Climate Litigation: Landmark Cases Shaping Global Environmental Law

Climate change is undeniably one of the most pressing challenges of our time, and its impacts are felt worldwide. As nations grapple with the urgent need to address environmental concerns, the legal arena has become a critical battleground in the fight against climate change. Climate Court dove into a series of groundbreaking legal cases that have played a pivotal role in shaping the landscape of global environmental law. These landmark cases highlight the power of the law as an instrument for change, as they have sought to hold governments, corporations, and institutions accountable for their contributions to climate change and the resulting harm to our planet.

In the following section, we will explore some of these influential climate-related legal battles, examining their implications and the broader impact they have on the development of environmental law and policy across the globe. Expand the cases below to read more.

Argentina: Barrick Exploraciones Argentinas S.A. and others v. National Government

This case involves Barrick Exploraciones Argentinas S.A. and Exploraciones Mineras Argentinas S.A., title holders of concessions for the ‘Pascua Lama’ bi-national project in the Argentine-Chilean region. The proposed Pascua Lama project had included a suggestion to dynamite glaciers and hauling them off in dump trucks to enable the title holders’ access to gold reserves.

The case challenged environmental licenses for mining projects in glacier areas and the federal government’s omission in the National Glacier Inventory. The Supreme Court ruled that it lacks exclusive jurisdiction and upheld the glacier law, requiring mining companies to submit glacier impact reports. This ruling reaffirmed the strict enforcement of the National Glacier Act, aiming to protect glaciers and permafrost environments. The ruling had a far-reaching impact on the mining industry, as it underscored the need for mining companies to adhere to environmental regulations, particularly concerning glacier protection. Mining companies must ensure they do not impact glaciers or permafrost in their operations.

Read case here.

Australia: Gloucester Resources Limited v. Minister for Planning

In a ground-breaking decision, the New South Wales Land and Environment Court rejected Gloucester Resources Limited’s (GRL) proposal for an open-cut coal mine. The court cited environmental concerns, including climate change impacts, as the basis for denial.

The court emphasised that the coal mine would be unsustainable and result in substantial environmental and social harm. It invoked principles and intra and inter-generational equity, considering both current and future impacts. Notably, the court scrutinized the project’s contributions to climate change, dismissing arguments for approval. The decision sets a remarkable precedent as the first instance in Australia where a coal mine was denied due to its climate change implications. While its broader applicability may be limited, the decision signals a global shift towards environmentally conscious legal judgements.

Read case here.

Australia: Daniel Billy and ors v. Australia (Torres Strait Islanders Petition)

A group of 8 Torres Strait Islanders, Australian nationals, along with 6 of their children, submitted a petition to the UN Human Rights Committee. They claimed climate change had dire consequences for their culture, livelihood, and way of life. Rising sea levels, floods, and environmental degradation had damaged ancestral graveyards, traditional food sources, and essential cultural practices.

The Islanders argued that Australia’s failure to address climate change violated their human rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). They claimed violations of Article 6 (right to life), Article 17 (right to privacy, family, and home life), Article 24(1) (right of the child to protective measures), and Article 27 (right to culture). Australia contended that climate action was being taken, rendering the claims moot. The nation also argued that climate change was a global issue and not solely its responsibility.

The UN Human Rights Committee ruled that Australia’s inadequate climate action violated the Islanders’ rights to enjoy their culture and be free from arbitrary interferences with their private life, family, and home. The Committee considered the Islanders’ profound connection to their land and ecosystems and found Australia’s lack of timely and adequate measures to protect them constituted a violation of their rights.

This case was the first instance where a United Nations body found a state violated international human rights law due to inadequate climate policies. Additionally, it recognises the vulnerability of Indigenous cultures to climate change impacts.

Read case here.

