Global Climate
Litigation Report
2023 Status Review

Global Climate
Litigation Report
2023 Status Review

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review© 2023 United Nations Environment Programme
Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review
ISBN: 978-92-807-4052-3
Job number: DEL/2550/NA
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59117/20.500.11822/43008
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educationalor non-profit services without special permission from the copyright holder, provided
acknowledgement of the source is made. The United Nations Environment Programme
would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source.
No use of this publication may be made for resale or any other commercial purpose
whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the United Nations Environment
Programme. Applications for such permission, with a statement of the purpose and extent
of the reproduction, should be addressed to unep-communication-director@un.org.

Disclaimers
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not
imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United
Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory or city or area or its authorities,
or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
Mention of a commercial company or product in this document does not imply
endorsement by the United Nations Environment Programme or the authors. The use of
information from this document for publicity or advertising is not permitted. Trademark
names and symbols are used in an editorial fashion with no intention on infringement oftrademark or copyright laws.
The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarilyreflect the views of the United Nations Environment Programme. We regret any errors oromissions that may have been unwittingly made.
© Maps, photos and illustrations as specified
Suggested citation: United Nations Environment Programme (2023). Global Climate
Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review. Nairobi.
Production:
Law Division
United Nations Environment Programme
P.O. Box 30552, 00100 Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254 20 7623365
E-mail: unep-law-director@un.org
www.unep.org
www.unep.org/resources/report/global-climate-litigation-report-2023-status-review

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements
This publication was developed by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
in cooperation with the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University in
New York City, United States of America. It was researched and drafted by Michael Burger,
Executive Director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and Senior Research
Scholar and Lecturer-in-Law at Columbia Law School, and Maria Antonia Tigre, Senior Fellow,
Global Climate Change Litigation at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. A final criticalreview of the report was undertaken by staff from the UNEP Law Division: Patricia KameriMbote, Director; Arnold Kreilhuber, Deputy Director; Maria Socorro Manguiat, Head of the
National Environmental Law Unit; Andrew Raine, Head of the International Environmental
Law Unit; Soo-Young Hwang and Renée Gift, Legal Officers; and Jackline Wanjiru,
Programme Management Officer, with support from colleagues: Aphrodite Smagadi
and Angela Kariuki, Legal Officers; Benjamin Ojoleck, Lais Paiva Siqueira, Catalina Pizarro
and Marina Venâncio, Associate Legal Officers; and Tiffany Collard and Erick Khayota,
interns with the UNEP Law Division.

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | List of abbreviations and acronyms

List of abbreviations and acronyms
BNDES		

Brazilian National Development BankCJEU		

Court of Justice of the European Union

CO2		

Carbon dioxide

CSPP		

Corporate Sector Purchase Programme

ECHR		

European Convention on Human Rights

ECtHR		

European Court of Human Rights

EIA		

Environmental impact assessment

EPA		

Environmental Protection Agency

GHG(s)		

Greenhouse gas(es)HRC		

United Nations Human Rights Council

IACHR		

Inter-American Commission of Human Rights

IACtHR		

Inter-American Court of Human Rights

ICC		

International Criminal Court

ICSID		

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

IPCC		

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ISDS		

Investor-State dispute settlements

ITLOS		

International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

NDC		Nationally determined contributionNGO		

Non-governmental organization

OECD		

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

UNEP		

United Nations Environment Programme

UNFCCC

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Page VII

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Contents

Contents
Acknowledgements
Foreword
Executive summary

V
IX
XI

Introduction

1

Part 1: The importance of climate change litigation

5

Part 2: Overview of global climate litigation

9

I. Methodology
II. Survey of climate change litigation
III. Regional representation of climate change litigation

Part 3: The state of climate change litigation
I. The use of “climate rights” in climate litigation

10
13
15

25
26

A. International climate rights cases

28

i. Cases at the United Nations

28

ii. Regional cases

31

a. Cases before the Inter-American System of Human Rights

31

b. Cases before the East African Court of Justice32

c. Cases before European regional courts

33

B. Domestic climate rights cases

36

i. Human rights

36

ii. The right to a healthy environment

38

II. Domestic enforcement of international climate change commitments
III. Keeping fossil fuels and carbon sinks in the ground42
44

A. Consistency with the Paris Agreement or net-zero commitments

44

B. Environmental impact assessment requirements

47

Page VIII

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | List of abbreviations and acronyms

IV. Corporate liability and responsibility

50

A. Corporate duty to mitigate emissions

50

B. Corporate liability for adaptation

54

C. Responsibility of financial institutions

54

V. Climate disclosures and greenwashing55

A. Protection of investors: climate disclosures

55

B. Protection of consumers: greenwashing complaints

57

C. Protection of consumers: misrepresentation of products

59

VI. Failure to adapt and impacts of adaptation

Part 4: The state of climate change litigation – future directions
I. Update on 2020 predictions: climate migration
II. Update on 2020 predictions: pre- and post-disaster cases
IV. Update on 2020 predictions: increased attention to climate attribution
and fair share assessments of mitigation
V. Transnational responsibility (extraterritorial responsibility)
VI. Cases brought by vulnerable groups
VII. Backlash cases

60

61
63
64
65
66
68
70

A. Investor-State dispute settlements

70

B. Just transition cases

72

C. Claims against climate activists

72

Conclusion

73

References

75

Case law (referenced in Report)
Literature

75
87

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Foreword

Foreword
The climate crisis is getting worse, not better. Every year, the impacts ofclimate change are getting more intense. Every year, hundreds of millions
of people endure increasingly regular extreme weather events, taking away
livelihoods and lives. Every year, our economies – and in some cases, entire
countries – begin to see the reality of an uncertain future. As the United
Nations Secretary-General summarized to delegates gathered in Egypt at thetwenty-seventh Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change in November 2022, “We are in the fight of
our lives, and we are losing.”
Climate litigation represents a frontier solution to change the dynamics of thisfight. As this report shows, people are increasingly turning to the courts to combat
the climate crisis. Governments and private sector entities are being increasingly
challenged and held to account. Children and youth, women’s groups, local
communities and Indigenous Peoples, among others, are also taking a more
prominent role in bringing these cases and driving climate change governancereform in more and more countries around the world.

© Flickr / UN Women

Page IX

Page X

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Foreword

The legal grounds for these cases are also widening. Both the United Nations
Human Rights Council and the United Nations General Assembly have now
recognized the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. We areseeing new claims centred around the violation of legislation related to netzero targets, environmental impact assessments, advertising standards, andobligations under the Paris Agreement. Climate litigation has set precedents forclimate action all over the globe, going beyond the jurisdictions in which they werebrought and empowering and driving similar action in other countries.
This report demonstrates the importance of an environmental rule of law incombating the triple planetary crises of climate change, biodiversity loss andpollution. Access to justice enables the protection of environmental law andhuman rights and promotes accountability in public institutions. It is not enoughthat we recognize human rights, we must make every effort to protect and upholdthem and enable individuals to seek redress where they are violated.
I would like to acknowledge the outstanding support of the Sabin Center for
Climate Change Law at Columbia University. Our collaboration in producing the
Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review would not have been possible
without their dedication and commitment.

Patricia Kameri-Mbote

Director of the Law Division
United Nations Environment ProgrammeGlobal Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Executive summary

Executive summary
Climate ambition around the world remains inadequate to meet the challenge ofour climate crisis. Despite improvement in countries’ mitigation and adaptation
targets, and despite numerous corporate pledges to achieve net-zero emissions
in the future, the international community is still a long way from achieving thegoals and objectives of the Paris Agreement. In response, individuals, children
and youth, women and human rights groups, communities, Indigenous groups,
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), business entities, and national andsubnational governments have turned to courts, tribunals, quasi-judicial bodies
or other adjudicatory bodies, including special procedures of the United Nations
and arbitration tribunals, seeking relief through:(i)

The enforcement of existing climate laws(ii) Integration of climate action into existing environmental, energy
and natural resources laws(iii) Orders to legislators, policymakers and business enterprises to be

more ambitious and thorough in their approaches to climate change(iv) Establishment of clear definitions of human rights and obligations
affected by climate change(v) Compensation for climate harms© Flickr / UN Women

Page XI

Page XII

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Executive summary

As these cases become more frequent and numerous overall, the body of legal
precedent grows, forming an increasingly well-defined field of law.
This Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review, which updates previous
United Nations Environment Programme reports published in 2017 and 2020,
provides an overview of the current state of climate change litigation and an
update of global climate change litigation trends. It provides judges, lawyers,advocates, policymakers, researchers, environmental defenders, climate activists,
human rights activists (including women’s rights activists), NGOs, businesses andthe international community with an essential resource to understand the current
state of global climate litigation, including descriptions of the key issues thatcourts have faced in the course of climate change cases.
While the legal arguments and the adjudicative forums in which they are broughtvary greatly, climate change cases have typically addressed similar key legal
issues. Like the 2017 and 2020 Litigation Reports, this report summarizes thoseissues, which include challenges to whether the court has the power to resolve thedispute, identifying the source of an enforceable climate-related right or obligation,
crafting a remedy that will lessen the plaintiffs’ injuries, and, importantly,
marshalling the science of climate attribution. Over the course of reporting onthese issues, it is clear that parties are putting forward innovative argumentson connections between a specific greenhouse gas emitter’s actions and global
climate change, and how foreseeable climate-driven impacts can be linked to
specific harms suffered by plaintiffs.
.

the importance of climate change litigation through an
Part 1 describes
overview of the environmental, diplomatic and political circumstancesthat make climate change litigation efforts especially important.

an overview of global climate litigation through an analysis
Part 2 providesof the overall number of gathered cases and their geographic

distribution. As described in more detail elsewhere in this report, thecases analysed here were collected by the Sabin Center for Climate
Change Law in its Climate Change Litigation databases.

a survey of the state of climate change litigation andPart 3 provides
a discussion of evident and emerging trends.

the types of climate cases that suggest where global
Part 4 describes
climate change litigation may be heading in the coming years.

© Unsplash / Mathias Reding

Page XIV

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Executive summary

As at 31 December 2022, the Sabin Center’s Climate Change Litigation
databases included 2,180 cases filed in 65 jurisdictions and international orregional courts, tribunals, quasi-judicial bodies, or other adjudicatory bodies,including special procedures of the United Nations and arbitration tribunals.
This number includes 1,522 cases in the United States of America and 658
cases in all other jurisdictions combined.
In summary, climate change litigation is increasing and broadening in
geographical reach, while the range of legal theories is expanding. It has
become clear – and is now recognized by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change – that inclusive approaches to climate litigation that also
address the human rights of the most vulnerable groups in society cancontribute in meaningful ways to compel governments and corporate actors
to pursue more ambitious climate change mitigation and adaptation goals.

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Introduction© Unsplash / Mika Baumeister

Introduction

Page 1

Page 2Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Introduction

Introduction© Unsplash / Vlad Tchompalov

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) published its first surveyof global climate change litigation in 2017 (UNEP 2017)1 and the second
instalment in 2020 (UNEP 2020).2 These reports identified key developments,
profiled significant cases, described then-current and emerging trends, andoutlined critical legal issues in climate change cases. This 2023 Litigation
Report represents the third instalment of the global survey on climate litigation.
It updates the status of cases that were still pending when they were featured
in the previous reports, follows up on key trends that have continued inintervening years, and outlines legal changes, new trends and emerging issues
in climate litigation.

The report analyses pending cases, decisions andtrends in the 2020–2022 period, as well as cases
added to the Climate Change Litigation databasebs
maintained by the Sabin Center for Climate Change
Law (Sabin Center), as part of the Sabin Center’slaunch of the Peer Review Network of Global
Climate Litigation (“the Network”). The publication
also briefly highlights women’s role in climatechange litigation. This places women not only as

victims disproportionately suffering the impacts ofclimate change, but also shows their contributions
towards environmental justice for everyone’s benefit.
These inextricable linkages are important to theachievement of the Sustainable Development Goals
by 2030, which call for gender equality and humanrights as key objectives. Except where otherwise
noted, this report contains information correct as
at 31 December 2022.

1

Throughout this report, we refer to this previous UNEP report on climate litigation as the “2017 Litigation Report”.

2

Throughout this report, we refer to this previous UNEP report on climate litigation as the “2020 Litigation Report”.

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Introduction

Page 3

Box 1: Defining “climate change litigation”
This report follows the definition of “climate change litigation” used by the Sabin Center in the development andmaintenance of its Climate Change Litigation databases. Under this definition, climate change litigation includes
cases that raise material issues of law or fact relating to climate change mitigation, adaptation or the scienceof climate change (Sabin Center for Climate Change Law 2022a).3 Such cases are brought before a range ofadministrative, judicial and other adjudicatory bodies. These cases are typically identified by the Sabin Center withkeywords like “climate change”, “global warming”, “global change”, “greenhouse gas”, “GHGs” and “sea level rise”.
Cases that raise issues of law or fact related to climate change but do not use those or other specific terms arealso included.
This report excludes cases where the discussion of climate change is incidental, or where a non-climate legal
theory would guide the substantive outcome of the case. Thus, when climate change keywords are only used asa passing reference to the fact of climate change and those issues are not related to the laws, policies or actions
actually at issue, the case is excluded.
Similarly, this report excludes cases that seek to accomplish goals arguably related to climate change adaptation
or mitigation, but their resolution does not depend on the climate change dimensions of those goals. For example,
lawsuits seeking to use human health regulations to limit air pollution from coal-fired power plants may incidentallycause a court to compel that power plant to emit a lower level of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Such cases are notconsidered “climate change litigation” for the purposes of this study (Peel and Lin 2019).4© Unsplash / Rai Singh Uriarte

3This definition guides the collection of cases included in the Climate Change Litigation databases, which are developed and maintained by the Sabin
Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School. See also Part 2.II.

4

Peel and Lin (2019) note that in the Global South, in particular, cases are less likely to fit into the definition of climate change litigation used here. On
pages 690 and 691, they argue that analyses of climate change litigation should include matters in which climate change is a peripheral issue because
those cases still “make an important contribution to climate governance”. On the other hand, on page 695, they similarly exclude matters where climatechange is mentioned only incidentally.

Page 4Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Introduction"

Notably, both the 2020
and 2023 Litigation Reports
conclude that litigationis central to efforts tocompel governments
and corporate actors toundertake more ambitious
climate change mitigation
and adaptation goals"

This report proceeds in five parts:
Part 1 sets the stage by describing the growing
urgency of the climate crisis and the role that climatechange litigation plays in the domains of climate law
and policy.
Part 2 surveys the current status of global climatechange litigation, drawn from the cases includedin the Sabin Center’s Climate Change Litigation
databases. This section provides a broad overview
of the data of global climate litigation, including acomprehensive regional analysis.

Part 3 assesses current trends in climate litigation.
Those trends reflect continued and increasing
numbers of cases focused on one or more of thefollowing:(i)

The use of “climate rights” in climate
litigation(ii) Domestic enforcement(iii) Keeping fossil fuels and carbon sinks in
the ground(iv) Corporate liability and responsibility(v) Climate disclosures and greenwashing(vi) Failure to adapt and the impacts ofadaptation

Part 4 reflects the predictions for emerging trends,
including a few updates from the 2020 Litigation
Report and others that are freshly observed.
Notably, both the 2020 and 2023 Litigation Reports
conclude that litigation is central to efforts to compel
governments and corporate actors to undertake more
ambitious climate change mitigation and adaptation
goals, and litigants around the world continue toexpand the range of theories under which defendants
are obligated to take climate-related action.
Lastly, summaries of significant cases appear
throughout this report, providing context andexamples of those issues and the trends they
comprise.

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 1

Page 5Part
1:
The importanceof climate change litigation© Unsplash / Natv han Cima

Page 6

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 1

Part 1: The importance of climatechange litigation© Unsplash / Lawrence Makoona

While GHG emissions temporarily dropped in the first half of 2020 due
to the COVID-19 pandemic, emissions rebounded by the end of the year
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2022). In 2021, global
energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions rose by 6 per cent above 2020
levels to 36.3 billion tons, their highest level ever (International Energy Agency2022). Overall, CO2 emissions rebounded by 4.8 per cent in 2021, consuming
8.7 per cent of the remaining carbon budget (IPCC 2018)5 for limiting
anthropogenic warming to 1.5°C (Liu et al. 2022).

At 1.1°C, global warming is already causingwidespread disruption worldwide, including droughts,
extreme heat, record floods and storms, foodinsecurity, wildfires, the harming of species andecosystems as well as the enabling of vector-borne
disease transmission (IPCC 2022). Scientists havewarned that every tenth of a degree of additional
warming will escalate threats to people, species

and ecosystems (IPCC 2022). Furthermore, theeffects of climate change are disproportionately felt
across the globe and by populations in vulnerable
situations, causing gender and income inequalities
and development challenges, especially in the
Global South and in small island developing States.6
IPCC has stated that climate change unequivocallyendangers the well-being of people and ecosystems

5

Total carbon budget is defined by the IPCC as: “Estimated cumulative net global anthropogenic CO2 emissions from a given start date to the time thatanthropogenic CO2 emissions reach net zero that would result, at some probability, in limiting global warming to a given level, accounting for the impactof other anthropogenic emissions.”

6

The phrase “Global South” refers broadly to the regions of Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia, Africa and Oceania, and denotes regions that are
mostly low-income and often politically or culturally marginalized. However, it must be noted that the Global South is not a homogeneous group ofcountries, and that legal development and legal capacity vary by country.

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 1

throughout the globe. Delayed climate action
poses irreversible risks, with a narrow windowof opportunity to realize a sustainable andliveable future.

"

Climate change litigation
provides civil society,individuals and otherswith one possible avenue
to address inadequate
responses by governments
and the private sector tothe climate crisis.

"

In the lead-up to the twenty-seventh Conferenceof the Parties to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the
UNFCCC secretariat analysed the nationallydetermined contributions (NDCs) of 166 countries,
covering 94.9 per cent of the total global emissions
in 2019 (UNFCCC 2022a). To keep the long-term
temperature goal set out in article 2 of the Paris
Agreement and limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C,
countries need to significantly cut global emissions inhalf by the end of this decade. However, the UNFCCC
secretariat estimated that, based on the latest NDCs,
countries would likely use up 89 per cent of theremaining carbon budget in 2020–2030 (UNFCCC
2022a). In its 2022 Emissions Gap Report, UNEP
calculated that recent pledges “make a negligible
difference to predicted 2030 emissions” and thatcurrent policies point to a 2.8°C warming by the endof the century. While that trajectory is a significant
improvement from the prior estimate of a 4°C
warming scenario, it remains far beyond thePage 7

goals set forth under the Paris Agreement (UNEP2022). At the same time, in its 2021 Production Gap
Report, UNEP concluded that governments plan
to produce more than double the amount of fossil
fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting
global warming to 1.5°C. The Glasgow Climate Pact
(Decision 1/CMA.3) has called on countries to “revisit
and strengthen” their 2030 targets by the end of 2022
to align them with the Paris Agreement’s temperature
goals (UNFCCC 2022b). It also asks all countries thathave not yet done so to submit long-term strategies
to 2050, aiming for a just transition to net-zeroemissions around mid-century.
Climate change litigation provides civil society,individuals and others with one possible avenue toaddress inadequate responses by governments andthe private sector to the climate crisis. In climate
cases, plaintiffs, petitioners, applicants, complainants
or communicants (referred throughout as plaintiffs),
through a variety of legal strategies in a wide rangeof national and international jurisdictions, often seek
to compel more ambitious mitigation and adaptation
goals from the public and private sectors. However,plaintiffs also sometimes seek to challenge climate
regulations and reduce climate ambition. In its
Sixth Assessment Report, IPCC recognized, for the
first time (with medium confidence), that climate
litigation has influenced the outcome and ambitionof climate governance (Dubash et al. 2022). IPCC
also identified climate litigation as an importantavenue for actors to influence climate policy outsideof the formal UNFCCC processes (Dubash et al.
2022). In addition, successful cases brought byplaintiffs have motivated the filing of similar claims
in other jurisdictions. For example, the decision in
Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands, thefirst time in which a court found a government tobe responsible for mitigating GHG emissions, hasbrought a wave of ambition cases in other countries,
most of which specifically mention the decision

Page 8Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 1

despite it not being an authoritative source oflaw beyond the Netherlands (Supreme Court of
the Netherlands 2019).7 With increased scientificresearch on climate science and attribution, andwith novel legal theories being explored underinternational and domestic climate law, climate
litigation continues to expand in scope.
Additionally, it is worth noting the energy crisis
that resulted from the aggression by the RussianFederation against Ukraine. In a few instances,
governments’ plans to rearrange their energy supplies
away from fossil fuels were adapted to thesecircumstances, further jeopardizing the achievementof the goals of the Paris Agreement (Climate Action
Tracker 2022). With gas production and infrastructure
expansion planned to respond to the energy crisis
worldwide, climate litigation may arise to avoid
further delays in the energy transition.

© Unsplash / Markus Spiske

7

Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands, Supreme Court of the Netherlands, Case No. 19/00135, 20 December 2019 (Netherlands). For theimportance of the case, see the 2020 Litigation Report, pages 13 and 15.

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 2© Flickr / U.S. Department of AgriculturePart
2:
Overview ofglobal climate litigation

Page 9

Page 10Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 2

Part 2: Overview of global

climate litigation© Unsplash / Joel De VriendPart 2 surveys the current status of global climate change litigation, drawn
from the cases included in the Sabin Center’s Climate Change Litigation
databases. Unless otherwise noted, the cases featured in this 2023 Litigation
Report were updated until December 2022 and were pending determination by
the forums in which they were brought.

I. Methodology
This report adopts the narrow approach to defining
climate change litigation used by the Sabin Center in
identifying cases for inclusion in its Climate Change
Litigation databases (see Box 1: Defining climatechange litigation) (Sabin Center 2022a). Under thisdefinition, climate change litigation includes cases
before judicial and quasi-judicial bodies that involve
material issues of climate change science, policyor law. Thus, cases must satisfy two key criteria forinclusion. First, cases must generally be brought
before judicial bodies, though in some exemplary
instances matters brought before administrative
or investigatory bodies are also included. Second,climate change law, policy or science must be amaterial issue of law or fact in the case. Cases thatmake only a passing reference to climate change
but do not address climate-relevant laws, policies or
actions in a meaningful way are omitted. In general,cases that may directly impact climate change
mitigation and adaptation strategies, but do not
explicitly raise climate issues, are also not included.
The databases and this report refer to internationalor regional courts, tribunals, quasi-judicial bodies
or other adjudicatory bodies in addition to specificjurisdictions. These include complaints submitted
to special procedures of the United Nations Human
Rights Council (HRC), the United Nations SecretaryGeneral, UNFCCC and other United Nations bodies

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 2(including the United Nations Human Rights
Committee and the United Nations Committee on the
Rights of the Child), arbitration tribunals (International
Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes[ICSID], Stockholm Chamber of Commerce and thePermanent Court of Arbitration), and complaints
before the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD).
As part of its continual effort to update and maintain
the Global Climate Change Litigation Database, theSabin Center launched the Network in December
2021. As at 31 December 2022, the Network
includes 113 practitioners and scholars who act
as “national rapporteurs” for 107 jurisdictions orinternational or regional courts, tribunals, quasijudicial bodies or other adjudicatory bodies (Sabin
Center 2022b). In addition, several researchers andacademic institutions have established national orregional climate litigation databases, including in
Latin America and the Caribbean (Tigre, Ortúzar andDávalos 2022), Brazil (JusClima 2030 2022; JUMA2022), Australia (University of Melbourne 2022), andSoutheast Asia (Litigasia 2022). While the definitionsof relevant litigation and the methodologies for casecollection differ among the databases, the Sabin

Page 11

Center has partnered with some of them to share
information about cases using the Sabin Center’s
definition where applicable.8
Unless otherwise noted, cases were updated until
31 December 2022. This report deals with a fastmoving field and the subject matter may become
quickly outdated. Readers are advised to check themain sources cited for updates and new materials.
However, UNEP considers the fundamentals ofclimate change litigation as discussed in this report
to be more durable and likely to remain relevant in theimmediate future.
This report adopts a qualitative approach tosurveying global climate litigation, informed byquantitative information where relevant. In identifying
trends and cases as significant, the report considers
the potential impact of the litigation within ajurisdiction and beyond the case itself, the novelty
and complexity of the legal theories and issues
involved, and the likelihood of the litigation influencing
future cases and climate policy.

© Unsplash / Luca Nard

8

The Sabin Center has partnered with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense for rights-based cases in Latin America and the
Caribbean, as well as with national databases in Brazil and Australia.

Page 12Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 2

Figure 1. Growth of climate litigation as represented in UNEP’s 2017,2020 and 2023 Litigation Reports

Number of jurisdictions represented (including international orregional courts, tribunals, quasi-judicial bodies or other adjudicial bodies)

65

2,180

1,550

884

Total number ofclimate change cases

39
24

Number of cases filed in all jurisdictions other than the
United States of America

230

658

350

Number of cases filed in the United States of America

2017

654

Legend:Covering cumulative
cases until:

9

2020

1,200

2022

1,522

2017

2020

2022

March
2017

July
2020

December20229

As a result of the Network, the number of cases in the Sabin Center’s databases have increased substantially. These include cases filed before 2020 as
well as new cases filed in 2021 and 2022. All cases added to the database as a result of the Network’s contributions are included in this report, including
those filed before the publication of the 2020 Litigation Report.

