allege that the respondents are committing a systematic violation of the right to an ecologically balanced environment as well as Brazil’s obligation under the Paris Agreement by- failing to update and implement Brazil’s ‘National Policy on Climate Change’ pursuant to the federal climate legislation, especially in the face of the updates in IPCC’s 6th Assessment Report; downgrading the ambition in Brazil’s ‘Nationally Determined Contributions’ communication under the Paris Agreement; failing to address the problem of deforestation in the Amazon; disproportionately favouring and intensifying the use of fossil fuel over renewable sources in its energy sector; and reducing the powers and capabilities of institutions for environmental protection that make up the national system for environmental protection and climate control, and thereby paralysing the accountability processes.

The reliefs sought by the petitioners include a declaration of non-compliance with constitutional law, and a mandatory injunction. As for the latter, the respondents ask for the preparation of an updated National Policy on Climate Change which takes into consideration all sectors of the economy, is in strict compliance with the federal climate legislation and principles recognised in the Paris Agreement, informed by the IPCC’s latest Assessment Report and the Paris Agreement’s 1.5ºC temperature target.   

Date of institution of proceedings:

26 October 2021

Admissibility:

TBD

Merits:

TBD:

Reliefs Awarded:

TBD

Status of the case:

Pending.

Further information:

On 11 November 2021, Judge Mara Elisa Andrade scheduled a conciliatory hearing between the parties to the case, which was subsequently cancelled on 25 November 2021 owing to the defendants’ lack of interest in settling the dispute through conciliation.

Case documents:

Petition (in Portuguese)

Categories
2021 Domestic court Indigenous peoples' rights Just transition litigation Norway Right to culture

Statnett SF et al. v. Sør-Fosen sijte et al.

Summary:
In this judgment of 11 October 2021, the Supreme Court of Norway found that the construction of two wind power plants on the Fosen peninsula interfered with the rights of reindeer herders to enjoy their own culture under Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Supreme Court unanimously found that there had been an interference with this right, and accordingly invalidated the wind power licence and the expropriation decision.

Facts of the case:
In 2010, two wind power plants (the Roan and Storheia plants) received a license from the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate. These plants are located within the Fosen grazing district, where the Sør-Fosen sijte and Nord-Fosen siida keep their reindeer. In 2013, the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy rejected their claim that the construction of the wind power plants interfered with their right to cultural enjoyment. Construction on the plants commenced while the issue was pending before the courts, and the two plants – which are part of the largest onshore wind power project in Europe — were ready to become operational in 2019 and 2020, respectively.

Merits:
The main issue at stake before the Supreme Court was whether the development interfered with the reindeer herders’ rights under Article 27 ICCPR. That provision enshrines the right of persons belonging to an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority to enjoy their own culture, in community with the other members of their group. It was undisputed before the Supreme Court that reindeer husbandry is a protected cultural practice. The Supreme Court relied on the Court of Appeal’s finding that the winter pastures near Storheia and Roan had in practice been lost to reindeer husbandry, and that the wind power plants in question are a threat to the reindeer industry’s existence on Fosen peninsula absent remedial measures.    

The Supreme Court, relying on the work of the UN Human Rights Committee, held that the total effect of the development in question determines whether a violation of the ICCPR right has taken place. Although there is no room for a proportionality assessment, a balance must be struck if the rights under Article 27 ICCPR conflict with other fundamental rights. The Supreme Court established that the right to a healthy environment might constitute such a conflicting right.

The Supreme Court found that the herders’ cultural rights would face significant adverse effects and be violated if satisfactory remedial measures were not implemented. The Supreme Court agreed that a “green shift” and increased renewable energy production are important, but found that there were alternatives that were less intrusive for the reindeer herders less, so that there was no collision between environmental interests and the reindeers’ right to cultural enjoyment in this case.   

Remedial awards:
In its ruling, the Court of Appeal had previously stipulated sizeable compensation for the winter feeding of fenced-in reindeer, and on this basis it had found no violation of the right to cultural enjoyment. In the Supreme Court’s view, such a solution was too uncertain to be a determining factor in whether Article 27 ICCPR had been violated. In any event, the courts could not rely on such a measure as a part of the reindeer herders’ duty to adapt.  