Colombia: Future Generations v. Ministry of the Environment and Others

25 youth plaintiffs, aged between 7 and 26, filed a legal claim against various bodies within the Colombian government, municipalities, and corporations, alleging that their fundamental rights to a healthy environment, lift, health, food, and water were threatened by climate change and deforestation. They pointed out that the government failed to meet its commitment to net zero deforestation in the Colombian Amazon by 2020, as agreed under the Paris Agreement and the National Development Plan 2014-2018. The youth plaintiffs used a special constitutional claim, known as ‘tutela’, to enforce their fundamental rights.

The lower court initially ruled against the youth plaintiffs. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision. The Supreme Court recognized that the fundamental rights of life, health, and human dignity were intrinsically linked to the environment and ecosystem. It acknowledged the Colombian Amazon as a ‘subject of rights’.

The Supreme Court ordered to formulate and implement action plans to address deforestation in the Amazon. It found that the government had a legal obligation to reduce deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions, as per the Paris Agreement and national law. The court also determined that the actions and negligence of the government and corporations threatened the fundamental rights of the plaintiffs and future generations.

Read case here.

France: Commune de Grande-Synthe v. France

The municipality of Grande-Synthe and its mayor filed a lawsuit against the French government due to its alleged failure to take sufficient measures to combat climate change. Grande-Synthe, a low-lying coastal municipality, argued that it was particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, such as sea-level rise and flooding.

The Court noted that France had committed to reducing GHG emissions by 40% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels and instructed the government to justify its ability to achieve this goal. The Court found that the government’s existing climate regulations were insufficient to reach these commitments. While the Court’s decision is based on French and European law, it acknowledged the relevance of global instruments such as the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC in interpreting national law.

Read case here.

Germany: Neubauer et al. v. Germany

In February 2020, a group of German youth filed a legal challenge to Germany’s Federal Climate Protection Act, arguing that the Act’s target of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 55% until 2030 from 1990 levels was insufficient. They alleged this violated their human rights as protected by Germany’s constitution. The youth’s argued that Germany should reduce GHGs by 70% from 1990 levels by 2030 to align with the Paris Agreement’s goals.

The German Constitutional Court agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling in April 2021 that parts of the Act were incompatible with fundamental rights for failing to set sufficient provisions for emission cut beyond 2030. The court emphasised that the legislature was obliged to protect the climate for current and future generations, limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius as per the Paris Agreement.

In response to the decision, the German legislature passed an adapted Act, requiring a minimum reduction of 65% in GHGs from 1990 levels by 2030, which has been in effect since August 31, 2021.

Read case here.

Kenya: Save Lamu et al. v. National Environmental Management Authority and Amu Power Co. Ltd

Kenya’s National Environmental Tribunal addressed the issuance of a license by the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) for the construction of the first coal-fired power plant in Kenya, known as the Lamu Coal-fired Power Plant. The case centred on whether this license complied with Kenya’s Environmental Impact Assessment & Audit Regulations (EIA Regulations).

The key legal issues revolved around whether the grant of the license violated Kenya’s EIA regulations and constitution, whether the licensing process involved proper and effective public participation, and whether the EIA process ensured adequate mitigation measures.

The case involved the granting of an Environmental Impact Assessment License to Amu Power Company by NEMA. Save Lamu, along with other community groups, challenged this issuance, alleging several deficiencies in the EIA. They argued that the EIA failed to fully account for environmental harms, the mitigation measures were inadequate, and the public participation process was flawed. The Tribunal’s decision centred on the inadequate public participation in the EIA process, the incomplete and scientifically insufficient nature of the EIA, and the lack of consideration for climate change.

The Tribunal concluded that NEMA’s granting of the license was in violation of the EIA Regulations and the Kenyan Constitution. They found that the public participation in various phases was either inadequate or non-existent, as it failed to meet the legal requirements. The Tribunal set the license aside.

Read case here.