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 2

Page 13

II. Survey of climate change litigation
Climate litigation is a growing field, and both thenumber of cases filed and the number of jurisdictions
within which they have been brought have increased
in recent years. The 2020 Litigation Report identified
1,550 cases brought in 39 jurisdictions, includinginternational or regional courts, tribunals, quasijudicial bodies or other adjudicatory bodies, suchas special procedures of HRC, arbitration tribunals,
international adjudicatory bodies and the European
Union. These include 1,200 cases in the United Statesof America and 350 cases in all other jurisdictions
combined. As at 31 December 2022, the cumulative
number of cases tracked in the Sabin Center’s
databases has increased, with 2,180 climate changecases filed in 65 jurisdictions.10 This number includes
1,522 cases in the United States of America and658 cases in all other jurisdictions combined.
Figure 1 compares the numbers of cases andjurisdictions covered in the three instalments of
the litigation reports.

© Flickr / UNEP

10

The jurisdictions in which climate change cases were identified in the database for the first time since the publication of the 2020 Litigation Report are:
China, Czech Republic, Guyana, Estonia, Finland, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Türkiye, the East African Court of Justiceand the International Tribunal for the Law of the Seas.

Page 14

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 2

As Figure 1 shows, the overall number of climate
litigation cases has grown since 2017, and thecumulative number of cases is now 2.5 times
higher than five years ago. Figure 2 provides avisual representation of how climate litigation cases
worldwide are steadily increasing. The increase in thenumber of cases since the 2020 report relates not
only to cases filed in the period covered in this report(July 2020 to December 2022) but also, as detailed inPart 4, older cases recently added to the databases
as part of the creation of the Network.

Still, there are countries in which there is still limited
information about the extent of climate litigation.
Therefore, it is likely that more cases in jurisdictions
not yet represented will be brought to light in the near
future. The research conducted by the Sabin Centeron the databases is an ongoing process. While thisresearch has significantly expanded in geographicalscope, its coverage of jurisdictions is not yet
universal.11

Figure 2.
Growth of climate change litigation as represented in the 2017,2020 and 2023 Litigation Reports

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Rest of the world

Legend:

11

2017

USA

2020

Total cases

2022

For the countries where the Sabin Center’s Network does not yet have rapporteurs, the Sabin Center relies on other sources of data, including cases
mentioned in the media and in scholarship, among others.

Page 15

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 2

Figure 3.
Number of jurisdictions covered in the databases as represented in the 2017,2020 and 2023 Litigation Reports

65 in 2022

39 in 2020
24 in 2017

Legend:2017

Figure 3 shows the increase in the geographic
representation covered in the three instalments of
the report. The 2017 Litigation Report included cases
from 24 jurisdictions and the 2020 report from 39
jurisdictions. This 2023 report includes cases from65 jurisdictions. These include international orregional courts, tribunals, quasi-judicial bodies orother adjudicatory bodies. This proliferation showsthat climate litigation is expanding its regional reach,with cases in the Global South particularly gaining
new visibility.

2020

2022

III. Regional representation of climatechange litigation
As at 31 December 2022, the Sabin Center’s Climate
Change Litigation databases include 1,522 cases filed
in the United States of America and 658 filed in allother jurisdictions combined, including internationalor regional courts, tribunals, quasi-judicial bodies orother adjudicatory bodies, such as special proceduresof HRC, arbitration tribunals and the European Union.
Figure 4 (overleaf) shows the number of cases per
jurisdiction.

Page 16

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 2

Page 17

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 2

Figure 4.

Cumulative number of cases by jurisdiction(including all cases in the Sabin Center's databases as
at 31 December 2022)

79

127
cases in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland62

cases in Australia

cases in the European Union

38 cases in Germany
34 cases in Canada
30 cases in Brazil
26 cases in New Zealand
22 cases in France
18 cases in Mexico
17 cases in Spain
12 cases in Indonesia
11 cases in India

12 cases in the European Courtof Human Rights

11 cases in the UNFCCC

10 cases in Argentina

9 cases in Colombia

9 cases in Poland

9 cases in South Africa

9 cases in ICSID

7 cases in Chile

7 cases in the Netherlands
6 cases in Italy
6 cases in Pakistan

5 cases in Belgium

4 cases in Ireland

5 cases in Japan
5 cases in the Inter-American
System of Human Rights

3 cases in Austria
3 cases in the Czech Republic

1,522

cases in the United States of America (~70%)

3 cases in Ecuador

1 case in the Russian Federation
1 case in Slovenia
1 case in Thailand
1 case in the East African

2 cases in Kenya

1 case in the European

1 case in Luxembourg
1 case in Nepal
1 case in Papua New Guinea
1 case in Peru

3 cases in the Stockholm Chamber

2 cases in Nigeria

Committee of Social Rights

1 case in Finland

3 cases in the Philippines
3 cases in the Republic of Korea
3 cases in Switzerland

2 cases in Denmark

Court of Justice

1 case in Estonia

3 cases in Guyana

2 cases in China

1 case in the Internationalof Commerce

2 cases in Norway

Criminal Court

3 cases submitted to the United
Nations special procedures(Special Rapporteurs)

2 cases in Sweden

1 case in the International

Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

1 case in the Permanent

2 cases in Türkiye

Court of Arbitration

1 case in the United Nations

Committee on the Rights of
the Child

1 case submitted to the

3 cases in the World Trade

2 cases in Uganda

special procedures of theUnited Nations
Secretary-General

Organization Dispute
Settlement Body

2 cases in Ukraine
2 cases in the International
Court of Justice

2 cases in the United Nations
Human Rights Committee

Note: UNFCCC cases refer to non-compliance procedures under UNFCCC.

Page 18

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 2

Report, cases in the United States of America
represented 74 per cent of the total. In 2020, it was
77 per cent and in 2022, it was 70 per cent.

Figure 5 shows the 10 jurisdictions, excluding theUnited States of America and the European Union,
with the highest number of cases, which are (indescending order) Australia, the United Kingdom,
Canada, Brazil, New Zealand, Germany, France, Spain,
Mexico and India.12

Figure 6 illustrates that, excluding cases in the UnitedStates of America, Europe as a region has the highest
percentage of cases with 31.2 per cent. Oceania
represents 23.2 per cent of the cases. Internationalor regional courts, tribunals, quasi-judicial bodies orother adjudicatory bodies represent 19.2 per centof the global cases. South America has 9.5 per centWhile cases in the United States of America still
represent an overwhelming majority of cases globally,
the overall percentage of cases outside the UnitedStates of America is increasing. In the 2017 Litigation

Figure 5.
Top 10 jurisdictions with the highest number of cumulative cases(excluding the United States of America and European Union)

150

120

127

90

79
60

34

30

26

22

18

17

12

in
Sp
a

M

ex

ic

o

ce
Fr
an

Ze
al

an

d

il

12

N

ew

Br
az

a
na
d
Ca

Au
st
Un
ra
i
lia
t
Gr ed
e
K
N at inor B gth ri doer tai mn n o
Ire an f
la d
nd
Ge
rm
an
y

0

a

38

In
do
ne
si

30

The likelihood that climate litigation will be filed in a particular country depends on a range of factors that include the country’s legal culture, whether
unsuccessful plaintiffs must pay the defendants’ costs, the degree of frustration over governments’ actions or inactions on climate change, howfrequent, extensive, and damaging climate-driven physical losses are becoming, and the existence of regulatory frameworks and judicial precedent that
establish enforceable climate-related rights and obligations.

Page 19

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 2

Figure 6.
Global distribution of all cases according to geographical representation(excluding cases in the United States of America) through 31 December 2022

%

.2
31

7.
9%

Africa

9.5%

2.3%

Asia
Europe6.6%

North America
OceaniaSouth America

%
.2
19

Internationaland regional*

2%23.

*International or regional courts,
tribunals, quasi-judicial bodies or otheradjudicatory bodies(Global Change Data Lab 2015)
Note: This figure has been developed using the regional definitions as contained in Our World in Data. The category“International and regional”, as noted elsewhere in this report, refers to cases brought before international or regional
courts, tribunals, quasi-judicial bodies or other adjudicatory bodies.

Page 20

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 2© Pexels / Brett Saylesof the cases while North America has 7.9 per cent.
There is currently no domestic climate litigation in
the Caribbean. Asia and Africa still have the lowest
representation with 6.6 per cent and 2.3 per centrespectively. As noted in the introduction, someregions remain underrepresented due to gaps inthe current research. As the Sabin Center’s Network
develops, it is likely that these numbers will change.
Litigation in the Global South represents a small
but growing percentage of global climate litigation,and these cases are analysed here along withcases from the Global North. While the definitionof Global South remains contested, the term is
widely used in the context of multilateral debate
about the transformation of the global order,
especially in reference to emerging economies(Gray and Gills 2016).

According to the Climate Change Litigation
databases, there have been 114 cases in the
Global South, 421 in the Global North (or 1,943
cases including the United States of America) and
127 in international and regional courts, tribunals
and adjudicatory bodies (which can include plaintiffs
from the Global North and Global South). As
depicted in Figure 7, if considering the cases in the
United States of America, cases in the Global North
represent 89 per cent of the total number of climate
litigation cases. Cases in the Global South amountto 5.2 per cent while international and regional
cases amount to 5.8 per cent. As shown in Figure 8,
excluding the United States cases from the numberof cases in the Global North, the percentage share ofcases in the Global South accounts for 17.2 per centof cases.

Page 21

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 2

Figure 7.
Cumulative percentage of cases according to geographical representation(cases in the Global South versus cases in the Global North including cases from the United States of America)
through 31 December 2022

89%
5.2%
5.8%

Figure 8.
Cumulative percentage of cases according to geographical representation(cases in the Global South versus cases in the Global North excluding the United States of America)
through 31 December 2022

19.2%

17.2%

Legend:Global North

63.6%

Global SouthInternational andregional jurisdictions

Page 22

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 2

Box 2: Changes in the data set since the launch of the Peer Review Network of
Global Climate Litigation
Since the launch of the Network in 2021, the Sabin Center has added 58 cases to the database which were filed
prior to the publication of the 2020 status report. As these cases were added to the database after the 2020
Litigation Report was published, they were not analysed in that report. These cases are included in the analysis of
the present report and represent an ongoing effort to fill the gaps in the geographic representation in the database.
Of these, as Figure 9 shows, 18 cases come from Asia, 13 from Europe, 12 from South America, 6 from North
America, 2 from Africa, 2 from Oceania, and 5 from international and regional courts, tribunals and adjudicatory
bodies.

Figure 9.
Regional distribution of pre-2020 backlog cases13

22.4%
Europe

31.0%
Asia

10.3%
North
America
3.4%
Oceania

3.4%
Africa20.7%
South America

8.6%International
and Regional

Cases identified here have been filed between 2009 and 1 July 2020, the cut-off date for cases
examined in the 2020 Litigation Report.

This box summarizes some highlights that relate to this data set specifically. The analysis is divided bygeographical region rather than by topic, as is the rest of the report, to show the expansion in the database’s
geographical coverage.

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 2

Page 23

A significant proportion of pre-2020 cases from Asia were challenges brought by the Government of Indonesia
against palm oil, mining and logging companies for the destruction of peatland ecosystems. In particular, six
cases filed between 2012 to 2019 establish the Indonesian Government’s right to sue palm oil producers for GHG
emissions and loss of carbon sinks from peatland destruction, as well as the actual cost to restore the ecosystem
to its original state (Minister of Environment v. PT Kalista Alam 2017; Ministry of Environment and Forestry v. PT
Jatim Jaya Perkasa 2018; Ministry of Environment and Forestry v. PT Palmina Utama 2018; Ministry of Environment
and Forestry v. PT Arjuna Utama Sawit 2020; Ministry of Environment and Forestry v. PT Asia Palem Lestari 2021;
Ministry of Environment and Forestry v. PT Rambang Agro Jaya 2021).13 In these cases, climate damages arisingfrom GHG emissions were calculated by assigning a numerical value to the cost of emitting a unit of carbon, thencalculating the units of carbon emitted by a corporation's actions. In Shrestha v. Office of the Prime Minister et al.
(2018) Nepal’s Supreme Court ruled that climate change impaired the petitioner’s constitutional rights to a clean
and healthy environment and a dignified life and ordered the Government to enact a new climate law.14
Pre-2020 cases from South America focused largely on the global and local costs of resource extraction. In
Ecuador, in 2020, gas flaring was declared unlawful because it violates Ecuadorians’ rights to a healthy environmentand health as well as Ecuador’s international climate commitments (Herrera Carrion et al. v. Ministry of theEnvironment et al. [Caso Mecheros] 2021).15 In Colombia, in 2016, the Constitutional Court ruled that:(i) The Colombian Government’s failure to protect Indigenous and Afro-descendent communities from river 		pollution from mining violated their fundamental rights(ii) The river in question had legal personhood(iii) The Government needed to consider climate change in future mining and energy policy decisions(Atrato River Decision T-622/16 2016)16

In 2017, that same court ruled that diverting a river for mining violated the Wayúu Indigenous community’s right towater, health and food sovereignty, in part because climate change had already impacted the river’s water supply,and conducting mining activities in a climate-vulnerable region was likely to cause significant harm. The court
ordered the mining company to pay compensation and begin mitigation and correction efforts (Decision SU-698/17
2017).17 In 2020, the Colombian Government’s issuing of mining permits was declared impermissible when climatechange already threatened ecosystem health and water security. The Constitutional Court ordered the mining
activities to be halted immediately (Combeima River Case 2020).18

13

Minister of Environment v. PT Kalista Alam, Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Decision No. 12/PDT.G/2012/PN.MBO, 18 April 2017 (Indonesia).
Ministry of Environment and Forestry v. PT Jatim Jaya Perkasa, Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Decision No. 108/Pdt.G/2015/PN.Jkt.Utr., 28
June 2018 (Indonesia).
Ministry of Environment and Forestry v. PT Palmina Utama, Banjarmasin Court of Appeal, Decision No. 48/PDT/2018/PT.BJM, 15 August 2018 (Indonesia).
Ministry of Environment and Forestry v. PT Arjuna Utama Sawit, Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Decision No. 213/Pdt.G/LH/2018/PN.Plk, 10
December 2020 (Indonesia).
Ministry of Environment and Forestry v. PT Asia Palem Lestari, District Court of North Jakarta, Decision No. 607/Pdt.G-LH/2019/PN.Jkt.Utr,
5 January 2021 (Indonesia).
Ministry of Environment and Forestry v. PT Rambang Agro Jaya, District Court of Central Jakarta, Decision No. 445/Pdt.G/2019/PN.Jkt.Pst,
11 January 2021 (Indonesia).

14

Shrestha v. Office of the Prime Minister et al., Supreme Court of Nepal, Order 074-WO-0283, 25 December 2018 (Nepal).

15

Herrera Carrion et al. v. Ministry of the Environment et al. (Caso Mecheros), Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbío, Juicio No. 21201202000170,
29 July 2021 (Ecuador).

16

Atrato River Decision T-622/16, Constitutional Court of Colombia, 10 November 2016 (Colombia).

17

Decision SU-698/17, Constitutional Court of Colombia, 28 November 2017 (Colombia).

18

Combeima River Case, Administrative Tribunals of Colombia, 73001-2331-000-2011-00611-03, 14 September 2020.

Page 24

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 2

Cases pre-2020 from North America focused largely on the national energy sector and climate change policy. In
Canada, an NGO challenged the Canadian Government’s approval of a new liquefied natural gas facility because(among other things) the initial environmental impact assessment (EIA) did not consider GHG emissions for theentire lifetime of the facility (SkeenaWild Conservation Trust v. Government of Canada 2019).19 That case waswithdrawn after the project investor walked away from the project.
Cases pre-2020 from Europe included citizen and NGO challenges to inaction on Paris Agreement commitments. In
France and the United Kingdom, climate activists faced criminal charges for actions taken during climate protests(R. v. Brown [Extinction Rebellion protest, London City Airport] 2022).20 In ADP Group (Paris Airports) v. Climate
Activists (2021), activists who illegally entered the tarmac at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport and halted airport
operations were acquitted because their actions were taken in a “state of necessity” to warn of future danger,
namely climate change.21
Cases from international and regional bodies included challenges to the European Union’s environmental legislation
by impacted parties in Southeast Asia. Two pre-2020 cases currently before the World Trade Organization Dispute
Settlement Body have challenged European Union regulations on “high-risk” biofuels on the basis that they
unnecessarily advantage intra-European Union producers and disadvantage Indonesian and Malaysian palm oil
producers, in violation of international trade agreements (DS-593: European Union – Certain Measures Concerning
Palm Oil and Oil Palm Crop-based Biofuels 2019; DS-600: European Union and Certain Member States – Certain
Measures Concerning Palm Oil and Oil Palm Crop-Based Biofuels 2021).22 The measures taken by the European
Union were implemented to pursue policy objectives of climate change mitigation, environmental protection,
preserving biodiversity and ensuring energy security and sustainability.
The two cases from Oceania both originated in New Zealand. One case did not allow the urgency of the climate
crisis as a defence to criminal liability when lawful protest activities were available to climate activists (Police
v. Hanafin 2020).23 Another case challenged a local government’s decision not to sign a “Local Leaders Climate
Change Declaration”, an agreement to take aggressive climate change action and compel the national Government
to do the same. The High Court of New Zealand ruled that the local government’s decision not to sign the pledge
was unreasonable in light of the local impacts of climate change and ordered the government to reconsider its
decision (Hauraki Coromandel Climate Action Incorporated v. Thames-Coromandel District Council 2020).24
In South Africa, the High Court rejected a case by the City of Cape Town seeking authorization to purchaserenewable electricity from independent power producers without obtaining approval from the Minister of Mineral
Resources and Energy. That case was rejected because it was determined to be an intergovernmental dispute thatshould be settled outside of court (The City of Cape Town v. National Energy Regulator of South Africa and Ministerof Energy 2020).25

19

SkeenaWild Conservation Trust v. Government of Canada, Federal Court of Canada, Application No. T-1836-16, 27 October 2016 (Canada).

20

R. v. Brown (Extinction Rebellion protest, London City Airport), Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) of England and Wales, Case No. [2022] EWCA Crim 6, 14
January 2022 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

21

ADP Group (Paris Airports) v. Climate Activists, Court of First Instance of Bobigny, Tribunal Correctional, 12 November 2021 (France).

22

DS-593: European Union – Certain Measures Concerning Palm Oil and Oil Palm Crop-based Biofuels, World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Body,
Doc. No. WT/DS593/1, 9 December 2019 (World Trade Organization).
DS-600: European Union and Certain Member States – Certain Measures Concerning Palm Oil and Oil Palm Crop-Based Biofuels, World Trade Organization
Dispute Settlement Body, Doc. No. WT/DS600/1, 15 January 2021 (World Trade Organization).

23

Police v. Hanafin, District Court of New Zealand, Decision No. CRI-2019-076-001503, 13 November 2020 (New Zealand).

24

Hauraki Coromandel Climate Action Incorporated v. Thames-Coromandel District Council, High Court of New Zealand, Case No. CIV-2019-419-173, NZHC
3228, 8 December 2020 (New Zealand).

25

The City of Cape Town v. National Energy Regulator of South Africa and Minister of Energy, High Court of South Africa, Case No. 51765/17,
11 August 2020 (South Africa).

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3Part
3:
The state ofclimate change litigation© Flickr / UNEP

Page 25

Page 26

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

Part 3: The state of climatechange litigation© Flickr / Roosevelt Skerrit

This section describes and summarizes the status of climate change litigation
throughout the world. It discusses key cases and how they are thematicallylinked to larger categories of climate cases. It identifies six important
categories into which most cases can be placed and discusses issues thatboth arise in and run through these cases. Climate cases to date often fall into
one or more of six categories:(i)

The use of “climate rights” in climate
litigation(ii) Domestic enforcement(iii) Keeping fossil fuels and carbon sinks in(iv) Corporate liability and responsibility(v) Climate disclosures and greenwashing(vi) Failure to adapt and the impacts ofadaptation1

the ground

I. The use of “climate rights” in climate litigation
One of the most visible categories of climate cases
includes actions asserting that insufficient climate
mitigation or adaptation violates plaintiffs’ rights,
including the rights to life, health, food, water, liberty,
family life, a healthy environment, a safe climate andmore. Here, this category is referred to as “climate
1rights”. Climate rights encompass the ways in which
national constitution, human rights law and otherlaws in general, imbue individuals and communities
with rights to climate mitigation and adaptation
action. It refers to both international and domestic
commitments made to ensure that people will enjoy

As the analysis in this Part 3 indicates, several cases demonstrate features of more than one trend and thus appear in multiple sections.

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

a safe and stable climate as well as other rightsthat do not explicitly focus on climate but have an
impact in addressing climate change. These rights
are variously known as human rights, environmental
rights and human rights obligations related to theenvironment. As women are disproportionately
impacted by climate change, women’s rights remaina key category of human rights that directly fulfils
Sustainable Development Goal 5 on gender equality
and the empowerment of women. Obligations
pertaining to climate rights fall into three maincategories: substantive obligations, procedural
obligations, and obligations relating to persons andgroups in vulnerable situations (United Nations 2022).

"

Cases brought in domestic
forums have argued thatclimate rights emerge fromexisting constitutional andfundamental rights underdomestic law, and often
relate to international
obligations under theParis Agreement.

"© Unsplash / Aditya Joshi

Page 27

Cases brought in domestic forums have argued thatclimate rights emerge from existing constitutionaland fundamental rights under domestic law, andoften relate to international obligations under theParis Agreement. The 2017 and 2020 Litigation
Reports highlighted climate rights cases inAustria, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, India,
Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, theRepublic of Korea, Switzerland and the United Statesof America. Several of these cases are still pending
as at 31 December 2022. However, many cases
are still not brought to the forefront as financial
challenges, intimidation, lack of know-how andother barriers remain in place. These barriers areespecially harmful for vulnerable groups including
Indigenous Peoples, women and those from a lower
socioeconomic status, the majority of whom are
women. The 2020 Litigation Report also highlighted
a group of cases in international forums assertingthat climate change violates international humanrights. Since 2020, more claims have beenbrought and decisions have been reached inseveral instances. This section is divided between
international and domestic climate rights cases.

Page 28

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

A. International climate rights cases

i. Cases at the United Nations

The number of climate rights claims before anddecisions by international adjudicative bodies has
been growing. While still a small percentage of cases,
these claims build on a body of soft law, including
statements from the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights (IACtHR), HRC and the United Nations General
Assembly.

To date, there have been several petitions filed withvarious United Nations bodies.

In October 2021, HRC adopted a historic resolution(A/HRC/RES/48/13) recognizing the human right toa clean, healthy and sustainable environment. HRC
recognized that climate change, the environmental
crisis and biodiversity loss have negative impacts
on the enjoyment of all human rights, “including
the rights to life, to the enjoyment of the highest
attainable standard of physical and mental health,
to an adequate standard of living, to adequate food,to housing, to safe drinking water and sanitationand to participation in cultural life, for present andfuture generations”. In July 2022, Member Statesof the United Nations General Assembly adopted alandmark resolution (A/RES/76/300) that recognizes
that a clean, healthy and sustainable environmentis a human right. While the resolution is not legallybinding, it can give rise to constitutional and legal
changes that could positively impact the environmentand human well-being. Recognizing the right to ahealthy environment at the international level is likely
to reinforce rights-based claims before adjudicatory
bodies.
Similar developments on the recognition of a rightto a healthy environment are also taking place at
the regional level. For example, the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe has presented
a draft of an additional protocol to the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which would
anchor the right to a safe, clean, healthy andsustainable environment and make such a rightenforceable in law in all countries which ratified it(United Nations 2021).

2

In October 2021, the United Nations Committee on
the Rights of the Child rejected a petition filed by 16
children in Sacchi, et al. v. Argentina, et al. (2021),
which alleged that Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany
and Türkiye violated their rights under the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child bymaking insufficient cuts to GHG emissions.2 The
petitions were dismissed due to a failure to exhaust
domestic remedies. Nonetheless, the findings andlegal reasoning of the United Nations Committee on
the Rights of the Child provide valuable guidance onchildren’s rights in the context of climate change.
First, the United Nations Committee on the Rightsof the Child found that the potential harm of theStates’ acts or omissions regarding their carbon
emissions was reasonably foreseeable to the States.
Second, it affirmed that the States’ carbon emissions
actively contribute to the harmful effects of climatechange and that these are not limited to emissions
within these States’ boundaries. Third, it concluded
that the petitioners had pleaded sufficient facts toestablish that the violation of their rights under theUnited Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
as a result of the States’ carbon emissions was
reasonably foreseeable and that they have personallyexperienced significant harm (Tigre and Lichet2021). After the dismissal of the petition, the samechildren submitted a petition to the United Nations
Secretary-General asking him to declare a climate
emergency, which would mobilize a United Nations
comprehensive response to the climate emergency
and activate a crisis management team to oversee
immediate and comprehensive global action on
climate change (Sacchi et al. 2021). The petition isstill pending as at 31 December 2022.

Sacchi, et al. v. Argentina, et al., United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, Communication No. 104/2019 (Argentina), Communication No.
105/2019 (Brazil), Communication No. 106/2019 (France), Communication No. 107/2019 (Germany), Communication No. 108/2019 (Türkiye),
12 October 2021 (United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child).

Page 29

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

Box 3: Decision by the United Nations Human Rights Committee on the Torres
Strait Islanders Petition
In September 2022, the United Nations Human Rights Committee delivered a landmark decision in Daniel Billy andothers v. Australia (Torres Strait Islanders Petition) (2022), finding that the Australian Government was violating
its human rights obligations to the Indigenous Torres Strait Islanders through climate change inaction.3 The
Committee found that Australia’s failure to adequately protect Indigenous Torres Strait Islanders against adverse
impacts of climate change violated their rights to enjoy their culture and be free from arbitrary interferences with
their private life, family and home. For the first time, a United Nations body had found that a country violated
international human rights law through inadequate climate policy. The decision also represents the first time thatIndigenous Peoples’ right to culture was found to be at risk from climate impacts. The United Nations Human
Rights Committee recognized that climate change was currently impacting the claimants’ daily lives and that, tothe extent that their rights are being violated, Australia’s poor climate record was a violation of their right to family
life and right to culture. The decision also specifically called on Australia to adopt significant climate adaptation
measures.