Separate opinions:
N/A

Implementation:
N/A

Date of judgment:
11 October 2021

Links:
A summary of the judgment (in English) is available here.

The full text of the judgment (in Norwegian) is available here. An English translation is available here.

Suggested citation:
Supreme Court of Norway, Statnett SF et al. v. Sør-Fosen sijte, HR-2021-1975-S, Judgment of 11 October 2021.

Categories
2021 Deciding Body Domestic court European Convention on Human Rights Keywords Paris Agreement Right to assembly and association Right to freedom of expression Rights at stake State concerned Switzerland Year

Credit Suisse Climate Activists Trial (Geneva)

Summary:
On 13 October 2018, during a climate march in Geneva, a young climate activist from the collective “BreakFree Suisse” spread his hands smeared with red paint all over the facade of the Swiss bank Credit Suisse, leaving red handprints to denounce investments in fossil fuels. According to the climate activist, these red handprints symbolized the blood of the various victims of climate change.

On 20 February 2020, the activist was found guilty by the Tribunal de police (“Police Court”) for property damage.

On 14 October 2020, the Cour de Justice (“Court of Justice”) acquitted the climate activist and argued that the young man had acted in a putative state of necessity due to climate change.

A year later, on 28 September 2021, the Swiss Bundesgericht (“Federal Supreme Court”) overturned this decision and referred the case back to the Cour de Justice. The Bundesgericht argued that climate change and the resulting consequences do not represent an imminent danger to individual legal interests.

Consequently, on 31 March 2022, the Cour de Justice revised its first decision and ordered the climate activist to pay a symbolic fine of 100 Swiss francs as well as compensation for material damage.

In a similar case in Lausanne, climate activists from the same collective were on trial after occupying the entrance halls of the Swiss bank Credit Suisse.  

Rights invoked:
The activist invoked his rights to freedom of expression (Article 10 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) and assembly and association (Article 11 ECHR).

The Swiss Bundesgericht held that Article 11 ECHR only protects the right to freedom of “peaceful assembly”. With his behavior, the young man committed an act of vandalism, which is incompatible with freedom of expression. Accordingly, the Court found that the activist could not rely on Articles 10 and 11 ECHR.  

Further proceedings:
It was reported that applications concerning both of these cases have been filed at the European Court of Human Rights.

Date:
28 September 2021

Suggested citation:
Swiss Bundesgericht, N.B. v. Credit Suisse, 6B_1310/2020, 6B_1298/2020, Judgment of 28 September 2021.

Links:
For the Federal Supreme Court’s judgment, see here.

For the Cour de justice’s second judgment, see here.

For the Cour de Justice’s first judgment, see here.

For the Tribunal de police’s judgment, see here.

Categories
Children and young people Domestic court Right to a healthy environment Uganda

Mbabazi and Others v. The Attorney General of Uganda and Others

Summary:
This case was brought by a group of four young people, along with an NGO, alleging that the government of Uganda had breached its duty as a public trustee over natural resources because it had failed to uphold the right to a clean and healthy environment. The case was brought against the Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda and the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA). The plaintiffs brought their case under Articles 29, 50 and 237 of the Ugandan Constitution, along with sections 2, 3, 71 and 106 of the National Environment Act. They brought the case on their own behalf, as well as on behalf of “all children of Uganda born and unborn”, and in the public interest.

Claims:
The plaintiffs argued that the Government of Uganda holds and maintains natural resources for and on behalf of Ugandan citizens under Article 237 of the domestic Constitution, and that it has a duty and obligation to maintain these resources and to ensure their sustainable use. It also has a duty to ensure the sustainable use of resources for present and future generations, including air, water and land. They describe the atmosphere as an ecological asset of the Ugandan people. They invoked Articles 39 and 237 of the domestic Constitution, which imposes a duty on the government to ensure that the atmosphere is free from pollution, and they also argued that the Government has a duty to ensure the integration of environmental concerns into overall national policy-making. The Government had failed to uphold citizens’ right to a clean and healthy environment, and to curb the present and future effects of climate change.

Date filed:
2012

Case status:
Pending

Further reading:
The amended text of the complaint, as submitted in 2015, is available from climatecasechart.com.

Suggested citation:
High Court of Uganda, Mbabazi and Others v. The Attorney General and National Environmental Management Authority, Civil Suit No. 283 of 2012