Kenya: Owinouhuru community vs. Metal Refinery

In 2007, Metal Refinery (EPZ) opened a lead-acid battery recycling smelting plant in Owino Uhuru, Kenya, which was followed by complaints from the local community regarding environmental contamination and lead poisoning. These complaints resulted from poor waste management practiced by the company. Over the years, an increasing number of community members suffered health and environmental impacts, including lead poisoning, respiratory diseases, and even deaths. Soil tests conducted between 2008 and 2009 indicated a significant increase in lead levels once the plant became operational. The plant ceased operations in 2014 due to community pressure and activism led by the Centre for Justice Governance and Environmental Action (CJGEA).

The class action lawsuit, initiated by CJGEA in 2016, sought compensation of 1.6 billion Kenyan shillings (around $15 million) and the cleanup of the contaminated land. The case challenged the responsibility of various state and non-state actors in safeguarding the right to a clean and healthy environment. The community’s struggle for justice and the successful 2020 judgment awarded 1.3 billion Kenyan shillings (around $12 million) in damages to the Owino Uhuru community and mandated the government and EPZ to clean up the environmental damage.

However, in June 2023, the Kenya Court of Appeal overturned the damages award, leading to a new hearing to verify further evidence and principles set by the Court of Appeal.

Read case here.

Netherlands: Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands

The Urgenda Foundation, along with 900 Dutch citizens, brought a lawsuit against the Dutch government, seeking a declaratory judgement and an injunction to compel the government to take more significant measures to prevent global climate change. The plaintiffs argued that the government’s current climate policies were insufficient to protect the human rights of Dutch citizens as prescribed by national and European Union laws.

Urgenda argued that the Dutch government had a legal obligation to take meaningful actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They contended that such actions were necessary to protect the human rights of Dutch citizens, citing national and European Union laws that enshrined these rights. This included Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protect the right to life and the right to a private life. Urgenda further emphasised the principle that every country is responsible for its share of emissions and that this responsibility should not be avoided by citing the actions of other nations. They asserted that the Netherlands, as a developed country, should lead by example in the fight against climate change.

The courts determined that the Dutch government had a duty of care to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to prevent dangerous climate change. The government’s change in climate policy, reducing the emissions reduction goal from 30% to 14-17%, was deemed inadequate in light of the severity of climate change consequences. The courts rejected the argument by the State of the Netherlands that the separation of powers prohibited judicial intervention in environmental policy, emphasising the importance of addressing human rights issues related to climate change.

Globally, this case set a significant precedent for climate change litigation. It inspired similar lawsuits in other countries, challenging governments to take more ambitious actions to address climate change and protect the human rights of their citizens.

Read case here.

Netherlands: Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc

The environmental group Milieudefensie/Friends of the Earth Netherlands, along with co-plaintiffs, initiated legal proceedings against Royal Dutch Shell. The lawsuit alleged that Shell’s contributions to climate change violated its duty of care under Dutch law and human rights obligations.

The plaintiffs argued that Shell had a legal duty of care to reduce its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to align with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement. Specifically, they sought a court ruling that mandated Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2010 levels and to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. The claim was grounded in Dutch law and relied on Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code, as well as Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to life and the right to a private life).

In response, Shell argued that there was no legal standard, either statutory or otherwise, that required the company to comply with specific emissions reduction targets. Shell also contended that the plaintiffs’ claims were too general to fall within the scope of ECHR Articles 2 and 8.

The Court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs. It ordered Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels. This reduction target encompassed emissions from Shell’s own operations and the emissions resulting from the use of the oil it produced. Notably, the Court’s decision was made provisionally enforceable, meaning that Shell had to begin meeting its emissions reduction obligations even as the case was being appealed.

This was a landmark case, as it was the first major lawsuit that held a corporation accountable for aligning its actions with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Pakistan: Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan

Asghar Leghari, a Pakistani farmer, sued the government for failing to implement key provisions of the National Climate Change Policy of 2012 and the Framework for Implementation of Climate Change Policy (2014-2030). He argued that this failure violated his fundamental rights to life, a healthy environment, and human dignity due to climate change’s immediate impact on water, food, and energy security in Pakistan.