Petitions to United Nations bodies do not require
an official response. However, they can lead tostatements from the United Nations special
procedures that are relevant for climate litigation.
To date, there has not been any formal action in
response to a petition that was brought to the United
Nations special procedures by five tribes in Louisiana
and Alaska, United States of America. The petition
has highlighted the negative impacts of climatechange and claimed that the Government of theUnited States of America has violated their humanrights in failing to address climate displacement(Rights of Indigenous People in Addressing ClimateForced Displacement 2020).4
In October 2021, a petition was submitted to theUnited Nations special procedures by Environmental
Justice Australia on behalf of several young
Australians. The petition relied on the climate
vulnerability of young people, First Nations people
and people with disabilities, and argued that climatechange exacerbates existing inequalities and directly
undermines their health and cultural rights(Environmental Justice Australia (EJA) v. Australia
2021).5 It asked the Special Rapporteurs to seek an
explanation from Australia on how:(i)

The State’s climate inaction is consistent
with its human rights obligations(ii) The current conduct is compatible withthe human rights of young Australians
and a pathway towards limiting thetemperature increase to 1.5°C above
pre-industrial levels(iii) Its current NDC has involved young

people in Australia in the process ofdeveloping NDC and whether the State
will establish a permanent forum toinclude the participation of young people
from impacted communities

In addition, the complaint called on the Special
Rapporteurs to urge Australia to set a 2030
emissions reduction target consistent with its humanrights obligations.

3

Daniel Billy and others v. Australia (Torres Strait Islanders Petition), United Nations Human Rights Committee, CCPR/C/135/D/3624/2019,23 September 2022 (United Nations Human Rights Committee).

4

Rights of Indigenous People in Addressing Climate-Forced Displacement, United Nations Special Rapporteurs, Ref. AL USA 16/2020,
15 September 2020 (United Nations).

5

Environmental Justice Australia (EJA) v. Australia, United Nations Special Rapporteurs, 25 October 2021 (United Nations).

Page 30

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

In The Planet v. Bolsonaro (2021), a communication
was filed to the Office of the Prosecutor of theInternational Criminal Court (ICC) in 2021 requesting
an investigation into former Brazilian President
Jair Bolsonaro for his role in crimes against
humanity resulting from ongoing deforestation
and related activities in the Amazon rainforest.6
The communication alleged that former President
Bolsonaro has promoted and facilitated a widespread
attack on the Amazon biome and those who defend
and depend upon it, which represents a clear andextant threat to humanity itself. The complaintargued that global climate security is dependent
on the Amazon and its key role in regulating global

temperatures and weather patterns, and that thesevere damage to the functions of the Amazon biome
caused by deforestation, conversion of deforested
land to cattle ranching and vast intentional forest
fires has disrupted this critical ecosystem, turning
it from a carbon sink to a carbon source. The Officeof the Prosecutor must first conduct an analysis
of information to determine whether the statutory
threshold of “a reasonable basis to proceed” to start
an investigation is met, according to ICC rules (ICC
2016). If there is an investigation, it would be the firsttime that an investigation relating to crimes against
humanity would be based on alleged environmental
and climate harm.

Box 4: Initiatives to seek advisory opinions on climate change
from international courts
International adjudicating bodies are not only mandated to settle disputes, but also to issue advisory opinions,which may be of great value in the development of international law. Two requests for advisory opinions ofinternational courts are currently in progress. In 2022, the Republic of Vanuatu initiated an international campaign
to seek an advisory opinion on climate change from the International Court of Justice. The draft zero of the request
for advisory opinion (A/77/L.58), which is currently under negotiation and may be subject to changes, includes thefollowing questions:(a) What are the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate systemand other parts of the environment for present and future generations(b) What are the legal consequences under these obligations for States where they, by their acts andomissions, have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment,with respect to:(i) States, including, in particular, small island developing States, which due to their geographicalcircumstances and level of development, are injured or specially affected by or are particularly
vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change?

(ii) Peoples and individuals of the present and future generations affected by the adverse effects
of climate change?

An International Court of Justice advisory opinion may be issued at the request of the United Nations General
Assembly, the Security Council or by other United Nations organs and specialized agencies. The Vanuatu campaign
is pursuing the United Nations General Assembly route, which requires support from the majority of United Nations
members present and voting (Savaresi, Kulovesi and van Asselt 2021).

6

The Planet v. Bolsonaro, ICC, 12 October 2021 (ICC).

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

Page 31

In addition, Antigua and Barbuda and Tuvalu signed an agreement for the establishment of the Commission of
Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law, to seek an advisory opinion from the International
Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) (De Shong 2021). The Climate Commission Agreement is open to accession
by any other members of the Alliance of Small Island States (Freestone, Barnes and Akhavan 2021). ITLOS cangive an advisory opinion on a legal question on the interpretation and application of the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea to climate change, which could include, for example, questions on sea level rise and ocean
acidification and deoxygenation (Cruz Carrillo 2021). The advisory jurisdiction of ITLOS can be triggered by threeelements:

1. An international agreement related to the purposes of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
clearly providing for the submission to the tribunal of a request for an advisory opinion

2. The request must be transmitted to ITLOS by an authorized body or per that agreement
3. The request must be premised on a legal question
In December 2022, the co-chairs of the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International
Law submitted a request for an advisory opinion from ITLOS (Request for an Advisory Opinion submitted by theCommission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law 2022).7 The Commission referred thefollowing legal questions to ITLOS:“What are the specific obligations of State Parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the‘UNCLOS’), including under Part XII:(a) to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment in relation to the deleterious effects that
result or are likely to result from climate change, including through ocean warming and sea level rise, andocean acidification, which are caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere?

(b) to protect and preserve the marine environment in relation to climate change impacts, including ocean
warming and sea level rise, and ocean acidification?”

ii. Regional cases

a. Cases before the Inter-American System of
Human Rights

5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights2017).8 The opinion addressed climate change
throughout, acknowledging that climate change is
widely understood to interfere with the enjoyment of
human rights and articulating a State’s extraterritorial
responsibility for environmental damage and climatechange (Tigre and Urzola 2021).

The 2020 Litigation Report noted that IACtHR issued
advisory opinion OC-23/17 in 2019, in response
to a request from Colombia, in which the court
concluded that the right to a healthy environment isa human right under the American Convention on
Human Rights (A Request for an Advisory Opinion
from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Concerning the Interpretation of Article 1(1), 4(1) andIn 2021, the Inter-American Commission of Human
Rights (IACHR) and the Office of the Special
Rapporteur on Economic, Social, Cultural, andEnvironmental Rights, relying on IACtHR’s advisory
opinion, jointly adopted resolution No. 3/21, entitled
Climate Emergency: Scope of Inter-American humanrights obligations (IACHR 2021a). The resolution’s
purpose is to systematize States’ human rights

At the regional level, climate cases are proceeding inseveral venues. These cases are discussed below.

7

Request for an Advisory Opinion submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law, ITLOS, Case No. 31/2022,
12 December 2022 (ITLOS).

8

A Request for an Advisory Opinion from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Concerning the Interpretation of Article 1(1), 4(1) and 5(1) of theAmerican Convention on Human Rights, IACtHR, Advisory Opinion OC-23/17, 15 November 2017 (IACtHR).

Page 32

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

obligations in the context of the climate crisis
to ensure that public policy decisions are madeaccording to a rights-based approach. The resolution
calls on States to comply with standards of climate
action that particularly protect the rights of the mostvulnerable and calls on States to “move towards
a clean and just energy transition”. The resolution
encourages companies to “adjust their behaviour andoperations to the norms of the business and humanrights regime” and “adopt plans to reduce GHG
emissions” and make them public (IACHR 2021a).
This duty to adopt mitigation plans covers products
and services, subsidiaries and suppliers.
In the 2021 Petition to the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights Seeking to Redress Violations of theRights of Children in Cité Soleil, Haiti (2021), several
Haitian children petitioned IACHR to investigate
human rights violations stemming from waste
disposal in their residential district (IACHR 2021b).9
The petition includes a discussion of climatechange’s intensification of harms to children throughenvironmental displacement and exacerbationof waterborne diseases. Petitioners have alleged
violations of the provisions of the American
Convention on Human Rights on the rights of thechild (article 19), the right to dignity (under the rightto privacy, article 11), the right to live in a healthy
environment (articles 4 and 26), and the right tojudicial protection (article 25). IACHR is expected firstto decide whether to assert jurisdiction.
b. Cases before the East African Court of JusticeIn November 2020, four civil society organizations
filed a suit against the Governments of the United
Republic of Tanzania and Uganda in the East African
Court of Justice, seeking an injunction to stop theconstruction of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline.
In Center for Food and Adequate Living Rights et al. v.
Tanzania and Uganda (2020), plaintiffs have allegedthat the Governments, without objection from theSecretary-General of the East African Community
who is responsible for oversight of the East African
Community Treaty, have signed agreements to build
the pipeline without proper environmental, social,human rights and climate impact assessments.
The pending claim arises under Ugandan nationallaw, and the East African Community Treaty and its
protocols.10© Flickr / ELSA International

9

Petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Seeking to Redress Violations of the Rights of Children in Cité Soleil, Haiti, IACHR,
4 February 2021 (IACHR).

10

Center for Food and Adequate Living Rights et al. v. Tanzania and Uganda, East African Court of Justice, 6 November 2020
(East African Court of Justice).

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

Page 33© Pixabay / LVER

c. Cases before European regional courts
Several cases have recently been filed underEuropean regional courts. Cases under the Courtof Justice of the European Union (CJEU) have been
met with limited success and were dismissed onprocedural grounds. Some pending claims at theEuropean Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as at 31
December 2022 are discussed below.
Court of Justice of the European UnionCJEU has explicit and far-reaching review powers tointerpret the law of the European Union and ensure it
is applied in the same way across the member Statesof the European Union, including the power to annul
legislative acts (European Union 2007; European
Union 2008). CJEU has so far had two climate cases,
and both were dismissed due to lack of standing(Peter Sabo et al. v. European Parliament and Councilof the European Union 2020).11 In Armando Ferrão
Carvalho and Others v. the European Parliament andthe Council (2021) (the People’s Climate Case), theapplicants (families in the agricultural or tourism
sectors in several European Union and non-European

Union countries) challenged European Union
legislation adopted to enable it to meet its GHG
emissions reduction targets, which, they argued,
were insufficient to protect their lives, livelihoods andhuman rights from the impacts of climate change.12
The applicants in Carvalho argued that the violationof climate-related human rights is so unique that thestrict standing test (that applicants need to show anindividual concern particular to them or their group)(Plaumann & Co. v. Commission of the European
Economic Community 1963; Hartmann and Willers
2021)13 should be altered (Winter 2020). However,
CJEU rejected those arguments and dismissed theclaim, concluding that since everyone is impacted
by climate change in one unique way or another,
the applicants could not demonstrate that they
were individually impacted by the European Union’s
climate policy (Tigre 2022a). CJEU’s approach
prevents individuals and environmental groups fromchallenging European Union law measures of generalapplication, even when human rights are affected(Hartmann and Willers 2021).
In Ville de Paris and Others v. European Commission(2022), the City of Paris, the City of Brussels and the11

The European Union Biomass case was highlighted in the 2020 Litigation Report.
Peter Sabo et al. v. European Parliament and Council of the European Union, CJEU, Case No. T-141/19, Order ECLI:EU:T:2020:179,
6 May 2020 (European Union).

12

Armando Ferrão Carvalho and Others v. the European Parliament and the Council, CJEU, Case No. T-330/18, 25 March 2021 (European Union).

13

Plaumann & Co. v. Commission of the European Economic Community, CJEU, Case No. 25/62, Order ECLI:EU:C:1963:17, 15 July 1963 (European Union).

Page 34

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

Municipality of Madrid brought an action against
the European Commission, challenging a regulation
establishing a new procedure for testing the real
driving emissions of certain motor vehicles. The
cities argued that the regulation would prevent themfrom imposing restrictions on the circulation ofpassenger vehicles in relation to their air pollutant
emissions. In 2018, the General Court partially upheld
the action, prompting an appeal to CJEU. In 2022,
CJEU handed down its decision in that appeal, rulingin favour of the European Commission.14 The rulingclarifies requirements for standing under primary lawof the European Union to challenge a Commission
regulation. CJEU held that the General Court had
erred when it stated that the cities were prevented
from exercising their powers to regulate thecirculation of passenger vehicles to reduce pollution
because the cities did not have a “direct concern”.
European Court of Human Rights
ECtHR has not yet ruled on the implications ofclimate change for the enjoyment of the rights
enshrined in ECHR. However, 12 climate cases
have recently been brought before ECtHR. In
these, applicants argue that the Member States of
the Council of Europe have violated some of theprovisions of ECHR when considered in light of theParis Agreement. All cases rely on the respondent
States’ positive obligations concerning the right tolife (article 2) and the right to respect for privateand family life (article 8). The cases further makediscrimination claims (article 14), alleging thatthe characteristics of their group or their personal
circumstances are such that they will suffer
particularly from the impacts of climate change.15
Three cases (Duarte Agostinho, KlimaSeniorinnen,
and Greenpeace Nordic) have already beencommunicated to State parties, meaning they wereconsidered admissible at the preliminary stage.
The court can still assess admissibility issues at alater stage. Four climate cases (Duarte Agostinho,

KlimaSeniorinnen, Greenpeace Nordic, and Carême)have been considered “impact cases” and deemeda priority for hearing. In April and June 2022,
respectively, ECtHR announced that the Grand
Chamber would deal with KlimaSeniorinnen, Carême
and Duarte Agostinho. This option can be used
when the seven judges decide that the case raises“a serious question affecting the interpretation of theConvention or the Protocols thereto, or where theresolution of a question before the chamber might
have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously
delivered by the court”.16 This development underlines
the high profile the court is giving those cases, which
are following a fast track at ECtHR (Schmid 2022).
In Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32
Other States (2021), six Portuguese youth filed acomplaint against 33 countries alleging that the
respondents violated petitioners’ human rights byfailing to take sufficient action on climate change,
and the applicants requested member States of theEuropean Union to take more ambitious domestic
action. The applicants alleged that wildfires andincreased temperatures affect their human rights andfurther breach the prohibition of discrimination due toclimate change’s disproportionate impact on younger
generations resulting from the prolonged effects they
will suffer.17 The plaintiffs filed the case directly with
ECtHR without first exhausting domestic remedies,
based on the urgent needs to address the climate
crisis. Two other similar complaints (De Conto v. Italy
and 32 other States 2021; Uricchio v. Italy and 32 otherStates 2021) were filed against Italy, relying on thesame legal grounds and also without first exhausting
domestic remedies.18
Association of Swiss Senior Women for Climate
Protection v. Federal Department of the Environment
Transport, Energy and Communications (DETEC)
and Others (KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland) (2020)
was brought by an association of senior womenand four individual applicants against Switzerland
in November 2020.19 Their application to ECtHR

14

Ville de Paris and Others v. European Commission, CJEU, Case No. C-177/19 P to C-177/19 P, 13 January 2022 (European Union).

15

Ibid.

16

Article 30 of the ECHR.

17

Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Other States, ECtHR, Query No. 39371/20, 4 February 2021 (ECtHR).

18

De Conto v. Italy and 32 Other States, ECtHR, Complaint No. 14620/21, 3 March 2021 (ECtHR).
Uricchio v. Italy and 32 Other States, ECtHR, Complaint No. 14615/21, 3 March 2021 (ECtHR).

19

Association of Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection v. Federal Department of the Environment Transport, Energy and Communications (DETEC) and
Others, Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, Case No. A-2992/2017, 26 November 2020 (Switzerland).

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

follows a domestic rejection of the applicants’complaint on the basis that senior women are notuniquely affected by climate change, as detailed
below. Müllner v. Austria (2021) was lodged against
Austria by an individual applicant who suffers from
Uhthoff's syndrome, which affects people withmultiple sclerosis who suffer when temperaturesrise above 25°C. The case was filed after anunsuccessful appeal to the Austrian Supreme Court.20
In Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway (2021),
several NGOs and six young climate activists filed aclaim against the Norwegian Government, alleging
that continued oil exploration by the NorwegianState breaches their fundamental human rights.21
The case follows a decision by the NorwegianSupreme Court, as explained below. In Carême v.
France (2022), the Mayor of Grande-Synthe, whose
application in Commune de Grande-Synthe v. France(2021) was rejected, complained that the Council ofState erred in rejecting his action. By claiming that
he had no interest in the proceedings even though he
was exposed to climate risk caused by insufficient
government action, the mayor claimed the Council ofState had violated his human rights.22
Five additional applications were filed in 2022. For
example, in Soubeste and Others v. Austria and11 Other States (2022), young European citizens
alleged that their human rights have been adversely
affected by climate change, which is driven, to a large
extent, by the fossil energy industry.23 They further

Page 35

contended that the 1994 Energy Charter Treaty,
ratified by all 12 respondent States, protects investors
in that sector from regulatory changes and gives
them access to exorbitant remedies through investorState dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms,
thereby inhibiting the respondent States from taking
immediate measures against climate change andmaking it impossible for them to attain the longterm temperature goals enshrined in the Paris
Agreement. In Plan B. Earth and Others v. United
Kingdom (2022), applicants alleged that, in breachof its legal obligations arising under the Human
Rights Act 1998 and ECHR, the United Kingdom issystematically failing to take practical and effective
measures to address the threat from man-madeclimate breakdown.24 In Humane Being v. the United
Kingdom (2022), the applicant alleged that theUnited Kingdom is in breach of its obligations under
ECHR for failing to address the risks of the climate
crisis, future pandemics and antibiotic resistancecreated by factory farming.25 This application posednovel climate arguments focusing on the danger ofagricultural methane emissions and highlighting soy
feed consumption in factory farming in the United
Kingdom as a key driver of deforestation in the
Amazon basin.

20

Müllner v. Austria, ECtHR, 25 March 2021 (European Court of Human Rights).

21

Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway, ECtHR, Application No. 34068/21, 15 June 2021 (ECtHR).

22

Commune de Grande-Synthe v. France, Council of State of France, No. 427301, 1 July 2021 (France).
Carême v. France, ECtHR, Application No. 7189/21, 7 June 2022 (ECtHR).

23

Soubeste and Others v. Austria and 11 Other States¸ ECtHR, Case No. 31925/22, 2022 (ECtHR).

24

Plan B.Earth and Others v. United Kingdom, ECtHR, 11 July 2022.

25

Humane Being v. the United Kingdom, ECtHR, 26 July 2022 (European Court of Human Rights).

Page 36

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

B. Domestic climate rights cases
Cases brought in domestic forums have argued
that climate obligations emerge from existing
constitutional and fundamental rights secured underdomestic law. These cases highlight the impact
of climate change on human rights and challenge
deficiencies of domestic regimes to address climatechange. They have relied on:(i)Human rights(ii) The right to a healthy environment(iii) Rights of nature(iv) A combination of thesei. Human rights
Several cases brought in Europe rely on articles 2
and 8 of ECHR to inform domestic law. These cases
often challenge whether a government’s mitigation
efforts are adequate to meet Paris Agreement
commitments or whether particular government
policies are consistent with human rights obligations.
While several cases are still pending, these strategies
have achieved some success. Courts in Belgium
and Germany have found that insufficient climate
mitigation breaches human rights obligations under
ECHR and under the national government’s dutyof care. Courts have found that governments havefailed to take the necessary measures to prevent theharmful effects of climate change or protect humanrights to minimize climate risk.
In April 2021, the German Federal Constitutional
Court in Neubauer, et al. v. Germany (2021) struck
down parts of Germany’s Federal Climate Protection
Act as incompatible with constitutional rights to lifeand health, among others, because the legislation
did not include sufficient provisions for emissions
cuts beyond 2030.26 The court found the legislation’s
mitigation targets inadequate to protect humanrights or to proportionally distribute the global carbon
budget between current and future generations.
The court concluded that Germany’s climate law
was effectively “offloading” emissions reduction
to future generations in a violation of fundamental
freedoms. The court grounded the decision in theState’s duty to protect fundamental rights and tominimize a foreseeable and sufficiently serious riskof harm posed by climate change. The court ordered
the legislature to set clear provisions for reduction
targets from 2031 onward by the end of 2022. A
revised Climate Protection Act requiring a reductionof 65 per cent in GHGs from 1990 levels by 2030 was
passed in 2021. A new challenge was brought before
the Federal Constitutional Court in 2022, arguing thatthe targets continue to infringe fundamental rights
as they still exceed Germany’s remaining carbon
budget and lack coordination between federal states(Steinmetz, et al. v. Germany 2022).27
The role of federal German states in establishingclimate laws and mitigation targets was challenged ina series of 11 cases brought against the subnational
governments in Germany in the Federal Constitutional
Court of Germany (1 BvR 1565/21, 1 BvR 1566/21,
1 BvR 1669/21, 1 BvR 1936/21, 1 BvR 2574/21, 1
BvR 2575/21, 1 BvR 2054/21, 1 BvR 2055/21, 1 BvR
2056/21, 1 BvR 2057/21, 1 BvR 2058/21 2022).28
These claims argued that codifying a legally binding
reduction path is required at the subnational level, as
states bear co-responsibility for protecting humanrights, including safeguarding future generations,
within their sphere of competence. In 2022, the court
gave one joint decision for all 11 complaints, refusing
to admit them for adjudication based on a lack ofadequate prospects Federal Constitutional Court ofGermany (2022b).29 The court found that the German
federal legislature, not the subnational legislatures, issubject to implementing a carbon emissions budget.
Additional claims have been brought before state
courts in Germany seeking more ambitious climate
action (Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) v. NordrheinWestfalen (NRW) 2020; Deutsche Umwelthilfe

26

Neubauer, et al. v. Germany, Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, 29 April 2021 (Germany).

27

Steinmetz, et al. v. Germany, Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, 24 January 2022 (Germany).

28

See Federal Constitutional Court, Germany: http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-jurisdiction/federal-constitutional-court/.

29

1 BvR 1565/21, 1 BvR 1566/21, 1 BvR 1669/21, 1 BvR 1936/21, 1 BvR 2574/21, 1 BvR 2575/21, 1 BvR 2054/21, 1 BvR 2055/21, 1 BvR 2056/21, 1 BvR
2057/21, 1 BvR 2058/21, Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, 18 January 2022 (Germany).

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3(DUH) v. Bayern 2021; Marlene Lemme, et al.
v. State of Bayern [Subsidiary Claim] 2021;
Deutsche Umwelthilfe [DUH] v. Baden-Württemberg[BaWü] 2021).30
In 2021, the Brussels Court of First Instance heldin VZW Klimaatzaak v. Kingdom of Belgium &Others (2021) that Belgium and three subnational
governments had breached their duty of care under
the Civil Code by failing to take necessary measures
to prevent the harmful effects of climate change
and comply with their mitigation targets. Further, thecourt found that by failing to take sufficient climate
action to protect the life and privacy of the plaintiffs,
the defendants were in breach of their obligations
under articles 2 and 8 of ECHR. However, the court
declined to set more stringent emissions reduction
targets on separation of powers grounds. In
November 2021, Klimaatzaak appealed the judgment
pertaining to the court’s refusal to set specific binding
targets related to the reduction of GHG emissions
over time.31
In a case involving similar claims decided in 2022,
Klimatická žaloba ČR v. Czech Republic (2022), thePrague Municipal Court ordered the State to urgently
take the necessary measures to address climatechange and devise a precise plan to achieve the goalsof the Paris Agreement.32
Several claims filed in other jurisdictions also
challenge the adequacy of national climate action
under ECHR provisions that have been integrated
into domestic law. In A Sud et al. v. Italy (2021), an
environmental NGO and more than 200 individuals
filed a suit against the Italian Government for
failing to take actions necessary to meet the Paris
Agreement’s temperature goal of well below 2°C

Page 37

with respect to pre-industrial levels while aiming
to limit temperature increase to 1.5°C. They havesought a court order to reduce emissions by 92 percent by 2030 compared with 1990 levels, basedon Italy’s “fair share” of global emissions under theParis Agreement.33 Similarly, in 2021 ClientEarth in
Poland brought five identical suits on behalf of private
citizens against the Polish Government, alleging
that the Government has permitted GHG emissions
from its territory in excess of the nation’s “fair share”
under the Paris Agreement, in violation of its humanrights obligations (ClientEarth v. Poland [on Behalf ofM.G.] 2021; ClientEarth v. Poland [on Behalf of M.O.];
ClientEarth v. Poland [on Behalf of M.S.]; ClientEarthv. Poland [on Behalf of P.N.]; ClientEarth v. Poland [onBehalf of P.N.] 2021).34
Cases that have challenged specific projects
or policies based on human rights obligations
under ECHR have had limited success to date. In
Greenpeace et al. v. Austria (2020), the Austrian
Constitutional Court dismissed a lawsuit requesting
an invalidation of tax exemptions granted to air traveland not railways, finding that rail passengers do nothave standing to sue over preferential tax treatment.35
Similarly, in Greenpeace Netherlands v. State of theNetherlands (2020), The Hague District Court foundthat the State does not have a legally enforceable
obligation under ECHR to attach climate conditions to
a COVID-19 bailout package for the Dutch airline KLM
Royal Dutch Airlines and deferred to the executive
branch’s discretion in responding to the pandemic.36
In Plan B Earth and Others v. The Secretary of State for
Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy (2019), theHigh Court of Justice in London refused permission
to proceed in a case alleging that the United
Kingdom’s continued support for high-emission
transportation and fossil fuel industries within the30

Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) v. Nordrhein-Westfalen (NRW), Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, 3 December 2020 (Germany).
Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) v. Bayern, Higher Administrative Court of Bayern, 24 June 2021 (Germany).
Marlene Lemme, et al. v. State of Bayern (Subsidiary Claim), Bayern Constitutional Court, 30 June 2021 (Germany).
Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) v. Baden-Württemberg (BaWü), Higher Administrative Court of Justice Baden-Württemberg, 8 November 2021 (Germany).