The Lahore High Court ruled in favour of Leghari, recognizing climate change as a significant challenge. The court found the government’s delay in policy implementation infringed on citizens’ fundamental rights and created a duty for the government to take immediate climate action. To ensure implementation, the court directed government ministries to appoint climate focal persons, created a Climate Change Commission, and highlighted the shift from ‘environmental justice’ to ‘climate justice’. Climate justice seeks to safeguard human rights, share climate burdens and benefits equitable, and is informed by science.

This case highlighted the judiciary’s role in climate action and citizens’ rights protection, emphasising the duty of governments to implement climate policies based on domestic and international legal principles to address climate challenges and protect fundamental rights.

Read case here.

Poland: ClientEarth v. Enea

ClientEarth, a non-profit environmental law organization and shareholder in the Polish utility Enea SA, filed a lawsuit against Enea, challenging its resolution consenting to the construction of the €1.2 billion 1GW Ostrołęka C coal-fired power plant. The lawsuit argued that the coal project posed significant financial risks to the company and its shareholders. This landmark case was brought under the Polish Commercial Companies Code.

The District Court in Poznań ruled in favour of ClientEarth, declaring the resolution authorising the coal power plant construction as legally invalid. The court’s decision emphasised the financial risks associated with the project, including rising carbon prices, competition from cheaper renewables, and regulatory impacts. This legal victory puts the future of the Ostrołęka C coal-fired power plant in question and sends a strong signal about the financial liabilities of such projects.

This case sets an important precedent for shareholder activism in addressing climate-related financial risks. It underscores that companies and their directors have a legal responsibility to manage climate-related risks and could face potential liability if they fail to do so. The court’s decision also highlights the financial vulnerabilities of coal projects in an era of declining renewable energy costs and increasing carbon prices. The ruling encourages a shift toward cleaner, domestic renewables in Poland and may impact the energy industry at large by prompting a reassessment of similar projects’ economic viability.

Read case here (in Polish).

Portugal: Duarte Agostinho et al. v. Portugal and 32 Others

On September 2, 2020, 6 Portuguese youth filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights against 33 countries, alleging that these nations have violated their human rights by inadequately addressing climate change. The complaint relies on Articles 2 (right to life), 8 (right to privacy), and 14 (right to non-discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The youth argue that climate change threatens their life through effects like forest fires, affects their right to privacy by exposing them to heatwaves, and discriminates against them as the younger generation that will suffer the worst consequences of climate change.

The complaint targets member states of the Council of Europe, along with Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. The claimants contend that these countries have failed to take sufficient measures to meet the emissions reductions necessary to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as outlined in the Paris Agreement.

Following an oral hearing on 27 September 2023, it is expected that the European Court of Human Rights will issue a decision in the first half of 2024.

This landmark lawsuit has the potential to set a precedent for the use of human rights arguments in climate-related cases. The case focuses on the failure of European countries to take adequate action to mitigate climate change, endangering the human rights of the younger generation. It also reflects a growing trend of using human rights instruments to hold governments accountable for their climate action (or lack thereof).

Read case here.

South Africa: EarthLife Africa Johannesburg v. Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others

South Africa’s High Court faced a crucial decision regarding the environmental review of the Thabametsi Power Project, a proposed 1200 MW coal-fired power plant set to operate until 2060. The question at hand was whether the environmental review should include considerations of the project’s impacts on the global climate and the effects of climate change on the project. EarthLife Africa Johannesburg raised these concerns, challenging the project’s environmental review for insufficiently addressing climate change.

The court acknowledged that the statute did not explicitly mention climate change but found it relevant due to South Africa’s commitments under the Paris Agreement. Since the initial review ignored climate change, the court deemed it legally invalid. After this decision, the Minister of Environmental Affairs reconsidered the permit application in light of a climate change impact assessment, ultimately reapproving the project despite acknowledging its significant greenhouse gas emissions.