31

VZW Klimaatzaak v. Kingdom of Belgium & Others, Brussels Court of First Instance, 17 November 2021 (Belgium).

32

Klimatická žaloba ČR v. Czech Republic, Municipal Court in Prague, Judgment No. 14A 101/2021, 15 June 2022 (Czech Republic).

33

A Sud et al. v. Italy, Civil Court of Rome, 5 June 2021 (Italy).

34

ClientEarth v. Poland (on Behalf of M.G.), Białystok Court of Appeal, 8 September 2021 (Poland).
ClientEarth v. Poland (on Behalf of M.O.), District Court, 2021 (Poland).
ClientEarth v. Poland (on Behalf of M.S.), District Court, 2021 (Poland).
ClientEarth v. Poland (on Behalf of P.R.), District Court, Poland, 2021 (Poland).
ClientEarth v. Poland (on Behalf of P.N.), Poznań Regional Court, 20 December 2021 (Poland).

35

Greenpeace et al. v. Austria, Constitutional Court of Austria, Decision No. G 144-145/2020-13, V 332/2020-13, 30 September 2020 (Austria).

36

Greenpeace Netherlands v. State of the Netherlands, The Hague District Court, Decision No. ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:12440, 9 December 2020 (Netherlands).

Page 38

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

United Kingdom and its overseas territories violates
rights protected by ECHR and the United Kingdom’s
Human Rights Act.37
Rights-based litigation challenging national climate
policies and policy- and project-level approvals has
also emerged outside of Europe. In ENVironnement
JEUnesse v. Procureur General du Canada (2022), an
environmental non-profit organization alleged that
Canada’s GHG reduction targets were insufficient
to avoid dangerous climate change impacts, thatthe plans to meet these targets were themselves
inadequate, and that both of these breach Canada’s
obligations to protect the human rights of young
people under the Canadian Charter of Rights andFreedoms and the Québec Charter of Rights andFreedoms. The federal Government submitted thatthe issues were not justiciable because they were
inherently political and outside the competence of thecourt and because the allegation was government
inaction. In December 2021, the Québec Court ofAppeal accepted the Government’s arguments anddenied a motion to certify a class action by the groupof citizens. The appellants filed an application forleave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, but
this application was denied.38
In Laboratório do Observatório do Clima v. Ministerof Environment and Brazil (2022), a network of civilsociety organizations filed a class action in the
judicial section of Amazonas against the Brazilian
Government. The plaintiffs requested that the
National Climate Change Policy be updated to alignBrazil’s GHG emissions with a 1.5OC global warming
scenario. The plaintiffs asserted that climate change
affects a wide range of human rights such as therights to life, dignity, health, food and housing, aswellas the constitutionally recognized right to ahealthy environment.39

The violation of human rights has also been used as
the basis for legal arguments demanding adaptation
measures from a government. In Tsama William
and Others v. Uganda’s Attorney General and Others(2020), the victims of recurring landslides in Bududa
District, Uganda, filed a suit against the Government
for failing to implement landslide adaptation
measures. The applicants requested a declaration ofviolation of rights, damages, and compensation forthe loss of life, threats to life, destruction of property,
infringement of their other fundamental human rights
and the costs of resettlement to safer areas. The
case is pending as at 31 December 2022.40
ii. The right to a healthy environment
Several cases have made challenges to national
climate policy premised on the right to a healthy
environment, as laid out in several domestic
constitutions (Vilchez Moragues and Savaresi2021).41 The majority of these cases are found in
the Global South.
In 2022, the Brazilian Supreme Court held in PSB
et al. v. Brazil (on Climate Fund) (2022) that theParis Agreement is a human rights treaty, whichenjoys “supranational” status. This “supralegality”
of human rights treaties means that they are above“regular” laws in the legal hierarchy. Accordingly, any
Brazilian law or decree that contradicts the Paris
Agreement, including the NDC, may be invalidated.
The case concerned the Government’s failure toadopt administrative measures concerning theallocation of funds of a financial mechanism forsubsidizing mitigation and adaptation measures.
The Supreme Court ruled that the executive branch
has a constitutional duty to execute and allocate thefunds to mitigate climate change, based on both theseparation of powers and the constitutional right toa healthy environment. The court further found that37

Plan B Earth and Others v. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy, High Court of Justice of England and Wales,
Claim No. CO/16/2018, 25 January 2019 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

38

ENVironnement JEUnesse v. Procureur General du Canada, Superior Court of Québec, 28 July 2022 (Canada).

39

Laboratório do Observatório do Clima v. Minister of Environment and Brazil, Seventh Federal Environmental and Agrarian Court of the Judiciary Section of
Amazonas, Ação Civil Pública No. 1027282-96.2021.4.01.3200, 13 May 2022 (Brazil).

40

Tsama William and Others v. Uganda’s Attorney General and Others, High Court of Uganda at Mbale, Miscellaneous Case No. 024 of 2020, 14 October
2020 (Uganda).

41

Decisions highlighted in previous reports that rely on the right to a healthy environment include:
Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan, Lahore High Court, W.P. No. 25501/201, Granted, 25 January 2018 (Pakistan).
Future Generations v. Ministry of the Environment and Others, Colombia Superior Tribunals, Radicación 11001 22 03 000 2018 00319 00,
5 April 2018 (Colombia).
In re Court on Its Own Motion v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, National Green Tribunal, CWPIL No. 15 of 2010, 9 May 2019 (India).

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

Page 39© Flickr / GPA Photo Archive

the judiciary, in turn, must act to avoid the regressionof environmental protection. The constitutional duty
to allocate the funds effectively means that there isa duty to mitigate climate change considering theinternational commitments under the climate change
framework.42
In Mexico, the Supreme Court in Amparo En
Revision 610/2019 (2020) invalidated a rule thatwould have allowed higher ethanol content ingasoline, concluding that the right to a healthy
environment and the precautionary principle
required the evaluation of the potential of increased
GHG emissions and an analysis of the country’s
commitments under the Paris Agreement.43 In
Greenpeace Mexico v. Ministry of Energy and Others(on the National Electric System Policies) (2020),
Mexico’s First Circuit Collegiate Tribunal held thatpolicies reducing the country’s share of renewableenergy violate the constitutional right to a healthy
environment and are regressive.44
In PSB et al. v. Brazil (on Deforestation and Human
Rights) (2022) seven political parties in Brazil
brought an action against the federal Government

for failing to implement the national deforestation
policy, thereby contributing to dangerous climatechange. The claims were based on fundamental
constitutional rights, including the right to a healthy
environment, the rights of Indigenous Peoples andthe rights of present and future generations.45 In
Institute of Amazonian Studies v. Brazil (2022), as at
April 2023, the plaintiffs are seeking recognition of afundamental right to a stable climate for present andfuture generations under the Brazilian Constitution as
well as an order to compel the federal Government tocomply with the national climate law. The plaintiffs
have alleged that the federal Government has failed
to adhere to its action plans to prevent deforestationand mitigate and adapt to climate change.46
In Greenpeace Nordic Ass’n v. Ministry of Petroleum
and Energy (People v. Arctic Oil) (2020), the claimants
alleged that Norway’s grant of deep-sea petroleum
extraction licences within the South Barents Sea
constituted a failure to exercise due diligence toprotect against the human rights implications ofclimate change, contrary to the constitutional rightto a healthy environment, and the rights to life andprivate and family life under the ECHR and the42

PSB et al. v. Brazil (on Climate Fund), Federal Supreme Court of Brazil, ADPF 708, 1 July 2022 (Brazil).

43

Ruling on Modification to Ethanol Fuel Rule, Supreme Court of Mexico, 610/2019, Opinion, 22 January 2020 (Mexico).

44

Greenpeace Mexico v. Ministry of Energy and Others (on the National Electric System Policies), District Court in Administrative Matters, Amparo
No. 104/2020, 17 November 2020 (Mexico).

45

PSB et al. v. Brazil (on Deforestation and Human Rights), Federal Supreme Court of Brazil, ADPF 760, 6 April 2022 (Brazil).

46

Institute of Amazonian Studies v. Brazil, Federal Regional Court, Fourth Region, ACP No. 5048951-39.2020.4.04.7000, 29 March 2022 (Brazil).

Page 40

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

Norwegian Constitution. On appeal, the Supreme
Court of Norway held that future emissions fromexported oil are too uncertain to bar the grantingof licences for deep-sea extraction and that theconstitutional right to a healthy environment does notgrant individual rights to challenge petroleum-related

activities (Voigt 2021). Notwithstanding, the court
recognized the constitutional right of private parties
to be informed of petroleum-related decisions that
could have a local environmental impact (Gociu andRoy 2021). The plaintiffs have appealed this case to
ECtHR (see Part 3.B.ii.c).47

Box 5: Children and youth-led claims and future generations
As at 31 December 2022, about 34 cases have been brought by and on behalf of children and youth (usually definedas people younger than 25 years old) based on human rights, as tracked in the Sabin Center’s databases. These
cases rely on children and youth’s special vulnerability to climate harm and on the principle of intergenerational
equity. Children and youth plaintiffs argue that due to their young age, they will endure the effects of climatechange – which will intensify over time – for longer. Two claims were led by girls as young as 7 and 9 years old,
respectively. In Rabab Ali v. Federation of Pakistan & Another (2016), the 7-year-old girl challenged Pakistan’s
climate policies from a rights-based perspective.48 In Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India & Ors. (2017), a 9-yearold girl questioned the adequacy of India’s climate mitigation efforts based on the public trust doctrine.49 The
disproportionate effects of climate change give rise to claims for equal treatment (Gradoni and Mantovani 2022).
The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child recognized the merits of this type of claim by statingthat children “are particularly affected by climate change, both in terms of how they experience its effects and thepotential of climate change to affect them throughout their lifetimes, particularly if immediate action is not taken”(Sacchi et al. 2021). Cases generally focus on (i) insufficient efforts to reduce carbon emissions and meet climate
commitments, (ii) insufficient efforts to implement mitigation and adaptation measures and (iii) specific regulatory
approvals that are expected to have dramatic climate impacts (Parker et al. 2022).
Several children and youth-led cases have been filed in the United States of America. These cases have mostly
relied on the public trust doctrine and/or constitutional rights. Two cases, Juliana v. United States (Juliana) (2020)and Held v. State (2020), are still pending determination by the court. The plaintiffs in Juliana – a case that was
analysed in the 2020 Litigation Report50 – are currently seeking permission to amend their complaint, which was
dismissed in a decision from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.51 The plaintiffs and defendants in Held v.
State are moving to trial in Montana state court.52 The vast majority of cases (14) have not been successful on the
merits and were dismissed for a lack of justiciability, standing, or on the court’s decision to defer to the executive
and legislative branches (Sabin Center for Climate Change Law 2023).

47

Greenpeace Nordic Ass’n v. Ministry of Petroleum and Energy (People v. Arctic Oil), Supreme Court of Norway, HR-2020-2472-P,
Case No. 20-051052SIV-HRET, 23 January 2020 (Norway).

48

Rabab Ali v. Federation of Pakistan & Another, Supreme Court of Pakistan, Constitution Petition No. I of 2016, April 2016 (Pakistan).

49

Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India & Ors., National Green Tribunal, Original Application No. 187/2017, March 2017 (India).

50This was a case in which young plaintiffs claimed that their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property were violated by policies allowing fossil fuelproduction, consumption and combustion at “dangerous levels”. See the 2020 Litigation Report, pages 15, 39, 43 and 44.

51

Juliana v. United States, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 947 F.3d 1159, Granted, 17 January 2020 (United States of America).

52

Held v. State, Montana District Court, No. CDV-2020-307, Complaint, March 13 2020 (United States of America).

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

Page 41

Cases have also been filed in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Germany, Guyana, India, Ireland, Italy, Mexico,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, the Philippines, Poland, the Republic of Korea, South Africa, Spain,
Uganda and the United Kingdom, as well as in CJEU, ECtHR and IACHR (Parker et al. 2022).53

Box 6: Climate litigation cases brought by women
Certain groups’ vulnerability to the pervasive impacts of climate change is slowly being addressed in climate
litigation. While a number of cases have addressed the impacts of climate change on children and future
generations, as noted above, and on Indigenous groups as noted in the future trends section (Part 4), othergroups have started using arguments related to equality before the law to request certain protective measuresfrom their respective governments. For example, four cases in Chile, Pakistan, Switzerland and ECtHR werebrought by girls or women who claimed they were disproportionally affected by climate change. In two cases,
these arguments were unsuccessful. For example, in KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland (2020) (see Part 1.A.ii.c),the Swiss Federal Administrative Court found that women older than 75 years were not exclusively affected byclimate change. Women from Huasco and Others v. the Government of Chile, Ministry of Energy, Environment and
Health (2022) was dismissed on procedural grounds.54 A recent study has assessed how gender-based arguments
have been used in climate litigation in Latin America, finding that plaintiffs and courts have failed to fully engage
with a gender analysis to understand the disproportionate impacts suffered by marginalized groups in the region(Urzola forthcoming). Two cases are still pending. KlimaSeniorinnen (2022) (now at ECtHR) raises arguments on
the disproportionate impact of climate change on senior women to ECtHR.55 In Maria Khan et al. v. Federation of
Pakistan et al. (2019), a coalition of women have argued that since climate change has a disproportionate impact
on women, the federal Government’s climate inaction violates women's rights to equal protection under the law andno discrimination on the basis of sex.56

53

Two cases had positive outcomes on the merits: Future Generations v. Ministry of the Environment and Others (2018) and Neubauer, et al. v. Germany(2021). One case had a negative outcome on the merits: Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway (2021).
Cases that were dismissed for lack of justiciability and/or standing include: PUSH Sweden, Nature and Youth Sweden and Others v. Government of
Sweden (2016), Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India & Ors (2018), La Rose v. Her Majesty the Queen (2019), Six Youths v. Minister of Environment and Others(2021), Sacchi, et al. v. Argentina, et al. (2021), and ENvironnement JEUnesse v. Procureur General du Canada (2022).
Depending on the jurisdiction, the outcome of a case on separation of powers grounds may be a merits decision or a justiciability question. Several
cases are expected to proceed on the merits: Rabab Ali v. Federation of Pakistan & Another (2016), Álvarez et al. v. Peru (2019), Do-Hyun Kim et al. v. South
Korea (2020), Youth Verdict v. Waratah Coal (2020), Mathur et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (2020), Duarte Agostinho and Others v.
Portugal and 32 Other States (2021), and Youth v. Government of Mexico (2022).

54

Women from Huasco and Others v. the Government of Chile, Ministry of Energy, Environment and Health, Court of Appeal of Copiapo, No. 323-2021, 7 May
2022 (Chile).

55

KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland, ECtHR, Application No. 53600/20, 5 December 2022 (European Court of Human Rights).

56

Maria Khan et al. v. Federation of Pakistan et al., Lahore High Court, No. 8960, Filed, 15 February 2019 (Pakistan).

Page 42

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

II. Domestic enforcement of international climate change commitments
National and subnational governments commit
to addressing climate change through variedinternational agreements and related national
legislation or policy statements. These commitments
may be subject to litigation challenging theirscope, mode of implementation or non-execution.
Governments are the most common defendants
in litigation challenging mitigation and adaptationcommitments, but as indicated in the 2020
Litigation Report, similar suits have been brought
against corporations and other institutions. As
more governments and companies commit tonet-zero targets, more litigation that questions theimplementation of these plans will likely emerge.

"

Governments are themost common defendants
in litigation challenging
mitigation and adaptationcommitments, but as
indicated in the 2020
Litigation Report, similarsuits have been brought
against corporations andother institutions.

"

Several cases in Europe have questioned
governments’ compliance with and implementationof their national mitigation commitments or netzero strategies. Two French decisions from 2021
have specifically assessed the French Government’s
compliance with its commitments. In Notre Affaire àTous and Others v. France (2021) (part of L’Affaire dusiècle), the Administrative Court of Paris held that theState’s climate inaction and failure to meet its carbon
budget goals have caused climate-related ecologicaldamages under international and European climate
directives and regulations, the French Environmental

Charter, Energy Code and Civil Code.57 The court laterordered the State to take immediate and concrete
actions by 31 December 2022 to comply with its
mitigation commitments under national laws andrepair the climate-related ecological damages caused
by inaction, including subtracting excess emissions
in the subsequent year. Any future slippage ofemissions beyond the legislative commitments was
also to be compensated by the French Government.
In Commune de Grande-Synthe v. France (2021),
the Council of State of France found that theGovernment had failed to adopt the necessary
legislative measures to comply with its mitigationcommitments. The refusal to take further action
was incompatible with France’s obligations underFrench and European Union law. The Council of Stateordered the Government to “take all the measuresnecessary” to meet its climate goals by bending the
curve of GHG emissions, including a 40 per centreduction by 2030. The procedure concerning theevaluation of the Government’s compliance with thedecision is currently ongoing.
In the United Kingdom, a case was broughtchallenging the Government’s Net Zero Strategy.
In R (oao Friends of the Earth) v. Secretary of State
for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (2022),
Friends of the Earth asked for judicial review ofthe economy-wide decarbonization strategy andthe heat and buildings strategy for decarbonizing
heating and homes. Friends of the Earth claimed
that the policies will not enable compliance with thecarbon budgets set under the Climate Change Act
and that the strategy does not assess its impacts
on people with protected characteristics, such as
people with disabilities, people of colour and older
people as required under the Equality Act. In July
2022, the High Court of Justice found that the United
Kingdom Government had failed to comply with its
legal duties under the Climate Change Act 2008 whenapproving the Net Zero Strategy.58 That failure rested
not on the strategy’s content, but on the absenceof key evidence, assumptions and numbers thatthe secretary of state should have relied on whenapproving the strategy but were missing from thefinal document.

57

Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v. France (2021), Administrative Court of Paris, Nos. 1904967, 1904972, 1904976/4-1, 21 October (France)

58

R (oao Friends of the Earth) v. Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy, High Court of Justice of England and Wales, EWHC 1841, 18
July 2022 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

In Latin America, several climate litigation cases
were brought challenging government efforts torelax climate regulation or deregulate. This trend,
which was highlighted in the 2020 report, continues
in countries like Brazil and Mexico. Cases in Brazil
include Institute of Amazonian Studies v. Brazil (2022)
and PSB et al. v. Brazil (on Deforestation and Human
Rights) (2022). Cases in Mexico include Greenpeace
Mexico v. Ministry of Energy and Others (on the
Energy Sector Program) (2021), where Greenpeace
has argued that the Energy Sector Program violates
the right to a healthy environment and the rightto access electricity based on renewable sources
by promoting fossil fuel use at the expense ofinvestments in renewable energy, GHG emissions
reduction and adaptation.59 Cases in Mexico include
Greenpeace Mexico v. Ministry of Energy and Others(on the National Electric System Policies) (2020),
where Greenpeace questioned the constitutionality ofelectricity sector policies that would limit renewableenergy. In the latter case, the First Circuit Collegiate
Tribunal held that the policies in question wereregressive and unconstitutional as they violated theright to a healthy environment and the international
climate framework, displaced renewable energies
and effectively prevented Mexico from meeting GHG
emission reduction targets. Three separate lawsuits
from 2021 (brought by civil society organizations,
youth groups, individual young people and membersof the Mexican Senate Minority) further challenged
amendments to Mexico’s Electric Industry Law,
which favoured coal and oil-fired power plants(Nuestros Derechos al Futuro y Medio Ambiente
Sano et al., v. Mexico [Unconstitutionality of the

Page 43

reform to the Electric Industry Law] 2022; Challenge
to the Constitutionality of Amendments to theRules Governing Clean Energy Certificates 2022;
Julia Habana et al., v. Mexico [Unconstitutionality of
the reform to the Electricity Industry Law] 2022).60
These cases cite the Mexican Constitution’s rightto a healthy environment, the Paris Agreement andsustainability principles in the Electric Industry Law.
The cases are still pending as at 31 December 2022.
In 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States ofAmerica issued a decision in West Virginia v. EPA(2022), and held that section 111(d) of the Clean
Air Act did not give the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to use“generation-shifting” measures to set CO2 emission
limits for power plants. In doing so, the court reversed
a January 2021 decision by the Court of Appeals forthe District of Columbia (D.C.) Circuit that found thatthe former President Trump Administration’s repeal
and replacement of the previous President Obama
Administration’s Clean Power Plan was based on a
too-narrow construal of EPA’s authority under section
111(d). The Clean Power Plan used generationshifting measures as two of the three “building
blocks” for the “best system of emission reduction”
for power plants under section 111(d). One building
block shifted electricity production from coal-fired
to natural gas-fired units, and another building block
shifted generation to low- or zero-carbon sources
such as wind and solar.61 The decision in West
Virginia has reduced the EPA’s discretion in finding
innovative ways to regulate GHG emissions frompower plants.

59

Mexico, Greenpeace Mexico v. Ministry of Energy and Others (on the Energy Sector Program), District Court in Administrative Matters, Amparo No.
372/2020, 19 March 2021 (Mexico).

60

Mexico, Nuestros Derechos al Futuro y Medio Ambiente Sano et al., v. Mexico (Unconstitutionality of the reform to the Electric Industry Law), District Court
in Administrative Matters, Amparo No. 204/2021, 28 December 2022 (Mexico).
Challenge to the Constitutionality of Amendments to the Rules Governing Clean Energy Certificates, Supreme Court of Mexico, Acción deInconstitucionalidad 64/2021, 7 April 2022 (Mexico).
Julia Habana et al., v. Mexico (Unconstitutionality of the reform to the Electricity Industry Law), Supreme Court of Mexico, Amparo No. 210/2021, 22
December 2022 (Mexico).

61

West Virginia v. EPA, Supreme Court of the United States, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 30 June 2022 (United States of America).

Page 44

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

III. Keeping fossil fuels and carbon sinks in the ground
Cases that challenge specific resource-extraction
and resource-dependent projects (as well as
environmental permitting and review processes toensure adequate assessment of the projects’ climatechange implications) represent another highly visible
category of climate cases. These cases relate to
the long-term, global effect of projects extracting
or processing fossil fuels as well as to the local
impacts of mining and drilling activities on water,
land use, air quality and biodiversity. These cases
are increasingly alleging that proper considerationof a project’s impacts should include the extent towhich the project facilitates fossil fuel consumption
elsewhere in the world and for an extended period
into the future. The 2017 and 2020 Litigation Reports
described key cases in Chile, Colombia, Estonia,
Japan, Kenya, Norway, Pakistan, the United Kingdom
and United States of America. Several of those cases
are still pending as at 31 December 2022. Additional
cases seeking to keep fossil fuels in the ground havetargeted various sectors, including fossil fuel andmining extraction, power plants, roads, other typesof fossil fuel infrastructure, land use and carbon
sinks. This section highlights cases that question (i)a project’s consistency with the Paris Agreement ora government’s net-zero commitments and (ii) EIA
requirements.
A. Consistency with the Paris Agreement or
net-zero commitments
A number of cases have been brought challenging
government approvals based on a project’s
inconsistency with the Paris Agreement or acountry’s net-zero commitments.
The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) of England andWales in ClientEarth v. Secretary of State (2021)
declined to address whether the conversion of apower plant from coal to natural gas ignored theUnited Kingdom’s net-zero target, finding that GHG
emissions were not a “freestanding reason forrefusal” of a project’s approval. The court reasoned
that the relevant agency had discretion over theweight to assign to GHG emissions and that thesecretary of state properly balanced the project’s
adverse effects, including GHG emissions, with thepositive effects, including socioeconomic outcomes
and the reuse of existing infrastructure.62
In New Zealand, several students have sued the
New Zealand Minister of Energy and Resources,
challenging the decision to grant permits foronshore oil and gas exploration as inconsistent
with the Government’s legal obligations under thecountry’s Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon)
Amendment Act 2019 (Students for Climate Solutions
Inc v. Minister of Energy and Resources 2022).63
In Citizens’ Committee on the Kobe Coal-Fired Power
Plant v. Japan (2023), the Osaka District Court
rejected a request for an injunction to prevent theconstruction and operation of two new units at acoal-fired plant in Japan. The petitioners argued
that the project was inconsistent with Japan’s 2030
and 2050 climate targets. The court found that theplaintiffs’ human rights claims were general rather
than individual and therefore lacked standing. The
court further deferred to the discretion of the granting
authority.64 A similar lawsuit, also currently pending,
was filed by the same NGO against the two privatecompanies planning the project (Citizens’ Committee
on the Kobe Coal-Fired Power Plant v. Kobe Steel Ltd.,et al. 2023).65
The Paris Agreement calls for parties to respect,promote and consider their obligations on humanrights including aspects of gender equality,intergenerational equity and the empowerment of
women. In Women from Huasco and Others v. theGovernment of Chile, Ministry of Energy, Environmentand Health (2022), a group of women called for the
shutdown of two thermoelectric power plants,

62

ClientEarth v. Secretary of State, Court of Appeal (Civil Division) of England and Wales, Case No. C1/2020/0998/QBACF,
21 January 2021 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

63

Students for Climate Solutions Inc v. Minister of Energy and Resources, High Court of New Zealand, NZHC 2116 Decided, 24 August 2022
(New Zealand).