This case sets a precedent for considering climate change impacts in environmental reviews, emphasizing the importance of national and international climate commitments. It highlights the necessity of assessing climate impacts when evaluating projects with global greenhouse gas emissions. The court’s decision sent a clear message that climate considerations should be part of environmental reviews.

Read case here.

Turkey: Atlas Sarrafoglu and ors v. President Erdogan and the Turkish Ministry of Environment, Urban Planning and Climate Change

Three young climate activists in Turkey have initiated a lawsuit against President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and the Ministry of Environment, Urban Planning and Climate Change. They contend that Turkey’s climate goals, as outlined in its ‘Updated First NDC’, are insufficient and fail to address the climate crises adequately. The claimants are seeking a court order to cancel Turkey’s climate target and mandate the creation of a more robust and effective one.

The court decision is still pending, as the case was filed on May 8, 2023. The claimants argue that Turkey’s updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) represent ‘climate inaction’ rather than climate action. They emphasise the lack of transparency in the NDCs formulation and request its annulment and replacement with a scientifically sound and effective climate target.

This legal action joins a global movement of young people challenging climate targets. The claimants argue that Turkey’s NDCs, which imply an increase in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, could have severe consequences for the climate and human rights. If the court rules in favour of the activists, it could set a precedent for more ambitious, transparent, and legally enforceable climate commitments in Turkey and beyond.

Read more here.

USA: Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency

In this case, the state of Massachusetts, along with several other states, petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, from new motor vehicles. Massachusetts argued that the Clean Air Act mandated the regulation of these "greenhouse gases" as air pollutants, as the Act requires Congress to regulate "any air pollutant" that may "reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." The EPA denied the petition, asserting that the Clean Air Act did not grant authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and even if it did, the EPA could defer action pending further research on climate change.

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Massachusetts. Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the majority opinion. The key points of the decision were as follows: (1) The Court found that Massachusetts had standing to sue the EPA due to its stake in protecting its quasi-sovereign interests, particularly in preventing potential damage to its territory from global warming. (2) The Court held that the Clean Air Act did grant the EPA the authority to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases. The Act's definition of "air pollutant" was broad and included greenhouse gases. (3) The court remanded the case to EPA.

The case has significant implications for environmental regulation in the United States. It established that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, a ruling that has since influenced various environmental regulations. The case serves as a key legal precedent for the EPA's authority to address and regulate climate change through measures to control greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, it underscored the role of states in environmental protection and their ability to take legal action to safeguard their interests in mitigating climate change.

Read more here.

USA: Held v. Montana

A group of 16 youth plaintiffs initiated a lawsuit against the State of Montana challenging a provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), known as the ‘MEPA Limitation’. This provision prevented state agencies from considering the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change in their environmental reviews. The plaintiffs argued that this limitation violated their constitutional rights under the Montana Constitution, specifically their right to a clean and healthy environment. The lawsuit was based on a constitutional provision unique to Montana that had not previously been applied to climate change cases.

The court proceedings included extensive scientific evidence, and the court made findings that climate change, particularly the result of human activities, was having real and harmful effects on Montana’s environment, including the health and well-being of its youth plaintiffs. The State of Montana’s contributions to global greenhouse gas emissions were also highlighted.

The court concluded that the MEPA Limitation hindered the availability of vital information regarding renewable energy alternatives, thereby causing the State to ignore these alternatives, which directly affected the plaintiffs’ injuries. Additionally, the court declared that the State’s 2023 amendment, which prohibited courts from vacating, voiding, or delaying permits for proposed projects due to climate change concerns, was ‘facially unconstitutional’ as it violated the plaintiffs’ right to ‘preventative, equitable relief’.

The case is a significant victory for young climate advocates and sets a precent for future climate litigation. It highlights the potential of state constitutional rights to serve as a basis for climate-related legal actions in states with environmental rights provisions.

Read more here.