64

Citizens’ Committee on the Kobe Coal-Fired Power Plant v. Japan, Supreme Court of Japan, 9 March 2023 (Japan).

65

Citizens’ Committee on the Kobe Coal-Fired Power Plant v. Kobe Steel Ltd., et al., Kobe District Court, 20 March 2023 (Japan).

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

Page 45© Flickr / US Embassy

arguing they were contrary to Chile’s decarbonizationplans, the Paris Agreement and their human rights.
In May 2022, the Court of Appeals of Copiapo
rejected the claim on the grounds of separationof powers. The case was appealed to the Chilean
Supreme Court.
Similar claims have been brought in Australia. In
Sharma and others v. Minister for the Environment(2022), youth plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against theAustralian Federal Minister for the Environment,
arguing that the Minister owed a common-law dutyof care to Australian children to avoid causing climate
harm in exercising her statutory powers to approve a
coal mine expansion. In July 2021, the Federal Court

66

of Australia declared that the Minister had a duty totake reasonable care in the exercise of her powers
under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 to avoid causing personal
injury or death to Australian children “arising fromemissions of CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere”.66 In
March 2022, the Full Federal Court of Australia, anintermediate appellate court, unanimously overturnedthat decision (Tigre 2022b). The court found thatthe relationship between the youth plaintiffs and theMinister lacked the closeness and directness that thecommon law demands before finding a duty is owed
by one party to another. The court also rejected theMinister’s argument that the primary judge madeMullaley Gas and Pipeline Accord Inc v. Santos NSW (Eastern) Pty Ltd., New South Wales Land and Environment Court, NSWLEC 147,
16 December 2021 (Australia).

Page 46

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

findings based on unfounded evidence of climatechange. The plaintiffs announced that they would notappeal the decision.
In Mullaley Gas and Pipeline Accord Inc v. Santos NSW(Eastern) Pty Ltd (2021), the Land and Environment
Court New South Wales dismissed a challenge tothe approval of a coal seam gas field and associatedinfrastructure. The court found that the plaintiffs
had not sufficiently established that the planningcommission erred in (i) considering the expected
GHG emissions; (ii) excluding Scope 3 or downstream
GHG emissions from its assessment; and (iii) failingto consider the climate impacts of gas transmission
pipelines.67 However, in KEPCO Bylong Australia v.
Independent Planning Commission and Bylong Valley
Protection Alliance (2021), the New South Wales
Court of Appeal found that the Commission had
adequately found that KEPCO had not proposed tominimize GHG emissions despite the State Climate
Change Policy’s requirements.68 Similar pending
claims question the validity of a water-sharing plan

(Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales v.
Minister for Water, Property and Housing 2022)69 andpower station licences (Environment Victoria v. the
EPA et al. 2021).70
In Guyane Nature Environnement and France Nature
Environnement v. France (2022), the Council of State
ruled that a renewal of authorization of a thermal
power plant in French Guiana – an overseas territory
of France – did not need to consider France’s
overall mitigation goals. However, in April 2022, theadministrative court cancelled the environmental
authorization of the power plant given that there
was an insufficient search for an alternative location
and would pose a nuisance to protected species.71
In New Zealand, the Government abandoned a
project to fund and build a road after a judicial review
claim questioned its compatibility with the Paris
Agreement (All Aboard Aotearoa v. Waka Kotahi2021).72 Several similar cases, in which government
permits and authorizations are challenged on climate
grounds, are still pending as at 31 December 2022.

© Flickr / Bureau of Safety and Environment

67

Mullaley Gas and Pipeline Accord Inc v. Santos NSW (Eastern) Pty Ltd., New South Wales Land and Environment Court, NSWLEC 147, 16 December 2021
(Australia).

68

KEPCO Bylong Australia v. Independent Planning Commission and Bylong Valley Protection Alliance, Court of Appeal of Australia, NSWCA 216, 14
September 2021 (Australia).

69

Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales v. Minister for Water, Property and Housing, New South Wales Land and Environment Court, Case
2021/00282599, 8 June 2022 (Australia).

70

Environment Victoria v. the Environmental Protection Agency et al. (2021), Supreme Court of Victoria, S ECI 2021 03415, 16 September 2021 (Australia).

71

Guyane Nature Environnement and France Nature Environnement v. France, Council of State of France, No. 455465, 456314, 455497, 455500,
10 February 2022 (France).

72

All Aboard Aotearoa v. Waka Kotahi, High Court of New Zealand, 4 June 2021 (New Zealand).

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

Three related cases, now combined, were filed inArgentina questioning the Ministry of Environment
and Sustainable Development’s decision toapprove the implementation of an offshore seismic
acquisition project.73 In Africa Climate Alliance etal. v. Minister of Mineral Resources & Energy et al.
(#CancelCoal case) (2022), NGOs launched a youthled constitutional challenge questioning the South
African Government’s plans to procure new coal-fired
power electricity.74 In Denmark, an NGO questioned
the construction of an artificial peninsula – a project
developed as a climate adaptation measure – asit failed to account for GHG emissions as well as
Danish and European Union net-zero targets (TheClimate Movement v. Ministry of Transportation2021).75
Cases have also been brought with the goal ofprotecting key ecosystems that act as carbon
sinks. For example, in Asociación Civil por la Justicia
Ambiental v. Province of Entre Ríos et al. (Delta delParaná case) (2021), NGOs and a group of children
have questioned three Argentinian provinces and amunicipality’s duty to protect the Delta del Paraná,a wetland of international importance under theRamsar Convention on Wetlands of International
Importance, that burned significantly throughout
2020. Relying on human rights and Argentina’s
obligation under the Paris Agreement, the plaintiffs
asked the court to declare the rights of nature of
the ecosystem due to its climate mitigation andadaptation characteristics.76 A similar case wasbrought in Türkiye, related to the Marmara Lake, awetland of national importance and a significant
carbon sink. The plaintiffs argue that the government
has failed to protect the lake, directly violating thePage 47

Paris Agreement (S.S. Gölmarmara ve Çevresi SuÜrünleri Kooperatifi v. Republic of Türkiye Ministry ofAgriculture and Forestry 2022).77 Several Brazilian
cases related to the protection of the Amazon
rainforest also argue that the forest acts as asignificant carbon sink (Ministério Público Federal v.
IBAMA 2020; Institute of Amazonian Studies v. Brazil
2022; PSB et al. v. Brazil [on Deforestation and Human
Rights] 2022; PSB et al. v. Brazil [on Amazon Fund]
2022).78
B. Environmental impact assessment requirements
Many cases in this category are partially or entirely
premised on EIA and similar planning requirements.
These cases often, though not always, challenge
project permitting and approval decisions for failingto consider climate impacts as part of required
environmental reviews.
In Saonu and Morobe Provincial Government v.
Minister for Environment and Conservation andClimate Change and Others (2021), the Morobe
Provincial Government in Papua New Guinea
challenged the environmental permit of a mining
lease for failing to consider climate change whenissuing the permit, improper review of climate issues,
inadequate consultation of affected communities
and the irreparable environmental damages. In 2021,
the Court of Justice at Waigani, Papua New Guinea,
noted that the parties did not provide any information
on whether the EIA factored levels of CO2 emissions
and impacts on the local and global environment or
proposed measures to minimize such emissions.
The court issued an order of stay pending substantial
review.79 Similarly, the Chilean Supreme Court ruled73

See Federal Court of Mar del Plata N. 2, Argentina: http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-jurisdiction/federal-court-of-mar-del-plata-n-2/.

74Africa Climate Alliance et al., v. Minister of Mineral Resources & Energy et al. (#CancelCoal case), High Court of South Africa, Case No. 56907/21, 20
January 2022 (South Africa).

75

The Climate Movement v. Ministry of Transportation, Western High Court of Denmark, 22 October 2021 (Denmark).

76

Asociación Civil por la Justicia Ambiental v. Province of Entre Ríos, et al. (Delta del Paraná case), Supreme Court of Argentina, CSJ 542/2020,
28 December 2021 (Argentina).

77

S.S. Gölmarmara ve Çevresi Su Ürünleri Kooperatifi v. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Administrative Court of Manisa,
July 2022 (Türkiye).

78

Ministério Público Federal v. IBAMA, Seventh Federal Environmental and Agrarian Court of the Judiciary Section of Amazonas,
ACP No. 1007104-63.2020.4.01.3200, 21 May 2020 (Brazil).
PSB et al. v. Brazil (on Amazon Fund), Federal Supreme Court of Brazil, ADO 59/DF, 3 November 2022 (Brazil).

79

Ministério Público Federal v. IBAMA, Seventh Federal Environmental and Agrarian Court of the Judiciary Section of Amazonas,
ACP No. 1007104-63.2020.4.01.3200, 21 May 2020 (Brazil).

Page 48

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

recognized the risk of irreparable and imminentclimate harm, as well as impacts on the communities’cultural practices and ocean conservation.81
Cases in the United States of America have also
confirmed that consideration of climate change is arequired component of EIAs. The D.C. Circuit Courtof Appeals invalidated the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management’s lease sale of offshore land in the Gulf
of Mexico for oil and gas development in Friendsof the Earth v. Haaland (2023), holding that the EIA
was deficient because the Bureau did not consider
changes in foreign oil consumption when evaluating
GHG emissions associated with the lease sale.82 The
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found an EIA deficientfor similar reasons in Center for Biological Diversity
v. Bernhardt (2020).83 In Food & Water Watch v. FERC
(2022), the D.C. Circuit affirmed again in 2022 that
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was
required to consider the GHG emissions attributableto burning the gas to be carried by a pipeline in its
EIA, at least in some circumstances.84© Unsplash / Worksite Ltd

in 2022 in Mejillones Tourist Service Associationand others with the Environmental Evaluation
Service (SEA) of Antofagasta (2022) that climate
impacts should be included in the environmental
review process, including in a revision of older
environmental permits.80
In South Africa, NGOs sought an interdict prohibiting
seismic surveys off the coast of South Africa.
The High Court ruled in Sustaining the Wild Coast
NPC and Others v. Minister of Mineral Resources
and Energy and Others (2022) that the explorationright was awarded without proper consultationor an assessment of climate impacts. The court

In R (Finch on behalf of the Weald Action Group& Others) v. Surrey County Council (& Others)(2022), claimants challenged permits issued for
new hydrocarbon wells due to inconsistency
with the United Kingdom’s net-zero target and
the Government’s failure to consider Scope 3 or
downstream emissions. The High Court initiallydismissed the claim in 2020, finding that theGovernment failed to assess downstream
emissions. On appeal, the Court of Appeal in 2022
issued a split decision in which the majority deferredto the Government’s discretion and the dissent
argued that the Government had failed to meetits EIA obligations.85

80

Mejillones Tourist Service Association and others with the Environmental Evaluation Service (SEA) of Antofagasta, Supreme Court of Chile,
Case No. 6930-20216930-2021, 19 April 2022 (Chile).

81

Sustaining the Wild Coast NPC and Others v. Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others, High Court of South Africa, Case No. 3491/2021,
1 September 2022 (South Africa).

82

Friends of the Earth v. Haaland, Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Nos. 22-5036, 22-5037, 22-5067, 24 January 2023 (United States of America).

83

Center for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 982 F.3d 723, 7 December 2020 (United States of America).

84

Food & Water Watch v. FERC, Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 28 F.4th 277, 11 March 2022 (United States of America).

85

R (Finch on behalf of the Weald Action Group & Others) v. Surrey County Council (& Others), Court of Appeal (Civil Division) of England and Wales,
CO/4441/2019 and C1/2021/0261, 2022 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

Several similar claims are still pending as at 31
December 2022. In South Durban Community
Environmental Alliance v. Minister of Environment
and Others (2021), an NGO challenged the South
African Government’s approval of offshore oil andgas exploration on the basis that it failed to consider
climate impacts in the EIA.86 In South Durban
Community Environmental Alliance & Groundwork v.
Minister of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment(2021), NGOs have challenged the authorization of aPage 49

gas-fired power plant for inadequate assessment ofclimate impacts.87 In Thomas & de Freitas v. Guyana(2021), two citizens alleged that Guyana violated
constitutional rights by approving oil exploration
licences to an ExxonMobil-led group.88 In Henry
v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022), threecitizens questioned the decision of EPA of Guyana to
grant a modified environmental permit allowing Esso/
ExxonMobil to flare gas without considering GHG
emissions.89© Flickr / PMO Barbados

86

South Durban Community Environmental Alliance v. Minister of Environment and Others, High Court of South Africa, June 2021 (South Africa).

87

South Durban Community Environmental Alliance & Groundwork v. Minister of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment, High Court of South Africa,
8 April 2021 (South Africa).

88

Thomas & De Freitas v. Guyana, Supreme Court of Guyana, 27 September 2021 (Guyana).

89

Henry v. Environmental Protection Agency, Supreme Court of Guyana, 2021-HC-DEM-CIV-FDA, 21 January 2022 (Guyana).

Page 50

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

IV. Corporate liability and responsibility
From 2020 to 2022, a growing number of cases
have emerged that name private parties as
defendants and demonstrate an increasing diversityof legal strategies that use a variety of theories.
Key examples include cases seeking to hold GHG
emitters or fossil fuel companies responsible forclimate harm, as well as cases against financial
institutions on the basis that they have ignored ormisused knowledge about climate change risk. The
2017 Litigation Report described several legal actionsof this kind. It noted that plaintiffs had yet to establishthat certain emitters were the proximate cause of theplaintiff’s specific injuries. The 2020 Litigation Reporthighlighted several pending cases in the UnitedStates of America against fossil fuel producers
seeking to hold corporations accountable for ashare of climate change’s impacts. These include
claims that defendant companies are liable both for
public nuisance due to their deceptive marketingof fossil fuels as well as their failure to warn the
public and consumers about the foreseeable harm
their products cause. While a company’s liability forclimate impacts has yet to be established, in at least
one instance a fossil fuel company has been found toowe a duty to mitigate emissions from its products.

A. Corporate duty to mitigate emissions
Increasingly, climate litigation cases have targeted
corporations in an attempt to identify their corporate
responsibility to mitigate GHG emissions. The
2020 Litigation Report highlighted Smith v. Fonterra
Co-Operative Group Limited (2022), a case brought
against seven companies in the agriculture andenergy sectors in New Zealand. As noted in the 2020
Litigation Report, the High Court of New Zealandruled that the companies had no duty of care towards
the plaintiffs as the climate damages were notreasonably foreseeable or proximately caused by thecompanies’ actions. In an appeal, the Court of Appeal
ruled that tort law was not the appropriate avenue
for dealing with climate change, reasoning that every
person in the world is at the same time the one
responsible for causing the relevant harm and thevictim of that harm. The case was granted leave toappeal to the New Zealand Supreme Court.90
The issue of a corporate duty of care was also
recently analysed by a first instance court in the
Netherlands. In Milieudefensie et al.v. Royal Dutch
Shell (2022) (Milieudefensie), The Hague District
Court ordered Dutch-based oil and gas multinational© Unsplash / Mika Baumeister

90

Smith v. Fonterra Co-Operative Group Limited, High Court of New Zealand, NZSC 35, 31 March 2022 (New Zealand).
See also the 2020 Litigation Report pages 22, 38, 42, and 44.

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

Page 51© Flickr / Carlos Aranda

Royal Dutch Shell to reduce CO2 emissions
associated with its products by 45 per cent from2019 levels by 2030. The judgment represents thefirst time a private company was ordered to comply
with the Paris Agreement and was found to havea duty to mitigate GHG emissions under the Paris
Agreement. The court grounded its decision inclimate-related human rights responsibilities andtort-based duties, including those related to corporate
due diligence, and on an unwritten standard of carebased on the goals of the Paris Agreement and theUnited Nations Guiding Principles on Business andHuman Rights.91 The judgment is under appeal as at
31 December 2022.
France’s 2017 Law on the Duty of Vigilance, which
imposes parent-based due diligence obligations
covering human rights and the environment, hasalso facilitated new climate claims against
corporations. In Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v.
Total (2021), plaintiffs have asked the court to orderthe oil and gas company Total to recognize the risks
generated by its business activities and align its
conduct with the Paris Agreement. After a debate on
the court’s competency to decide the case, the casewill then move to the merits stage. In Envol Vert et al.
v. Casino (2021), a coalition of NGOs sued theFrench supermarket chain Casino for its supply
chain emissions related to the cattle industry inBrazil and Colombia. The case has challenged“emissions outsourcing” and targeted a company
that has low emissions profiles in their corporate
home but whose products have caused significant
pollution in other jurisdictions. The case is still in
the preliminary stage.92

91

Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc., The Hague District Court, C/09/571932 / HA ZA 19-379, 25 April 2022 (Netherlands).

92

Envol Vert et al. v. Casino, Judicial Court of Saint-Étienne, 2 March 2021 (France).

Page 52

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

Box 7: Philippines Carbon Majors report
In 2022, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines published its National Inquiry on Climate Change,
the outcome of its seven-year investigation into the responsibility of 47 fossil fuel-producing companies (the socalled “Carbon Majors”) for climate change (Philippines, Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines 2022).
The investigation was initiated in response to a petition by Greenpeace Southeast Asia and other environmentalorganizations and individual Filipino citizens in In re Greenpeace Southeast Asia and Others, who asked theCommission to investigate “the human rights implications of climate change and ocean acidification and theresulting rights violations in the Philippines,” naming the Carbon Majors as respondents.
The Commission conducted a fact-finding mission that included hearings in Manila, London and New York. In
its report, the Commission concluded that the Philippine Government owes a duty (based on the United Nations
Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights) to protect human rights and avoid abuses by non-State
actors, and that the Government’s refusal or failure to engage in meaningful and concrete action to mitigate
climate change may be categorized as a human rights violation. The Commission further concluded thatbusiness enterprises must respect human rights, irrespective of whether domestic laws exist or are fully enforced
domestically. This corporate duty includes the responsibility to avoid causing or contributing to adverse humanrights impacts through harm to the environment or climate change. The Commission acknowledged that the
Carbon Majors had early awareness, notice or knowledge of their products’ adverse impacts on the environmentand climate system and engaged in wilful obfuscation and obstruction to prevent meaningful climate action. The
Commission concluded that the Carbon Majors have a corporate responsibility to undertake human rights due
diligence and provide remediation.

Cases against corporations targeting a corporate
duty to reduce GHG emissions were also brought inGermany after the decision in Neubauer. Three cases
were filed against automakers seeking to compel
them to strengthen their carbon emissions target andstop producing fossil fuel-emitting cars by 2030: DUH
v. BMW (2021),93 DUH v. Mercedes-Benz (2022),94 andKaiser, et al., v. Volkswagen AG (2021).95 Grounding
their case in the Paris Agreement and German
federal climate law, the plaintiffs have argued thatthe automakers have been violating the fundamental
right to climate protection (as recognized in
Neubauer) and impinging on the rights and freedoms
of future generations by not adhering to a fair carbon
budget. In Barbara Metz et al., v. Wintershall Dea AG(2021), plaintiffs used similar legal grounds to seek
an order to compel the energy company Wintershall
Dea AG to strengthen its emissions target and giveup the extraction of natural gas and crude oil by
2025.96 All cases are in the preliminary stages as at
31 December 2022.
Two cases were recently filed in Italy before the OECD
National Contact Point, seeking broader corporate
emissions reductions. In Rete Legalità per il Clima(Legality for Climate Network) v. Intense Livestock
Farming Multinational Companies Operating in Italy(2021), plaintiffs challenged the compatibility of thepractice of intensive livestock farming with Italy’s
net-zero commitments.97 In Rete Legalità per il Clima(Legality for Climate Network) and others v. ENI(2022), plaintiffs questioned the adequacy of thebusiness plan pursued by the oil company ENI as it
pertains to its commitment to net-zero emissions by
2050. Both cases are also in the preliminary stages.98

93

Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (BMW), Regional Court of Munich, 3 September 2021 (Germany).

94

Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) v. Mercedes-Benz AG, Regional Court of Stuttgart, 13 September 2022 (Germany).

95

Kaiser, et al. v. Volkswagen AG, Regional Court of Braunschweig, 11 November 2021 (Germany).

96

Barbara Metz et al., v. Wintershall Dea AG, Regional Court of Kassel, 4 October 2021 (Germany).

97

Rete Legalità per il Clima (Legality for Climate Network) v. Intensive Livestock Farming Multinational Companies Operating in Italy, OECD National Contact
Point, 6 December 2021 (OECD).

98

Rete Legalità per il Clima (Legality for Climate Network) and Others v. ENI, OECD National Contact Point, 15 February 2022 (OECD).

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

Page 53

Box 8: Nuisance cases in the United States of America
Nearly two dozen states and cities in the United States of America have sued large fossil fuel companies seeking
compensation for damages related to climate change (City of New York v. BP p.l.c. 2021; City of New York v. Exxon
Mobil Corp 2021; Connecticut v. Exxon Mobil Corporation 2022; Vermont v. Exxon Mobil Corp 2022; City of Hoboken
v. Exxon Mobil Corp 2022; City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c. 2022; Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP p.l.c. 2023; City ofCharleston v. Brabham Oil Co. 2023; City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP 2023; Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Products
Co. 2023; County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp 2023; State v. American Petroleum Institute 2023; Delaware v. BP
America Inc.2023; District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corp 2023; Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County
v. Suncor Energy [U.S.A.] 2023).99 The types of claims vary and include nuisance, negligence, strict liability andtrespass claims, as well as claims under state and local consumer protection and unfair trade practices statutes.
Since the first case was filed in 2017, litigation has centred on whether the cases belong in federal or state courts,
raising the broader issue of the court’s authority to address climate issues. Every court that has issued a decision
to date has found that, because the cases seek to impose liability based on the companies’ deceptive marketing,historic disinformation campaigns and failure to warn consumers and not the mere production of fossil fuels, thecases belong in state court (City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c. 2022; Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP p.l.c. 2023;
City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP 2023; Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Products Co. 2023; County of San Mateo v.
Chevron Corp. 2022; Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.), Inc. 2023).
At the time of this publication, there are several cases that are moving into litigation in state courts, including cases
in Hawai’i, Maryland and Rhode Island, while others await final rulings on the issue. In City of New York v. Chevron
Corp. (2019), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (a federal court) affirmed the dismissal of New York City’s caseasserting common-law claims, which sought to impose liability based on the companies’ fossil fuel production. The
Second Circuit held that, as the case relates to federal common law, it displaced the state law claims. Furthermore,
it held that the Clean Air Act (a federal statute) regulates any federal common-law claims related to domestic
emissions. It also held that foreign policy concerns foreclosed federal common-law claims stemming fromemissions outside the United States of America.100 In contrast, a trial-level state court in Hawai’i denied defendants’
motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the City and County of Honolulu. It distinguished the Second Circuit’s
decision, noting that the Hawai’i lawsuit sought to impose liability based on the companies’ tortious speech andfailure to warn, and not only the production of fossil fuels (City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP. 2023).

99

City of New York v. BP p.l.c., Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 1:18-cv-00182, 24 April 2021 (United States of America).
City of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corp., District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:21-cv-04807, 12 November 2021 (United States ofAmerica).
Connecticut v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 21-1446, 31 August 2022 (United States of America).
Vermont v. Exxon Mobil Corp., District Court for the District of Vermont, No. 2:21-cv-260-wks, 2 September 2022 (United States of America).
City of Hoboken v. Exxon Mobil Corp., Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, HUD-L-003179-20, 12 October 2022 (United States of America).
City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c., District Court for the Northern District of California, No. CGC-17-561370, 24 October 2022 (United States of America).
Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP p.l.c., Supreme Court of the United States, No. 24-C-18-004219, 3 January 2023 (United States of America).
City of Charleston v. Brabham Oil Co., District Court for the District of South Carolina (Charleston Division), No. 2020CP1003975, 20 January 2023 (UnitedStates of America).
City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 1CCV-20-0000380, 22 February 2023 (United States of America).
Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Products Co., Supreme Court of the United States, No. PC-2018-4716, 22 February 2023 (United States of America).
County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., Supreme Court of the United States, No. 17CIV03222, 27 February 2023 (United States of America).
State v. American Petroleum Institute, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 62-CV-20-3837, 23 March 2023 (United States of America).
Delaware v. BP America Inc., Supreme Court of the United States, No. N20C-09-097, 27 March 2023 (United States of America).
District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corp., Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, No. 2020 CA 002892 B, 31 March 2023 (United States of America).
Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.), Inc., Supreme Court of the United States, No. 2018CV030349, 5 April 2023
(United States of America).

100 City of New York v. Chevron Corp., Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 993 F.3d 81, 1 April 2019 (United States of America).

Page 54

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3© Flickr / Barry Marsh

B. Corporate liability for adaptation
A limited number of cases have addressed therecognition of corporate liability for adaptation toclimate change. Some pending lawsuits highlighted
in the 2020 Litigation Report have yet to be decided
as at 31 December 2022. These include Luciano
Lliuya v. RWE AG (2022), a case brought by a Peruvian
farmer against a German utility company seeking
compensation for the costs of protecting theplaintiff’s town from melting glaciers.101 Due to delays
related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the case remains
in the evidentiary phase.
C. Responsibility of financial institutions
Courts are beginning to assess the responsibility offinancial institutions for the climate dimensions of
their investments. In ClientEarth v. Belgian National
Bank (2022), plaintiffs argued that the bank had
failed to meet environmental, climate and humanrights requirements when purchasing bonds fromfossil fuel and other GHG-intensive companies
as part of the European Central Bank’s Corporate

Sector Purchase Programme (CSPP). ClientEarthargued that the CSPP undermines the European
Union’s emissions reduction targets and fails to take
into account climate considerations and soughta preliminary reference to the CJEU to determine
whether the decision to establish the CSPP was
lawful.102 Two cases in Brazil previously mentioned,
PSB et al. v. Brazil (on Climate Fund) (2022) and
PSB et al. v. Brazil (on Amazon Fund) (2022) havequestioned the allocation of funds by the Brazilian
National Development Bank (BNDES). In 2022, an
NGO questioned how BNDES and its investment
arm, BNDESPar, which are both publicly funded,have reported carbon emissions associated withBNDESPar’s investment portfolio and maintained
equity positions in sectors that are among the mostcarbon-intensive in the Brazilian economy (Conectas
Direitos Humanos v. BNDES and BNDESPar 2022).103
Finally, in Kang et al. v. KSURE and KEXIM (2022),
a case from the Republic of Korea, plaintiffs havequestioned the investment of an export credit agency
in a gas reserve off the coast of Indigenous land inAustralia.104

101 Luciano Lliuya v. RWE AG, Higher Regional Court of Essen, Case No. 2 O 285/15, On Appeal, May 2022 (Germany).
102 ClientEarth v. Belgian National Bank, Court of First Instance of Brussels, 21/38/C, Withdrawn, 2022 (Belgium).
103 Conectas Direitos Humanos v. BNDES and BNDESPar, Ninth Federal Civil Court of the Federal District, ACP 1038657-42.2022.4.01.3400,
22 June 2022 (Brazil).
104 Kang et al. v. KSURE and KEXIM, District Court of Seoul, 23 March 2022 (Republic of Korea).

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

Page 55

V. Climate disclosures and greenwashing
Increased public awareness and understandingof climate change have spurred actions brought
against corporations on claims of misrepresentative
statements about climate change. This was wellhighlighted in the 2020 Litigation Report, which
included a few examples of greenwashing casesin Australia, the United Kingdom and United Statesof America. All cases mentioned are pending as at
31 December 2022 (York County v. Rambo 2019;
People of the State of New York v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation 2020; Ramirez v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 2022;
Commonwealth v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 2022; O’Donnell
v. Commonwealth 2022),105 and several others havebeen filed since. These kinds of actions involve
plaintiffs bringing suits claiming they relied on thosestatements to make financial decisions, as well ascases brought by governments enforcing securities
disclosures and consumer protection laws, and NGOs
challenging alleged greenwashing or climate-washingcampaigns. Investors continue to file suits alleging
that public disclosures relating to climate risk weremisleading or fraudulent, both in relation to the riskthat a transition away from fossil fuels poses totheir business or investment assets and the risk ofphysical impacts to infrastructure, operations andsupply chains associated with climate change.
As observed in the 2020 Litigation Report, the climate
disclosure cases are usually grounded in national
consumer protection or corporate laws. Importantly,
the regulatory context for climate disclosures is influx. In 2019, the European Commission approved
non-binding guidelines on reporting climate-related
information (European Commission 2019). In 2021,
it adopted the Corporate Sustainability Reporting
Directive, a legislative proposal to strengthen thenature and extent of sustainability or Environmental,
Social and Governance (ESG) reporting in theEuropean Union, which would constitute substantial
regulatory reform in the ESG reporting space(European Commission 2022). A new rule aimed atenhancing publicly traded companies’ disclosureof climate-related risks has been proposed by theUnited States Securities and Exchange Commission(United States of America, Securities and Exchange
Commission 2022). These regulations could lead tolitigation on multiple fronts.
A. Protection of investors: climate disclosures
Cases concerning disclosure of investments inhigh-emitting GHG activities are found in Australia,
Brazil and the European Union. In ClientEarth v.
European Investment Bank (2021), the European
Union General Court ordered the European
Investment Bank to accept ClientEarth’s petition
for an internal review of the bank’s decision tofinance a biomass power plant. The request reliedon the provisions of the United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe Convention on Access toInformation, Public Participation in Decision-making
and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters(Aarhus Convention). ClientEarth claimed that the
project overestimated the environmental advantagesby underestimating the risks of logging and forest
fire emissions.106 In Abrahams v. CommonwealthBank of Australia (2021), shareholders sued theCommonwealth Bank of Australia for disclosure of
documents under the Corporations Act of 2001 of thebank’s involvement in a series of fossil fuel projects
that potentially infringed the bank’s environmental

105 York County v. Rambo, District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:19-cv-00994, 22 February 2019 (United States of America).
People of the State of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, Supreme Court of New York, No. 452044/2018, 27 February 2020 (United States of America).
Ramirez v. Exxon Mobil Corp., District Court for the Northern District of Texas, No. 3:16-cv-3111, 31 March 2022 (United States of America).
Commonwealth v. Exxon Mobil Corp., High Court of Massachusetts, No. SJC-13211, 24 May 2022 (United States of America).
O’Donnell v. Commonwealth, Federal Court of Australia, VID482/2020, 22 June 2022 (Australia).
106 ClientEarth v. European Investment Bank, CJEU, T-9/19 and C-212/21 P, Appealed, 2 February 2021 (European Union).

Page 56

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

and social policies. The Federal Court allowed theplaintiffs to inspect a limited scope of documents
and ordered the Commonwealth Bank of Australia to
produce the relevant documents.107 In Clara Leonel
Ramos and Bruno de Almeida de Lima v. State ofSão Paulo (Families for the Climate and IncentivAuto
Program) (2021), a community group in Brazil
sued the state government of São Paulo seeking
disclosure of the budgetary and climate impacts of
the IncentivAuto Program, an over USD 150 million
fund designed to incentivize automaking in the state.
Plaintiffs alleged that the fund offered financing
without requiring any climate mitigation efforts on
the part of the carmakers. The plaintiffs claimed thatthe programme was potentially illegal for failing tominimize GHG emissions, in violation of São Paolo’s
Climate Change Plan.108
There have also been climate disclosure cases
against pension funds brought in Australia,
Luxembourg and the United Kingdom. The 2020
Litigation Report noted the Australian case McVeighv. Retail Employees Superannuation Trust (2020), in
which the plaintiff alleged that the fund violated the
Corporations Act 2001 by inadequately responding
to his request for information about the fund’s
knowledge of climate change risk, its assessmentof that risk and the actions taken in response. The
parties settled the case through an agreement for
the fund to implement a net-zero goal; to measure,monitor and report climate progress in line with
the Task Force on Climate-related Disclosures;to ensure investee climate disclosure; and to
publicly disclose portfolio holdings, among othercommitments.109 In Greenpeace A.S.B.L. v. Schneider(2020), in which Greenpeace asked for information
on how Luxembourg’s sovereign fund aligned its
investments with the goals of the Paris Agreement,
the administrative judge ruled that the sovereignpension fund had to disclose the information sought.
The court also found that the fund had no legal
obligation to comply with the Paris Agreement.110

In Ewan McGaughey et al., v. Universities
Superannuation Scheme Limited (2021), plaintiffs
in the United Kingdom issued proceedings against
the University Superannuation Scheme’s directors
under the directors’ duty to act in the beneficiaries’
best interests. Claimants argued that fossil fuels
have been the worst-performing asset class since2017 and that the failure to create a divestment
plan has prejudiced the success of the company.
The claimants further relied on the ECHR and the
directors’ duties under the Paris Agreement.111
In Amis de la Terre and Sherpa v. Perenco (2022),
French NGOs attempted to obtain documents related
to the environmental impacts of the oil company’s
operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris and theParis Court of Appeal denied their request, and sothey appealed to the Court of Cassation. In March
2022, the Court of Cassation ruled in favour of theNGOs and held that any interested party may ask aFrench judge for an investigative measure if there isa legitimate reason to preserve or establish, before
any proceedings, evidence that could be relevant to
the resolution of a dispute, provided that the action
envisaged is not manifestly inadmissible or contrary
to the law or doomed to failure.112
In In the Matter of AGL Limited (2022), the plaintiff
was a high-value shareholder of AGL Energy Limited,
Australia’s biggest GHG emitter. Although the plaintiff
did not have access to the materials that AGL put toshareholders for a vote on a demerger, the plaintiff
was concerned that those materials might notadequately address climate risks. Shareholders are
typically unable to access the materials before thefirst hearing of the application. In May 2022, at ahearing of the Supreme Court of New South Wales,
the plaintiff sought leave to be heard in the court’shearing of the application, including on the basis thatthe proposed demerger was not in the best interestsof shareholders. Leave was granted, and AGL was

107 Abrahams v. Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Federal Court of Australia, NSD864/2021, 26 August 2021 (Australia).
108 Clara Leonel Ramos and Bruno de Almeida de Lima vs. State of São Paulo (Families for the Climate and IncentivAuto Program), Court of Justice of São
Paolo, No. 1047315-47.2020.8.26.0053, 10 June 2021 (Brazil).
109 McVeigh v. Retail Employees Superannuation Trust, Federal Court of Australia, NSD1333/2018, Settled, 2 November 2020 (Australia).
110 Greenpeace A.S.B.L. v. Schneider, Administrative Court of Luxembourg, No. 43604 du rôle, 12 March 2020 (Luxembourg).
111 Ewan McGaughey et al. v. Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited, High Court of Justice of England and Wales, EWHC 1233,
27 October 2021 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).
112 Amis de la Terre and Sherpa v. Perenco, Court of Paris, No. 20-22.444, 9 March 2022 (France).

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

required to provide the scheme materials to theplaintiff to review. The court ordered the unamended
publication of the documents. AGL later decided towithdraw the demerger proposal.113
B. Protection of consumers: greenwashingcomplaints
Greenwashing complaints allege that corporate
advertising contains false or misleading information
about climate change impacts contrary to
responsible advertising or fair competition legislation
or standards.
In one case, the Italian Competition Authority has
questioned Eni’s Diesel+ advertising campaign as
it pertained to the green claims in the advertising
messages, which, according to the Competition
Authority, have disseminated false and omissive
information regarding the fuel’s environmental impact

Page 57

and GHG emissions reductions (Italian Competition
Authority Ruling Eni’s Diesel+ Advertising Campaign2019).114 The United Kingdom’s Advertising Standards
Authority (ASA) found that airline Ryanair’s claimsof having low CO2 emissions and being the lowestemissions airline were misleading. The ASA foundthat consumers would find insufficient information in
the advertisements to substantiate that they would
reduce their personal CO2 emissions compared withflying with another carrier (ASA Ruling on Ryanair
Ltd t/a Ryanair 2020).115 In another case, the ASA
concluded that Shell had to clarify that the carbon
offsetting was contingent on membership in a loyalty
scheme. Shell’s campaign on a scheme that allowed
customers to “drive carbon-neutral” through offsetting
emissions of fuel purchases was ruled misleading(ASA Ruling on Shell UK Ltd.’s Shell Go+ Campaign2020).116 New Zealand’s energy company Firstgas’
campaign on “zero-carbon gas” was also deemed
misleading by the ASA Complaints Board due to© Flickr / Devon Buchanan

113 In the Matter of AGL Limited, Court of New South Wales, Common Law Division, NSWSC 576, 12 May 2022 (Australia).
114 Italian Competition Authority Ruling Eni’s Diesel+ Advertising Campaign, Regional Administrative Court of Lazio, 20 December 2019 (Italy).
115 ASA Ruling on Ryanair Ltd t/a Ryanair Ltd, Advertising Standards Authority, Complaint No. G19-1035778, 5 February 2020 (United Kingdom of GreatBritain and Northern Ireland).
116 ASA Ruling on Shell UK Ltd.’s Shell Go+ Campaign, Advertising Standards Authority, 8 July 2020 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

Page 58

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

unsubstantiated environmental statements (Lawyers
for Climate Action Complaint to the AdvertisingStandards Board 2021).117 In Milieudefensie (2020),
The Hague District Court also concluded that Shell
had falsely claimed that its plans were aligned with
the Paris Agreement. In Denmark, NGOs filed a suitagainst Danish Crown, a farm cooperative and theEuropean Union’s largest pork producer, claiming thatthe company was misleading consumers throughits campaign that claimed its pork production was“climate controlled” and that the pork was “moreclimate-friendly than you would think.” The claimants
have alleged that the company is misrepresenting its
climate footprint and is in violation of the Marketing
Act (Vegetarian Society et al. of Denmark v. Danish
Crown 2022).118 The claim is still pending as at 31
December 2022.

Greenwashing claims have also relied on marketing
campaigns that are incompatible with a company’s
investments. For example, a complaint was filedat Ad Standards Australia against HSBC bankfor continued fossil fuels investments despite amarketing campaign to support the protection of theGreat Barrier Reef (Complaint to Ad Standards
on HSBC’s Great Barrier Reef Ad 2021).119
In FossielVrij NL v. KLM, several NGOs havechallenged the airline KLM’s advertising campaign
based on the argument that there is currently nosuch thing as “flying responsibly” and that KLM seeks
company growth and increased flight sales whenit should be reducing emissions by reducing thenumber of flights “to keep a just, liveable world withinreach.” The case builds on an April 2022 decision of
the national Advertisement Code Commission, in© Flickr / Oxfam International

117 Lawyers for Climate Action Complaint to the Advertising Standards Board, Advertising Standards Authority Complaints Board, No. 21/194,
6 July 2021 (New Zealand).
118 Vegetarian Society et al. of Denmark v. Danish Crown, Western High Court of Denmark, 2022 (Denmark).
119 Complaint to Ad Standards on HSBC’s Great Barrier Reef Ad, Ad Standards, 0265-21, 13 October 2021 (Australia).

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

which the Dutch media watchdog ruled that elementsof the “Fly Responsibly” campaign violated the code’s
provisions on misleading advertising, especially thoseelements referring to climate neutrality or “CO2ZERO”.
This includes the slogans “Be a hero, fly CO2ZERO”

Page 59

and “CO2 neutral: KLM compensates for theCO2 emissions of your KLM Holidays flight”(Fossielvrij-Beweging v. Koninklijke Luchtvaart
Maatschappij N.V. 2022).120

Box 9: Greenwashing complaints – net zero
As more companies commit to net-zero targets, it is likely that questions will be raised as to how these will be
implemented. Two cases were filed in Australia and France challenging oil and gas companies’ campaigns on netzero emissions. In Australia, the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility sued oil and gas company Santos
over claims that it provides clean energy natural gas and has plans for net-zero emissions by 2040 (AustralasianCentre for Corporate Responsibility v. Santos 2021).121 The suit has alleged that these misrepresentations are inviolation of Australian consumer protection and corporation laws. In France, several NGOs questioned Total’s
net-zero advertising campaign, arguing they were false and misleading in their depiction of the role of gas
and biofuels. Tv he case was brought under French national law, implementing the European Union’s Unfair
Commercial Practices Directive and represents the first case challenging an oil and gas major’s net-zero claims
for greenwashing in Europe (Greenpeace France, Amis de la Terre France, Notre Affaire à Tous v. TotalEnergies SE,
TotalEnergies Electricité, Gaz France 2022).122

C. Protection of consumers: misrepresentationof products
In the United States of America, cases havebeen brought by cities and states against fossil
fuel companies questioning their role in climate
disinformation and misrepresentation of products.
In Connecticut v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2022), thestate of Connecticut sued ExxonMobil to hold thecompany accountable for violating the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices Act in connection with alleged
deceptive acts to create uncertainty about climate

science. In City of New York v. Exxon Mobil
Corp. (2021), New York City sued several oil
companies under the city’s consumer protection
laws arguing that the companies engaged indeceptive trade practices by misrepresenting theirfossil fuel products to consumers, misleading
consumers about the impact of fossil fuels. Similarly,
in Vermont v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2022), the stateof Vermont brought a protection lawsuit against
fossil fuel companies alleging deceptive and unfair
business practices in connection with the companies’
sale of their products.

120 Fossielvrij-Beweging v. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V., District Court of Amsterdam, 7 July 2022 (Netherlands).
121 Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility v. Santos, Federal Court of Australia, NSD858/2021, 25 August 2021 (Australia).
122 Greenpeace France, Amis de la Terre France, Notre Affaire à Tous v. TotalEnergies SE, TotalEnergies Electricité, Gaz France, Court of Paris,
2 March 2022 (France).

Page 60

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 3

VI. Failure to adapt and impacts of adaptation
Although some governments and private parties areundertaking a variety of measures to adapt to theincreasingly severe effects of climate change, others
are aware of those changes and the foreseeable
extreme weather events that climate change willbring but have not taken steps to prepare. Courts
are seeing both cases seeking compensation
for adaptation efforts that have caused harm or
damaged property and seeking injunctive relief for
failing to adapt in the face of known climate risks.
However, despite the importance of adaptation
efforts, there are still a limited number of cases
focused on adaptation. The 2017 and 2020 Litigation
Reports described such cases in Australia, Canada,
India, Japan, South Africa and the United States ofAmerica.
In 2021, a United States of America federal trial
court in Conservation Law Foundation v. ExxonMobil
Corp. (2016) issued an order concerning the next
steps for the Conservation Law Foundation’s lawsuitthat alleged that Exxon failed to prepare its marine
terminal in Everett, Massachusetts for the impacts ofclimate.123 The district court concluded that a 2021
Supreme Court decision did not alter the standard the
district court had used in denying a motion to dismiss
claims for prospective injunctive relief for lack ofstanding. Similar cases have been filed in Rhode
Island (Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Shell Oil
Products US 2022) 124 and Connecticut (Conservation
Law Foundation v. Shell Oil Co. 2022; Conservation
Law Foundation v. Gulf Oil LP 2022).125 These cases
are moving forward to trial.
As highlighted in the 2020 Litigation Report, several
cases deal with government steps to address theheightened risk of coastal flooding through permitting

denials. In 2021, the Supreme Court of Pakistan
upheld a notification barring the construction of
new cement plants or the expansion of existing
cement plants in environmentally fragile zones
called “negative areas”. In that case, a cementcompany owner challenged the notification because
it violated their constitutional right to freedom of
trade, business and profession. The Supreme Court
upheld the notification as a climate-resilient measure
due to the activities’ potential environmental impact,
especially on groundwater. The court emphasized
the need to consider climate change in government
decisions and the impact of climate change on water
resources. The court specifically noted the value
and need of devising and implementing appropriate
adaptation measures to ensure water, food andenergy security for the country (D.G. Khan Cement
Company v. Government of Punjab 2021).126
A few other cases have been brought forward due
to a Government’s lack of consideration of adaptation
measures. In Texans Against High-Speed Rail, Inc. v.
U.S. Department of Transportation (2021), plaintiffs
challenged the Federal Railroad Administration’s
approval of a “Rule of Particular Applicability” fora high-speed rail technology proposed for use in
Texas. The plaintiffs included a claim under the
National Environmental Policy Act, the EIA law in
the United States of America that alleges that thedefendants failed to consider how the potential rail
project’s design would account for increasing rainfall
levels resulting from climate change.127 In Tsama
William and Others v. Uganda’s Attorney General andOthers (2020), the applicants question the Ugandan
government’s lack of adaptation measures against
constant landslides related to climate change.

123 Conservation Law Foundation v. ExxonMobil Corp., District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 1:16-cv-11950, 29 September 2016
(United States of America).
124 Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Shell Oil Products US, District Court for the District of Rhode Island, No. 1:17-cv-00396, 21 July 2022
(United States of America).
125 Conservation Law Foundation v. Shell Oil Co., District Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:21-cv-00933, 16 September 2022
(United States of America).
Conservation Law Foundation v. Gulf Oil LP, District Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:21-cv-00932, 29 September 2022
(United States of America).
126 D.G. Khan Cement Company v. Government of Punjab, Supreme Court of Pakistan, C.P. 1290-L/2019, 16 April 2021 (Pakistan).
127 Texans Against High-Speed Rail, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Transportation, District Court for the Western District of Texas, No. 6:21-cv-00365, 18 August2021 ((United States of America).

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 4© Flickr / United Nations PhotoPart
4:
The stateof climate change litigation –future directions

Page 61

Page 62

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 4

Part 4: The state of climate change

litigation – future directions© Flickr / Thomas Cizauskas

Similar to the 2020 Litigation Report, an analysis of these cases and others,
the accelerating impacts of climate change and the global political context
suggests several areas where one might expect to see increased climatechange litigation in the coming years. As was observed in the same report,
although each new case is unique and the outcome of a given case is difficult
to predict, prior cases in some of these categories offer some evidence of how
future cases may be resolved.

This section first revisits similar trend forecasts,
made in the 2017 and 2020 Litigation Reports, ofcases involving:(i)

Climate migration(ii) Pre- and post-disaster conditions(iii) Implementation of the judicial decisions
themselves1

1

It then suggests additional developments that thenear future may hold:(iv) Transnational responsibility(v) Cases brought by vulnerable groups(vi) “Backlash” cases, which include ISDS,
just transition litigation and cases
brought against climate activists

With the increase in certain types of cases, some of the categories identified as future directions in the 2020 Litigation Report are now in the current
trends. This includes the consumer and investor fraud claims and the increasing use of I nternational adjudicatory bodies.

FPage 63

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 4

Figure 10.
Part 4 content breakdown:
Future (additional developments

Past (trends forecasts being
revisited after 2017/20 reports)

Climatemigration

Pre- and postdisaster conditions

Implementationof judicial
decisions

Climateattributionthat the near future may hold)Transnational
responsibility“Backlash”
cases*

Cases broughtby vulnerable
groups*includes ISDS, just transition litigation and cases brought against climate activists

I. Update on 2020 predictions: climate migration
The 2017 and 2020 Litigation Reports (UNEP 2017;
UNEP 2020) suggested that cases addressing theneeds and status of persons displaced by climatechange impacts would be a growing litigation trend.
Since the 2020 Litigation Report, there has been
one important decision in a climate migration case,in Italy. In 2021, Italy’s Supreme Court of Cassation
ruled in I.L. v. Italian Ministry of the Interior that judges
evaluating requests for humanitarian protection
should consider not only armed conflict but alsosocial, environmental or climate degradation andsituations in which natural resources are subject tounsustainable exploitation. That case was brought
by a Nigerian national living in the Niger Delta,
whose request for humanitarian protection was
initially denied. In its decision, the court cited thehumanitarian values articulated in the Teitiota case2

(United Nations, Human Rights Committee 2020),
namely that “states have the obligation to ensure andguarantee the right to life of people, and that this rightalso extends to reasonably foreseeable threats andpotentially lethal situations”, and concluded that the
Niger Delta’s severe environmental instability, a resultof the indiscriminate exploitation of the area by oil
companies and the ethnic-political conflicts, might
qualify the plaintiff for humanitarian protection.
The court ordered the court of first instance tore-evaluate the application, incorporating into theiranalysis environmental, climate and resource
extraction impacts on an individual’s right to lifeand dignified existence (I.L. v. Italian Ministry of theInterior and Attorney General at the Court of Appealof Ancona 2021).2

I.L. v. Italian Ministry of the Interior and Attorney General at the Court of Appeal of Ancona, Supreme Court of Cassation, N. 5022/2021, 24 February 2021
(Italy).

Page 64

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 4

II. Update on 2020 predictions: pre- and post-disaster cases
Legal actions on the failure to appropriately plan forthe consequences of extreme weather events, which
are also closely related to adaptation, are likely toincrease as the number of such events does.
A few different types of claims have been brought
after the occurrence of a disaster or climate change
impact, seeking a variety of legal remedies. Thiswas previously addressed in the 2020 Litigation
Report where courts were being asked to review adefendant’s action or inaction in the face of known
risk that climate-related extreme events would
result in damage to plaintiffs’ property or loss oflife. As summarized in that report, the scope of
potential liability from cases of this type is broad:any entity that arguably neglected an obligation toplan or prepare for climate-driven damages faces arisk of being sued in the wake of an extreme weather
event or after slow-moving climate impacts injure
potential plaintiffs. In the Ugandan case Tsama
William and Others v. Uganda’s Attorney Generaland Others (2020), applicants have soughtdamages and compensation from the Government
for the loss of life, threats to life, destruction ofproperty and infringement of fundamental humanrights, as well as the costs of resettlement to safer
areas due to occurrence of recurring landslides
in Bududa District. The plaintiffs claim that theGovernment has failed to prevent and properly
adapt to climate-driven damages, therefore affecting
their human rights. Landslides have been made more
frequent and intense as a result of climate-related
extreme weather events.
In Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action Incorporated
v. Environmental Protection Authority (2021), theplaintiffs alleged that they had been harmed bybushfires made likely or more intense by climatechange and claimed that the New South Wales
Environmental Protection Authority of Australia
failed to develop guidelines or a policy to regulate
GHGs consistent with limiting global temperaturerise to 1.5°C.3 In 2021, the Land and Environment
Court ordered the New South Wales Environmental
Protection Authority to develop environmental
quality objectives, guidelines and policies to ensure
protection from climate change impacts. The
court found that the duty to develop environmental
protection instruments included specific climatechange measures.
In a financial case from 2021, a company
constructing a large run-of-river hydroelectric projectin the Andes Mountains in Chile filed for bankruptcy
in Delaware, United States of America. The company
cited significant impacts of climate change, whichhave impacted the hydrology of the Maipo Valley,
where the project is being constructed (In re Alto
Maipo Delaware LLC 2021).4 It noted that the rivers
that would power the project have seen a substantial
drop in water flow, altering the amount of power thatcan be produced and therefore the financial viabilityof the project.
Cases addressing extreme weather events arealso being filed before those events occur. The
Conservation Law Foundation v. ExxonMobil Corp.
(2016) case discussed earlier, and also highlighted in
the 2020 Litigation Report, exemplifies how groups
might use existing statutes to seek protection
against environmental and public health disasters
from climate-related extreme events.5 In 2021, theConservation Law Foundation filed two similar
citizen suits, Conservation Law Foundation v. Shell
Oil Co. (2022) and Conservation Law Foundation v.
Gulf Oil LP (2022). These cases asserted that thedefendants’ bulk storage and fuel terminals in New
Haven, Connecticut violated the Clean Water Act andResource Conservation and Recovery Act because
defendants have not designed, maintained, modified
or operated their terminals to account for thenumerous effects of climate change, including sea
level rise and more frequent and more severe storms.

3

Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action Incorporated v. Environmental Protection Authority, Land and Environment Court of Australia, NSWLEC 92 and
NSWLEC 152, 5 March 2021 (Australia).

4

In re Alto Maipo Delaware LLC, Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, No. 21-11507, 17 November 2021 (United States of America).

5

See the 2020 Litigation Report, page 23.

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 4

III.

Page 65

Update on 2020 predictions: implementation challenges

As the number and variety of climate changecases increase, plaintiffs are likely to continue
seeking a broad range of remedies. However,
the implementation of those remedies remainsa challenge across all types of cases. The 2020
Litigation Report pointed out a trend suggesting
the increased number of climate change cases
would result in judicial orders requiring defendants
to take broad action to reduce economy-wide,
sectoral or individual source emissions; halt or slow
deforestation and land-use change; prevent fossil
fuel extraction and protect peatlands; and increase
the resilience of communities. It is possible that theimplementation or non-execution of such orders will
form the basis of legal suits moving forward. For

instance, as was also noted in the 2020 Litigation
Report (Part 2.III.D), implementation of the court’s
decision in the Colombian Future Generations casecontinues to raise challenges (Dejusticia 2019).
After the decision in Milieudefensie, Shell decided
to move its headquarters to the United Kingdom,
potentially making implementation of the decision
more challenging (Hurst 2021). Several countries in
Europe, in efforts to reduce dependence on Russianenergy, have also recently decided to revert to coal
due to the aggression by the Russian Federation
against Ukraine (Betz 2022). This policy change canhave significant consequences in the implementationof systemic mitigation decisions such as Urgenda v.
the Netherlands and Neubauer.

IV. Update on 2020 predictions: increased attention to climate attribution
and fair share assessments of mitigation
The 2020 Litigation Report predicted that rightsbased claims on potential governmental or corporate
climate mitigation obligations, as well as cases on
climate change liability for private actors, would
proceed to their evidentiary phases. It remains that,to prove the existence of an obligation or a breach ofduty, plaintiffs or petitioners in some cases will likely
have to demonstrate both that their injuries werecaused by climate change and that the defendant
substantially contributed to climate change. Since
2020, few courts have yet to reach the merits ofthese types of claims, despite the growing body of© Flickr / Cibola National Forest and Grasslands

science illustrating the connections (Burger, Wentz
and Horton 2020). The science of climate attribution
continues to be central to climate litigation, and as
more cases are filed and reach the merits of theplaintiffs’ claims, as was anticipated in the 2020
Litigation Report, there will be increased judicial
attention on the matter.
Lliuya v. RWE AG (2022) and Milieudefensie directly
make use of attribution studies. Lliuya specificallyassesses the corporate responsibility of private
GHG emitters (in this case, based in Germany) forPage 66

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 4

the impacts of climate change in a different country(in this case, Peru) (Stuart-Smith et al. 2021). In
addition, several standing decisions address this forthe purposes of injury. In Juliana (2020), the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district
court that the plaintiffs met the injury and causation
requirements for standing because at least someplaintiffs had alleged concrete and particularized
injuries caused by fossil fuel carbon emissions thatwere increased by federal subsidies and leases.
In Natural Resources Defense Council v. Wheeler(2020), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals foundas a threshold matter that the Natural Resources
Defense Council and one of the state petitioners(New York) each had standing based on potential

injuries from climate change, which were caused inpart by hydrofluorocarbon emissions and would be
redressed by restrictions on such emissions.6
As plaintiffs rely on the notion of fair share of global
emissions under the Paris Agreement to precisely
determine a country’s obligations to mitigate climatechange, it is likely that specific studies will also be
relied on in climate litigation cases. For example, in
A Sud et al. v. Italy (2021), Climate Action Tracker
specifically presented a report assessing Italy’s
fair share in climate mitigation to substantiate theclaim to reduce emissions by 92 per cent by 2030
compared with 1990 levels.

V. Transnational responsibility (extraterritorial responsibility)
Increasing discussion on extraterritorial jurisdiction
will likely become a central aspect of cases in the
future. The previously noted advisory opinion by the
IACtHR delineated for the first time the parameters
for establishing jurisdiction in cases seeking redress
for transboundary environmental harms (IACtHR

2017; Tigre and Urzola 2021). The court reasoned
that extraterritorial jurisdiction can be establishedwhen (i) there is a factual nexus between conduct
within a State’s territory and an extraterritorialhuman rights violation, and (ii) a State exercises
effective control over the activities carried out in© Flickr / TICAD7 Photographs

6

Natural Resources Defense v. Wheeler, Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 446 U.S. App. D.C. 93, 955 F.3d 68, 7 April 2020 (United States of America).

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 4

Page 67

another State that caused the harm and consequentviolation of human rights in the other State. The
recognized nexus broadens a State’s responsibility forenvironmental harms, including climate change, andreflects its obligation to exercise due diligence within
its territory when human rights elsewhere are at stake(Murcott, Tigre and Zimmermann 2022).

accumulate in the atmosphere and lead to harm in
Norway as well (Gociu and Roy 2021; Voigt 2021). A
similar claim can be seen in the case of Greenpeace
Argentina et al., v. Argentina et al. (2022), in whichplaintiffs have argued that the State is responsible forthe emissions that arise from fossil fuel exports, inaddition to emissions within its own territory.7

Using the IACtHR’s legal reasoning, the United
Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child foundin Sacchi et al. v. Argentina, et al. (2021) that countries
have extraterritorial responsibilities related to climatechange. Specifically, when transboundary harm
occurs, children are under the jurisdiction of the Stateon whose territory the emissions originated if (i) there
is a causal link between the acts or omissions of
the State in question and the negative impact on therights of children located outside its territory, and (ii)the State of origin exercises effective control over thesources of the emissions in question. The findings
provide a significant pathway for future climate
litigation beyond the Convention on the Rights of
the Child, and its reliance on the interpretation of
extraterritorial responsibility by the IACtHR shows a
growing cross-fertilization between courts.

In Amis de la Terre and Sherpa v. Perenco (2022),
the Court of Cassation in Paris provided an avenue
for establishing extraterritorial responsibility for a
French company’s actions in the Democratic Republicof the Congo under the Duty of Vigilance statute.
The court found that one seeking compensationfor environmental damage or subsequent damage
may choose to invoke either the law of the country
in which the damage occurred or the law of thecountry in which the event giving rise to the damage
occurred. In this case, the event giving rise to thedamage originated in France: the environmental
damage suffered in the Democratic Republic of theCongo is due to the de facto control and dominant
influence of the company (whose head office is in
France) over the companies of the group operatingin the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Therefore,
the right to request measures to preserve or
establish evidence relevant for a case questioning
environmental liability abroad is defined in the lawof the jurisdiction or venue in which legal action isbrought (in this case, in France).

One of the key legal questions in Greenpeace Nordic
Ass’n v. Ministry of Petroleum and Energy (People
v. Arctic Oil) (2020) was whether extraterritorial
emissions from the combustion or other use of oil
exported from Norway were relevant in applying
the constitutional right to a healthy environment.
The Supreme Court found that emissions are theresponsibility of each State within their jurisdictional
scope and that the right does not provide protection
outside of Norwegian territory (Voigt 2021). However,the court left open the possibility of holding the State
responsible for violating its duty to provide a clean
and healthy environment for the combustion of its
oil exports when (i) the case involves governmental
activities or activities performed under the controlof the Government of Norway, including when the
Government fails to implement measures against
polluting activities, and (ii) when direct environmental
damage occurs in Norway as a consequence of theactivities for which the Government is directly or evenindirectly responsible (Gociu and Roy 2021). This
interpretation may open the door to responsibility
for extraterritorial emissions when GHGs emitted
elsewhere from oil and gas exploited in Norway
but combusted by companies in another country
7

Another way to indirectly establish a country’s
extraterritorial jurisdiction is by including plaintiffs
from beyond the particular jurisdiction where thecase is filed. These often include plaintiffs from
Global South jurisdictions, which are often mostvulnerable to climate impacts. Some of the plaintiffs
in the German case Neubauer were from Bangladesh
and Nepal. The court agreed that it was conceivablethat fundamental constitutional rights obliged
Germany to protect people in other countries (Peeland Markey-Towler 2022). However, it did not answer
the question of whether the rights of the foreign
plaintiffs were violated. The court noted that the
duty to protect plaintiffs from Nepal and Bangladesh
would not necessarily have the same content
compared with people living in Germany.
Other pending cases may ultimately expand on theinterpretation of extraterritorial responsibility forclimate harm, including the French case Envol Vert etGreenpeace Argentina et al., v. Argentina et al., Federal Court of Mar del Plata No. 2, FMP 105/202, 5 December 2022 (Argentina).

Page 68

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 4al., v. Casino (2021), and Lliuya v. RWE AG in Germany.
These cases are interesting because they relate to
the potential damage of companies headquarteredand operating in a Global North jurisdiction injurisdictions in the Global South. Similarly, a recent
claim was brought by Indonesian citizens in FourIslanders of Pari v. Holcim (2023) in a Swiss court,with a request for the Swiss cement company to(i) provide proportional compensation for climatechange-related damages on the Indonesian islandof Pari, (ii) reduce CO2 emissions by 43 per cent by
2030, compared with 2019 levels (or according tofindings of climate science in order to limit global
warming to 1.5°C), (iii) financially contribute toadaptation measures on Pari.8 The claim can beseen as novel and unprecedented as it combines two
approaches at a transnational level: the reduction of
GHGs and compensation for climate damages.

VI. Cases brought by vulnerable groups
While climate change affects people worldwide,
it affects them unequally. This has slowly begun
to be represented in climate litigation, as plaintiffs
from at-risk communities bring cases on behalf ofthemselves or by representing their communities.
This has been more prominent with cases filed onbehalf of children, as noted earlier. Indigenous groups
and women are also increasingly becoming more
active in litigation. As these cases are decided, it ispossible that more plaintiffs from vulnerable groups
will push for increased government action addressedat their vulnerabilities.
Indigenous Peoples’ territories contain nearly 80
per cent of the world’s biodiversity (Etchart 2017).
While different areas are experiencing different
effects of climate change, Indigenous groups are
disproportionately affected due to their connection
to the land and their specific vulnerability tomarginalization on other frontiers, such as economic
well-being, food security and other available rights
and capabilities. According to the Report of theSpecial Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples, Indigenous Peoples are among those whohave least contributed to the problem of climatechange, yet they are the ones who suffer the mostfrom its effects (HRC 2017). Many Indigenous
Peoples live in areas at greater risk of becoming
uninhabitable, such as islands and coastal areas,
as well as fragile polar and forest ecosystems. Thisvulnerability is slowly finding representation in asmall but growing number of climate litigation claims(Tigre 2022c). Examples can be found in Argentina,
Australia, Canada, Ecuador, France, New Zealandand the United States of America. These pendingcases provide insight into how Indigenous-specificdomestic legal approaches may shape climaterelated adjudication going forward (Marcum 2022).
Overall, the climate litigation cases brought by
Indigenous groups have had limited success. In oneof the few successful cases so far, a Colombian court
recognized the impact of climate change on natural
water supply due to mining activities as well as the
specific violation of fundamental rights of Indigenous
groups due to their relationship with water bodies
in accordance with their worldviews (Constitutional
Court of Colombia 2017). In Lho’imggin et al. v. Her
Majesty the Queen (2021), the Canadian Federal
Court dismissed a claim brought by Indigenous
groups that challenged the government’s overall
approach to climate change on separation of powers
grounds. The court found that climate change is an
inherently political issue left to the executive andlegislative branches of government. With regard to
remedies, the court found that it could not take ona supervisory role to ensure adequate climate laws
were passed due to the multifaceted problem ofclimate change. The court never reached the merits
to assess whether inadequate responses to climatechange by the Canadian Government breachedIndigenous human rights.9 The decision is currently
under appeal. In Baihua Caiga et al., v. PetroOriental
S.A. (2021), Indigenous groups sued oil company
PetroOriental for the climate impacts of gas flaring in
Ecuador.10 Applicants argued that the company has
violated several human rights due to the impacts ofclimate change, including the rights of nature as GHG
emissions altered the carbon cycle, and the right toland and territory because their ability to enjoy natural

8

Four Islanders of Pari v. Holcim, Office of the Justice of the Peace of the Canton of Zug, 1 February 2023 (Switzerland).

9

Lho’imggin et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen, Federal Court of Appeal of Canada, T-211-20, 28 June 2021 (Canada).

10

Baihua Caiga et al., v. PetroOriental S.A., Family, Women, and Children Judicial Unit from Francisco de Orellana Canton, No. 22201202000469,
15 July 2021 (Ecuador).

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 4

Page 69© Unsplash / Mika Baumeister

resources through ancestral practices has been
limited, among others. The court of first instance
did not admit the claim as the plaintiffs had not
sufficiently demonstrated the violation of rights.
In Dennis Murphy Tipakalippa v. National Offshore
Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management
Authority & Anor (2022), the Federal Court of Australia
decided to halt a project for offshore oil drilling near
the Tiwi Islands, a biodiversity hotspot, because
Indigenous groups had not been properly consulted.11
Several claims are still pending as at 31 December
2022. In Pabai Pabai and Guy Paul Kabai v.
Commonwealth of Australia (2022), First Nation
leaders from the Gudamalulgal nation of the Torres
Strait Islands have challenged Australia’s failure to
cut GHG emissions, asserting that the Government’s
inaction will force their communities into climate
migration. The plaintiffs detailed the climate
vulnerability of Torres Strait Islander communities,
including loss of fisheries, damages due to sea level
rises, including to sacred sites and cemeteries, andthe impairment of observance of traditional practices
and ceremonies. The applicants alleged that theAustralian Commonwealth owes a duty of care to
Torres Strait Islanders to take reasonable steps toprotect them, their culture, traditional way of life
and the environment from harms caused by climatechange, and that the Government has breached thisduty as the targets are inconsistent with the best
available science.12 In Youth Verdict v. Waratah Coal
(2020), Indigenous youth plaintiffs who were part of
the Youth Verdict environment group challenged acoal mining project that would significantly contributeto climate change and limit the cultural rights of First
Nations Queenslanders to maintain their distinctive
relationship with the land. The case represents
the first time that the 2019 Queensland Human
Rights Act has been considered in relation to theenvironmental impacts of a resource project.13
In Mataatua District Māori Council v. New Zealand(2020), claimants have alleged that New Zealand has
breached its obligations to Māori under the Treaty of
Waitangi by failing to take adequate steps to reduce
its fair share of GHG emissions. The claim relies on
the importance of the natural ecosystem to the Māori
culture. The claim is pending at the Waitangi Tribunal,
the forum where disputes over the11

Santos NA Barossa Pty Ltd v. Tipakalippa, Federal Court of Australia, FCAFC 193, 2 December 2022 (Australia).

12

Pabai Pabai and Guy Paul Kabai v. Commonwealth of Australia, Federal Court of Australia, VID622/2021, 31 March 2022 (Australia).

13

Youth Verdict v. Waratah Coal, Queensland Land Court, QLC 33, 2020 (Australia).

Page 70

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 4© Unsplash / Matt C

performance of the Treaty of Waitangi between
Māori and the Government of New Zealand areheard and resolved.14
The two petitions currently pending before the United
Nations special procedures, previously mentioned
in Part 3.I, also include Indigenous petitioners andrely on the rights of Indigenous groups to a claim
for increased climate action by the Governments of
the Australia and the United States of America. In
Envol Vert et al., v. Casino (2021), the plaintiffs haverequested compensation to Brazilian Indigenous

groups for the loss of opportunity and moral damage
stemming from Casino Group’s failure to adhere to its
duty of vigilance in avoiding deforestation and being
supplied cattle from deforested areas and farms
established on Indigenous territories. In a Brazilian
case seeking enforcement of command-and-control
measures to curb deforestation in the Amazon
rainforest, the petitioner, the public prosecutor’s office(Ministério Público Federal) calls for the expulsion ofland grabbers in Indigenous lands situated in criticalareas of deforestation, known as hotspots (Ministério
Público Federal v. IBAMA 2020).

VII. Backlash cases
Recent years have witnessed the initiation of several“anti-climate” cases – or backlash cases – which
aim to delay or dismantle existing or emerging
regulations that promote climate action (Markell and
Ruhl 2012; Peel and Osofsky 2020). These include(i) ISDS claims, (ii) just transition litigation and (iii)criminal cases brought against climate activists.
Backlash cases will likely continue to be brought tocurb advancements in climate change mitigation andadaptation actions.

14

A. Investor-State dispute settlements
International investment law is gaining increasing
attention as a forum for climate change litigation.
Arbitration and mediation are becoming importantmeans of resolving climate-related disputes.
However, the confidential nature of such processes
makes them difficult to examine and quantify. At least
14 climate-related ISDS cases filed between 2010
and 2022 were identified. While these cases do notalways contain explicit references to climate change,

Mataatua District Maori Council v. New Zealand, Waitangi Tribunal, WAI 2607, 16 January 2020 (New Zealand).

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 4

they all relate directly to the introduction, withdrawal
or amendment of a policy measure explicitly
developed to meet a country’s climate goals.
The need to curb GHG emissions will lead to further
asset stranding in developed and developing
countries. Aligning national policies with climate
needs will inevitably affect investments in the fieldof fossil fuel infrastructure across the supply chain.
Therefore, the more compelling the need to adopt
ambitious and abrupt measures to pursue climate
objectives, the higher the risk of ISDS cases beingbrought against host States. ISDS claims do not –at least not directly – aim to suspend or overturndomestic regulation. Rather, the claims seek
compensation for the detriment caused by suchmeasures to foreign investors on a case-by-casebasis. Moreover, they strictly relate to the violation ofstandards of protection under investment treaties forthe purposes of obtaining monetary compensation.
IPCC noted that these cases may be hindering
national mitigation efforts (IPCC 2022). For example,
in Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v. Republic of Colombia(2021), an arbitration panel at ICSID found Colombia
to be in breach of the Free Trade Agreement related
to minimum standard treatment due to the actionsof the Colombian Government, which continued
to encourage Eco Oro with respect to the mining
concession despite a potential overlap of the areawith the páramo ecosystem, an important carbon
sink. The majority considered the Government’s
delay in delimiting the páramos and its failure tocomply with constitutional obligations to protect
the ecosystem at the time of the company’s
investment. The tribunal found that the company
had legitimate expectations to undertake the mining
exploitation activities in its concession, and that
Colombia’s delay in regulating the páramos anddelimiting its geographical scope was arbitrary anddisproportionate, damaging Eco Oro without serving
any apparent purpose. The tribunal concluded that

Page 71

Eco Oro was entitled to damages, to be decided
at a later date.15
On the other hand, two domestic courts in Germany
and the Netherlands have significantly limited theability of corporations to seek compensation for theeffects of climate policies on their assets, directly
affecting two pending ISDS cases, RWE v. theKingdom of the Netherlands (2021)16 and Uniper v.
the Kingdom of the Netherlands (2022).17 The two
arbitration claims against the Netherlands relate to
the Government’s phase-out of coal by 2030, which
the energy companies argue violates the Energy
Charter Treaty. In an anti-arbitration injunction
brought by the Dutch Government in Germany in The
Netherlands v. RWE and Uniper, the Higher Regional
Court of Cologne declared in September 2022 thatboth ICSID arbitral claims were inadmissible. The
court found the arbitral clause of the Energy Charter
Treaty incompatible with the law of the European
Union and thus invalid in intra-European Union
arbitrations. The court’s decision can be appealed.
However, after the decision was handed down, theGerman Government announced that it would takeover 99 per cent of Uniper in exchange for which thecompany agreed to withdraw its ICSID claim against
the Netherlands (The Netherlands v. RWE and Uniper[Anti-arbitration Injunctions] 2023).18
In RWE and Uniper v. the Netherlands (Ministry of
Climate and Energy) (2022), The Hague District Court
held that companies RWE and Uniper could not
claim financial compensation from the Government
for the mandatory phase-out of coal-fired electricity
production. The court ruled that there was no“unlawful interference” with property rights based on
the case law of the European Union, and decided thatthe measures taken by the Dutch State to reduce CO2
emissions were proportional and that the interests ofthe companies had been sufficiently considered when
adopting the law.19

15

Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID, No. ARB/16/41, 9 September 2021 (ICSID).

16

RWE v. the Kingdom of the Netherlands, ICSID, Case No. ARB/21/4, 2 February 2021 (ICSID).

17

Uniper v. the Kingdom of the Netherlands, ICSID, Case No. ARB/21/22, Withdrawn, 2022 (ICSID).

18

The Netherlands v. RWE and Uniper (Anti-arbitration Injunctions), Higher Regional Court of Cologne, January 2023 (Netherlands).

19

RWE and Uniper v. the Netherlands (Ministry of Climate and Energy), District Court of North Holland, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:12628;
ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:12635; ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:12653, 30 November 2022 (Netherlands).

Page 72

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Part 4

B. Just transition cases
Decarbonization strategies to phase out fossil
fuels are developed in a context of socioeconomic
problems, including inequality and racial injustice.
A just transition, perceived from an environmental
and labour-driven perspective, is vital to ensure that
decarbonization is both successful and fair. It isdefined as the shift towards a low-carbon societythat ensures the protection of minorities and carbondependent communities from undue burdens of
the decarbonization costs. This scenario is evenmore significant in the Global South. The equity
piece of global decarbonization policies gives rise
to “anti-regulatory” or “defensive” climate litigation(Savaresi and Setzer 2022). Similar to backlashcases, these lawsuits aim to delay or dismantle
existing or emerging regulatory measures that
promote climate action (Markell and Ruhl 2012; Peeland Osofsky 2020). Just transition cases question
the way in which climate policies are developedand implemented or impact the enjoyment of
human rights (Tigre et al. 2023). With governments
adopting decarbonization strategies, it is likelythat just transition cases brought by workers andcommunities in vulnerable situations impacted
by these policies will lead to lawsuits questioning
potential breaches of their human rights. These cases
often centre around the participation of impacted
communities in government decisions.
In 2021, the Supreme Court of Chile ruled inCompany Workers Union of Maritima & Commercial
Somarco Limited and Others v. Ministry of Energy(2021) that a just transition strategy was essential
for the workers harmed by the loss of their direct
and indirect source of employment resulting from
Chile’s Energy Sector Decarbonization Plan to achievecarbon neutrality by 2050. The court also ruled it
was essential for the communities affected by theloss of services linked to the development of thedeclining thermoelectric activity. The ruling ordered
the government authorities to implement a plan for
the reinsertion into the labour market of workers
affected by the decarbonization process, consulting
them in that process and adopting control measures
to ensure compliance.20

The increasing need for the necessary minerals todevelop batteries in renewable energy projects for
decarbonization strategies suggests an increase in
the cases that question the environmental impactsof mining. This subset of just transition cases is likely
to grow in the near future, especially in the Global
South, where most transition minerals are located.
Claims have recently been brought in Chile (Regional
Government of Atacama v. Ministry of Mining andOther 2022) questioning the public participation ofaffected communities in the authorization of themining project and environmental impacts oflithium mining pushed forward as part of theenergy transition.21
C. Claims against climate activists
With the backdrop of a growing social movement
raising awareness about the impacts of climatechange and protesting the lack of government
action, the Sabin Center has also started to add
to its database cases bringing criminal charges
against climate activists. Such cases have so far
been observed in Australia, Canada, France, New
Zealand, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. In thecases that have already been decided, judges havegenerally taken the climate crisis into considerationin sentencing. In recent cases, protesters haveargued for a reduced sentence or have attempted
to avoid criminal or civil sanctions, arguing thatcivil disobedience is necessary given the state of
the climate crisis. For example, in Police v. Hanafin(2020), the New Zealand District Court acceptedthat anthropogenic climate change and its effects
are undeniable and that there is a right to freedomof expression, further noting that without activism,
change may be too late. However, the judge heldthat activism does not necessarily mean civil
disobedience, and peaceful civil disobedience cannot
be condoned where it infringes the genuine existingrights of another. The activists were convicted but
discharged without penalty. In Climate Activists v.
Paris Airports (2021), activists who illegally entered
the tarmac at Charles De Gaulle airport and halted
airport operations were acquitted because theiractions were taken in a “state of necessity” to warnof future danger, namely climate change. As civil
disobedience related to climate change continues, it
is likely that more similar cases will be brought.

20

Company Workers Union of Maritima & Commercial Somarco Limited and Others v. Ministry of Energy, Supreme Court of Chile, 25.530-2021, 9 August2021 (Chile).

21

Regional Government of Atacama v. Ministry of Mining and Other, Court of Appeal of Copiapo, 9-2022, 30 January 2022 (Chile).

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Conclusion

Conclusion© Unsplash / Markus Spiske

Page 73

Page 74

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | Conclusion

Conclusion
This report has provided a broad overview of current trends in climate litigation,
showing how litigation has become a key driver of climate change mitigation
and adaptation. The number and variety of climate change cases continues
to increase, as does the geographical range in which climate litigation takes
place. Key trends identified in the report include:(i)

Ongoing and increasing numbers ofcases relying on human rights enshrined
in international law and national
constitutions to compel climate action(ii) Challenging the domestic enforcement(and non-enforcement) of climaterelated laws and policies(iii) Seeking to keep fossil fuels and carbon
sinks in the ground(iv) Claiming corporate liability andresponsibility for climate harms(v) Advocating for greater climate

disclosures and an end to greenwashing(de Freitas Netto et al. 2020) on thesubject of climate change and energy
transition(vi) Addressing failures to adapt and theimpacts of adaptation

Several cases identified in the previous reports are still pending, suggestingthat litigants, courts and international tribunals will be presented with many
more opportunities to resolve the pressing dangers created by climate change
in the coming years.

This report further identified a series of future trends
in global climate litigation, indicating the directionin which it may head in the coming years. First, itis predicted that the number of cases dealing with
migrants, internally displaced people and asylum
seekers seeking temporary or permanent relocationfrom their home countries or regions, owing at leastin part to climate change, will continue to grow
(United Nations, Human Rights Committee 2020).
Second, research continues to suggest a growing
number of pre- and post-disaster cases premised ona defendant’s failure to properly plan for or manage
the consequences of extreme weather events.
Third, as more cases are filed and some reach aconclusion, implementing courts’ orders will continue
to raise new challenges. Fourth, courts and litigants
will increasingly be called on to address the law
and science of climate attribution as both casesthat seek to assign responsibility for private actors’
contributions to climate change and cases that argue

for greater government action to mitigate advanceand proliferate. Fifth, courts will continue to be
asked to determine whether States can be held
responsible for the extraterritorial dimensions ofclimate change. Sixth, as the impacts of climatechange continue to affect Indigenous communities
disproportionately, they will likely bring more cases
seeking to bring about a change in climate policies
or redress for climate harm. Additionally, several
backlash cases will continue to be brought tocurb advancements in climate change mitigation
and adaptation actions, including ISDS claims,
just transition litigation and cases against climate
activists. Future research will integrate a genderanalysis to better determine the involvement of
women and girls who are often viewed as victims to
the impacts of climate change as opposed to agentsof change who, given the necessary resources andopportunities, are strong leaders that fight for climate
justice for the benefit of all.

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | References

Page 75

References
Case law (referenced in Report)
1 BvR 1565/21, 1 BvR 1566/21, 1 BvR 1669/21, 1 BvR
1936/21, 1 BvR 2574/21, 1 BvR 2575/21, 1 BvR 2054/21,
1 BvR 2055/21, 1 BvR 2056/21, 1 BvR 2057/21, 1
BvR 2058/21 (2022). Federal Constitutional Court ofGermany, 18 January (Germany). http://climatecasechart.
com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/non-us-casedocuments/2022/20220118_16013_order.pdf.
A Request for an Advisory Opinion from the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights Concerning the Interpretation of
Article 1(1), 4(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention on
Human Rights (2017). Inter-American Court of Human
Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-23/17, 15 November (InterAmerican Court of Human Rights). http://climatecasechart.
com/non-us-case/request-advisory-opinion-inter-americancourt-human-rights-concerning-interpretation-article-11-4151-american-convention-human-rights/. Accessed 13 June
2023.
A Sud et al. v. Italy (2021). Civil Court of Rome, 5 June
(Italy). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/a-sud-etal-v-italy/. Accessed 13 June 2023.
Abrahams v. Commonwealth Bank of Australia (2021).
Federal Court of Australia, NSD864/2021, 26 August(Australia). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/abrahams-v-commonwealth-bank-of-australia-2021/.
Accessed 20 June 2023.
ADP Group (Paris Airports) v. Climate Activists (2021).
Court of First Instance of Bobigny, Tribunal Correctional, 12November (France). http://climatecasechart.com/non-uscase/climate-activists-v-paris-airports/. Accessed 12 June
2023.

Amis de la Terre and Sherpa v. Perenco (2022). Courtof Paris, No. 20-22.444, 9 March (France). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/amis-de-la-terre-andsherpa-v-perenco/. Accessed 15 June 2023.
Armando Ferrão Carvalho and Others v. the European
Parliament and the Council (2021). Court of Justice of theEuropean Union, Case No. T-330/18, 25 March (European
Union). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/armando-ferrao-carvalho-and-others-v-the-europeanparliament-and-the-council/. Accessed 13 June 2023.
ASA Ruling on Ryanair Ltd t/a Ryanair Ltd (2020).
Advertising Standards Authority, Complaint No. G191035778, 5 February (United Kingdom of Great Britain andNorthern Ireland). http://climatecasechart.com/non-uscase/asa-ruling-on-ryanair-ltd-t-a-ryanair-ltd/. Accessed 15
June 2023.
ASA Ruling on Shell UK Ltd.’s Shell Go+ Campaign (2020).
Advertising Standards Authority, 8 July (United Kingdom ofGreat Britain and Northern Ireland). http://climatecasechart.
com/non-us-case/advertising-standards-authoritys-rulingon-shell-uk-ltds-shell-go-campaign/. Accessed 15 June
2023.
Asociación Civil por la Justicia Ambiental v. Province of Entre
Ríos, et al. (Delta del Paraná case) (2021). Supreme Court ofArgentina, CSJ 542/2020, 28 December (Argentina). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/asociacion-civil-por-lajusticia-ambiental-v-province-of-entre-rios-et-al/. Accessed
14 June 2023.

Africa Climate Alliance et al., v. Minister of Mineral
Resources & Energy et al. (#CancelCoal case) (2022). High
Court of South Africa, Case No. 56907/21, 20 January(South Africa). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/africa-climate-alliance-et-al-v-minister-of-mineral-resourcesenergy-et-al-cancelcoal-case/. Accessed 14 June 2023.

Association of Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection
v. Federal Department of the Environment Transport, Energy
and Communications (DETEC) and Others (2020). Federal
Supreme Court of Switzerland, Case No. A-2992/2017, 26
November (Switzerland). http://climatecasechart.com/
non-us-case/union-of-swiss-senior-women-for-climateprotection-v-swiss-federal-parliament/. Accessed 13 June
2023.

All Aboard Aotearoa v. Waka Kotahi (2021). High
Court of New Zealand, 4 June (New Zealand). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/all-aboard-aotearoa-vwaka-kotahi/. Accessed 14 June 2023.

Atrato River Decision T-622/16 (2016). Constitutional
Court of Colombia, 10 November (Colombia). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/atrato-river-decision-t622-16-of-november-10-2016/. Accessed 12 June 2023.

Álvarez et al. v. Peru (2019). Superior Court of Lima, 16
December (Sweden). http://climatecasechart.com/non-uscase/alvarez-et-al-v-peru/. Accessed 15 June 2023.

Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility v. Santos(2021). Federal Court of Australia, NSD858/2021, 25 August(Australia). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/australasian-centre-for-corporate-responsibility-v-santos/.
Accessed 15 June 2023.

Page 76

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | References

Baihua Caiga et al., v. PetroOriental S.A. (2021). Family,
Women, and Children Judicial Unit from Francisco deOrellana Canton, No. 22201202000469, 15 July (Ecuador).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/baihua-caiga-etal-v-petrooriental-sa/. Accessed 15 June 2023.

Citizens’ Committee on the Kobe Coal-Fired Power Plant v.
Japan (2023). Supreme Court of Japan, 9 March (Japan).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/citizenscommittee-on-the-kobe-coal-fired-power-plant-v-japan/.
Accessed 13 June 2023.

Barbara Metz et al., v. Wintershall Dea AG (2021).
Regional Court of Kassel, 4 October (Germany). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/barbara-metz-et-al-vwintershall-dea-ag/. Accessed 14 June 2023.

Citizens’ Committee on the Kobe Coal-Fired Power Plant
v. Kobe Steel Ltd., et al. (2023). Kobe District Court, 20
March (Japan). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/citizens-committee-on-the-kobe-coal-fired-power-plant-vkobe-steel-ltd-et-al/. Accessed 13 June 2023.

Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County v.
Suncor Energy (U.S.A.), Inc. (2023). Supreme Court of theUnited States, No. 2018CV030349, 5 April (United Statesof America). http://climatecasechart.com/case/board-ofcounty-commissioners-of-boulder-county-v-suncor-energyusa-inc/. Accessed 14 June 2023.
Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action Incorporated v.
Environmental Protection Authority (2021). Land andEnvironment Court of Australia, NSWLEC 92, NSWLEC 152,
5 March (Australia). http://climatecasechart.com/non-uscase/bushfire-survivors-for-climate-action-incorporated-venvironment-protection-authority/. Accessed 15 June 2023.
Carême v. France (2022). European Court of Human Rights,
Application No. 7189/21, 7 June (European Court of Human
Rights). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/caremev-france/. Accessed 13 June 2023.
Center for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt (2020). Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, 982 F.3d 723, 7 December (UnitedStates of America). http://climatecasechart.com/case/center-for-biological-diversity-v-zinke-3/. Accessed 14 June
2023.
Center for Food and Adequate Living Rights et al. v.
Tanzania and Uganda (2020). East African Court ofJustice, 6 November (East African Court of Justice). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/center-for-foodand-adequate-living-rights-et-al-v-tanzania-and-uganda/.
Accessed 13 June 2023.
Challenge to the Constitutionality of Amendments to theRules Governing Clean Energy Certificates (2022). Supreme
Court of Mexico, Acción de Inconstitucionalidad 64/2021, 7
April. http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/challengeto-the-constitutionality-of-amendments-to-the-rulesgoverning-clean-energy-certificates/. Accessed 13 June
2023.

City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP (2023). Supreme
Court of the United States, No. 1CCV-20-0000380,
22 February (United States of America). http://
climatecasechart.com/case/city-county-of-honolulu-vsunoco-lp/. Accessed 14 June 2023.
City of Charleston v. Brabham Oil Co. (2023). District Court
for the District of South Carolina (Charleston Division), No.
2020CP1003975, 20 January (United States of America).
http://climatecasechart.com/case/city-of-charleston-vbrabham-oil-co/. Accessed 14 June 2023.
City of Hoboken v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2022). Court ofAppeals for the Third Circuit, HUD-L-003179-20, 12 October(United States of America). http://climatecasechart.com/
case/city-of-hoboken-v-exxon-mobil-corp/. Accessed 14
June 2023.
City of New York v. BP p.l.c. (2021). Court of Appeals for theSecond Circuit, No. 1:18-cv-00182, 24 April (United Statesof America). http://climatecasechart.com/case/city-newyork-v-bp-plc/. Accessed 14 June 2023.
City of New York v. Chevron Corp (2019). Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, 993 F.3d 81, 1 April (United States ofAmerica).
City of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2021). District
Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:21-cv04807, 12 November (United States of America). http://
climatecasechart.com/case/city-of-new-york-v-exxonmobil-corp/. Accessed 14 June 2023.
City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c. (2022). District Court
for the Northern District of California, No. CGC-17561370, 24 October (United States of America). http://
climatecasechart.com/case/people-state-california-v-bpplc-oakland/. Accessed 14 June 2023.

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | References

Clara Leonel Ramos and Bruno de Almeida de Lima
vs. State of São Paulo (Families for the Climate andIncentivAuto Program) (2021). Court of Justice of São
Paolo, No. 1047315-47.2020.8.26.0053, 10 June (Brazil).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/clara-leonelramos-and-bruno-de-almeida-de-lima-vs-state-of-saopaulo-families-for-the-climate-and-incentivauto-program/.
Accessed 15 June 2023.
ClientEarth v. Belgian National Bank (2022). Court of First
Instance of Brussels, 21/38/C, Withdrawn (Belgium). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/clientearth-v-belgiannational-bank/. Accessed 15 June 2023.
ClientEarth v. European Investment Bank (2021b). Courtof Justice of the European Union, T-9/19 and C-212/21
P, Appealed, 2 February (European Union). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/clientearth-v-europeaninvestment-bank/. Accessed 15 June 2023.
ClientEarth v. Poland (on Behalf of M.G.) (2021).
Białystok Court of Appeal, 8 September (Poland). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/clientearth-v-polandacting-on-behalf-of-mg/. Accessed 13 June 2023.
ClientEarth v. Poland (on behalf of M.O.) (2021). District
Court (Poland). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/clientearth-v-poland-on-behalf-of-mo/. Accessed 13 June
2023.
ClientEarth v. Poland (on behalf of M.S.) (2021). District
Court (Poland). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/clientearth-v-poland-on-behalf-of-ms/. Accessed 13 June
2023.
ClientEarth v. Poland (on behalf of P.N.) (2021).
Poznań Regional Court, 20 December (Poland). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/clientearth-v-polandon-behalf-of-pn/. Accessed 13 June 2023.
ClientEarth v. Poland (on behalf of P.R.) (2021). District
Court (Poland). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/clientearth-v-poland-on-behalf-of-pr/. Accessed 13 June
2023.
ClientEarth v. Secretary of State (2021). Court ofAppeal (Civil Division) of England and Wales, Case No.
C1/2020/0998/QBACF, 21 January (United Kingdom ofGreat Britain and Northern Ireland). http://climatecasechart.
com/non-us-case/clientearth-v-secretary-of-state/.
Accessed 13 June 2023.

Page 77

Combeima River Case (2020). Administrative Tribunalsof Colombia, No. 73001-2331-000-2011-00611-03, 14
September (Colombia). http://climatecasechart.com/nonus-case/combeima-river-case-of-september-14-2020/.
Accessed 12 June 2023.
Commonwealth v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2022). High Courtof Massachusetts, No. SJC-13211, 24 May (UnitedStates of America). http://climatecasechart.com/case/commonwealth-v-exxon-mobil-corp/. Accessed 15 June
2023.
Commune de Grande-Synthe v. France (2021). Councilof State of France, No. 427301, 1 July (France). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/commune-de-grandesynthe-v-france/. Accessed 13 June 2023.
Company Workers Union of Maritima & Commercial
Somarco Limited and Others v. Ministry of Energy (2021).
Supreme Court of Chile, 25.530-2021, 9 August (Chile).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/companyworkers-union-of-maritima-commercial-somarco-limitedand-others-with-ministry-of-energy/. Accessed 15 June
2023.
Complaint to Ad Standards on HSBC’s Great Barrier Reef
Ad (2021). Ad Standards, 0265-21, 13 October (Australia).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/complaint-toad-standards-on-hsbcs-great-barrier-reef-ad/. Accessed 15
June 2023.
Conectas Direitos Humanos v. BNDES and BNDESPar(2022). Ninth Federal Civil Court of the Federal District,
ACP 1038657-42.2022.4.01.3400, 22 June (Brazil). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/conectas-direitoshumanos-v-bndes-and-bndespar/. Accessed 15 June 2023.
Connecticut v. Exxon Mobil Corporation (2022). Court ofAppeals for the Second Circuit, No. 21-1446, 31 August(United States of America). http://climatecasechart.com/
case/state-v-exxon-mobil-corp/. Accessed 14 June 2023.
Conservation Law Foundation v. ExxonMobil Corp. (2016).
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 1:16cv-11950, 29 September (United States of America). http://
climatecasechart.com/case/conservation-law-foundationv-exxonmobil-corp/. Accessed 15 June 2023.
Conservation Law Foundation v. Gulf Oil LP (2022).
District Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:21-cv00932, 29 September (United States of America). http://
climatecasechart.com/case/conservation-law-foundationv-gulf-oil-lp/. Accessed 15 June 2023.

Page 78

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | References

Conservation Law Foundation v. Shell Oil Co. (2022).
District Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:21-cv00933, 16 September (United States of America). http://
climatecasechart.com/case/conservation-law-foundationv-shell-oil-co/. Accessed 15 June 2023.

Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) v. Baden-Württemberg(BaWü) (2021). Higher Administrative Court of JusticeBaden-Württemberg, 8 November (Germany). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/deutsche-umwelthilfeduh-v-baden-wurttemberg-bawu/. Accessed 13 June 2023.

Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Shell Oil Products US.
(2022). District Court for the District of Rhode Island, No.
1:17-cv-00396, 21 July (United States of America). http://
climatecasechart.com/case/5619/. Accessed 15 June2023.

Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) v. Bayerische Motoren Werke
AG (BMW) (2021). Regional Court of Munich, 3 September(Germany). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/deutsche-umwelthilfe-duh-v-bmw/. Accessed 14 June
2023.

County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. (2023). Supreme
Court of the United States, No. 17CIV03222, 27 February(United States of America). http://climatecasechart.com/
case/county-san-mateo-v-chevron-corp/. Accessed 14
June 2023.

Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) v. Bayern (2021). Higher
Administrative Court of Bayern, 24 June (Germany). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/deutsche-umwelthilfeduh-v-bayern/. Accessed 13 June 2023.

D.G. Khan Cement Company v. Government of Punjab(2021). Supreme Court of Pakistan, C.P. 1290-L/2019,16 April (Pakistan). http://climatecasechart.com/non-uscase/d-g-khan-cement-company-v-government-of-punjab/.
Accessed 15 June 2023.
Daniel Billy and others v. Australia (Torres Strait Islanders
Petition) (2022). United Nations Human Rights Committee,
CCPR/C/135/D/3624/2019, 23 September (United Nations
Human Rights Committee). http://climatecasechart.com/
non-us-case/petition-of-torres-strait-islanders-to-theunited-nations-human-rights-committee-alleging-violationsstemming-from-australias-inaction-on-climate-change/.
Accessed 12 June 2023.
De Conto v. Italy and 32 Other States (2021). European
Court of Human Rights, Complaint No. 14620/21,
3 March (European Court of Human Rights). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/de-conto-v-italy-and32-other-states/. Accessed 13 June 2023.
Decision SU-698/17 (2017). Constitutional Court ofColombia, Decision No. SU-698/17, 28 November(Colombia). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/decision-su-698-17-of-november-28-2017/. Accessed 12
June 2023.
Delaware v. BP America Inc. (2023). Supreme Court of theUnited States, No. N20C-09-097, 27 March (United Statesof America). http://climatecasechart.com/case/state-v-bpamerica-inc/. Accessed 14 June 2023.

Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) v. Mercedes-Benz AG (2022).
Regional Court of Stuttgart, 13 September (Germany).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/deutscheumwelthilfe-duh-v-mercedes-benz-ag/. Accessed 14 June2023.
Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) v. Nordrhein-Westfalen(NRW) (2020). Higher Administrative Court of North
Rhine-Westphalia, 3 December 2020 (Germany). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/deutsche-umwelthilfeduh-v-nordrhein-westfalen-nrw/. Accessed 13 June 2023.
District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2023). Court ofAppeals for the D.C. Circuit, No. 2020 CA 002892 B, 31
March (United States of America). http://climatecasechart.
com/case/district-of-columbia-v-exxon-mobil-corp/.
Accessed 14 June 2023.
Do-Hyun Kim et al. v. South Korea (2020). South Korean
Constitutional Court, 13 March (Republic of Korea). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/kim-yujin-et-al-v-southkorea/. Accessed 15 June 2023.
DS-593: European Union — Certain Measures Concerning
Palm Oil and Oil Palm Crop-based Biofuels (2019). World
Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Body, Doc. No. WT/
DS593/1, 9 December (World Trade Organization). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/ds-593-europeanunion-certain-measures-concerning-palm-oil-and-oil-palmcrop-based-biofuels/. Accessed 12 June 2023.

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | References

DS-600: European Union and Certain Member States –Certain Measures Concerning Palm Oil and Oil Palm CropBased Biofuels (2021). World Trade Organization Dispute
Settlement Body, Doc. No. WT/DS600/1, 15 January (World
Trade Organization). http://climatecasechart.com/non-uscase/ds-600-european-union-and-certain-member-statescertain-measures-concerning-palm-oil-and-oil-palm-cropbased-biofuels/. Accessed 12 June 2023.
Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Other
States (2021). European Court of Human Rights, Query No.
39371/20, 4 February (European Court of Human Rights).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/youth-forclimate-justice-v-austria-et-al/. Accessed 13 June 2023.
Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v. Republic of Colombia (2021).
International Centre for Settlement of Investment
Disputes, No. ARB/16/41, 9 September (International
Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/eco-oro-minerals-corpv-republic-of-colombia/. Accessed 15 June 2023.

Page 79

Food & Water Watch v. FERC (2022). Court of Appeals forthe D.C. Circuit, 28 F.4th 277, 11 March (United States ofAmerica). http://climatecasechart.com/case/food-waterwatch-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission/. Accessed
14 June 2023.
Fossielvrij-Beweging v. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij
N.V. (2022). District Court of Amsterdam, 7 July
(Netherlands). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/fossielvrij-nl-v-klm/. Accessed 15 June 2023.
Four Islanders of Pari v. Holcim (2023). Office of the Justiceof the Peace of the Canton of Zug, 1 February (Switzerland).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/four-islandersof-pari-v-holcim/. Accessed 15 June 2023.
Friends of the Earth v. Haaland (2023). Court ofAppeals for the D.C. Circuit, Nos. 22-5036, 22-5037,
22-5067, 24 January (United States of America). http://
climatecasechart.com/case/friends-of-the-earth-vhaaland/. Accessed 14 June 2023.

Environment Victoria v. the Environmental Protection
Agency et al. (2021). Supreme Court of Victoria, S ECI 2021
03415, 16 September (Australia). http://climatecasechart.
com/non-us-case/environment-victoria-vs-the-epa-et-al/.
Accessed 14 June 2023.

Future Generations v. Ministry of the Environment andOthers (2018). Colombia Superior Tribunals, Radicación
11001 22 03 000 2018 00319 00, 5 April (Colombia). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/future-generation-vministry-environment-others/. Accessed 13 June 2023.

Environmental Justice Australia (EJA) v. Australia (2021).
United Nations Special Rapporteurs, 25 October (United
Nations). Available at http://climatecasechart.com/nonus-case/environmental-justice-australia-eja-v-australia/.
Accessed 13 June 2023.

Greenpeace A.S.B.L. v. Schneider (2020). Administrative
Court of Luxembourg, No. 43604 du rôle, 12 March(Luxembourg). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/greenpeace-luxembourg-v-schneider/. Accessed 15 June
2023.

ENVironnement JEUnesse v. Procureur General du Canada(2022). Superior Court of Québec, 28 July (Canada). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/environnementjeunesse-v-canadian-government/. Accessed 13 June
2023.

Greenpeace Argentina et al., v. Argentina et al. (2022).
Federal Court of Mar del Plata No. 2, FMP 105/202, 5
December (Argentina). http://climatecasechart.com/nonus-case/greenpeace-argentina-et-al-v-argentina-et-al/.
Accessed 15 June 2023.

Envol Vert et al. v. Casino (2021). Judicial Court of SaintÉtienne, 2 March (France). http://climatecasechart.com/
non-us-case/envol-vert-et-al-v-casino/. Accessed 14 June
2023.

Greenpeace et al. v. Austria (2020). Constitutional Court ofAustria, Decision No. G 144-145/2020-13, V 332/2020-13,
30 September (Austria). http://climatecasechart.com/nonus-case/greenpeace-v-austria/. Accessed 13 June 2023.

Ewan McGaughey et al. v. Universities Superannuation
Scheme Limited (2021). High Court of Justice of Englandand Wales, EWHC 1233, 27 October (United Kingdom ofGreat Britain and Northern Ireland). http://climatecasechart.
com/non-us-case/ewan-mcgaughey-et-al-v-universitiessuperannuation-scheme-limited/. Accessed 15 June 2023.

Greenpeace France, Amis de la Terre France, Notre Affaireà Tous v. TotalEnergies SE, TotalEnergies Electricité, Gaz
France (2022). Court of Paris, 2 March (France). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/greenpeace-franceand-others-v-totalenergies-se-and-totalenergies-electriciteet-gaz-france/. Accessed 15 June 2023.

Page 80

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | References

Greenpeace Mexico v. Ministry of Energy and Others(on the Energy Sector Program) (2021). District Court in
Administrative Matters, Amparo No. 372/2020, 19 March(Mexico). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/greenpeace-mexico-v-ministry-of-energy-and-others/.
Accessed 13 June 2023.
Greenpeace Mexico v. Ministry of Energy and Others (onthe National Electric System Policies) (2020). District Court
in Administrative Matters, Amparo No. 104/2020, 17
November (Mexico). http://climatecasechart.com/non-uscase/greenpeace-mexico-v-ministry-of-energy-and-otherson-the-national-electric-system-policies/. Accessed 13
June 2023.
Greenpeace Netherlands v. State of the Netherlands(2020). The Hague District Court, Decision No.
ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:12440, 9 December (Netherlands).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/greenpeacenetherlands-v-state-of-the-netherlands/. Accessed 13 June
2023.

Held v. State (2020). Montana District Court, No. CDV2020-307, Complaint, March 13 (United States of America).
http://climatecasechart.com/case/11091/. Accessed 13
June 2023.
Henry v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022). Supreme
Court of Guyana, 2021-HC-DEM-CIV-FDA, 21 January(Guyana). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/henryv-epa/. Accessed 14 June 2023.
Herrera Carrion et al. v. Ministry of the Environment et al.
(Caso Mecheros) (2021). Provincial Court of Justice of
Sucumbío, Juicio No. 21201202000170, 29 July (Ecuador).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/herrera-carrionet-al-v-ministry-of-the-environment-et-al-caso-mecheros/.
Accessed 12 June 2023.
Humane Being v. the United Kingdom (2022). European
Court of Human Rights, 26 July (European Court of Human
Rights). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/factoryfarming-v-uk/. Accessed 13 June 2023.

Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway (2021). European
Court of Human Rights, Application No. 34068/21,
15 June (European Court of Human Rights). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/greenpeace-nordicassn-v-ministry-of-petroleum-and-energy-ecthr/. Accessed
13 June 2023.

I.L. v. Italian Ministry of the Interior and Attorney Generalat the Court of Appeal of Ancona (2024). Supreme Courtof Cassation, N. 5022/2021, 24 February (Italy). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/il-v-italian-ministry-ofthe-interior-and-attorney-general-at-the-court-of-appeal-ofancona/. Accessed 15 June 2023.

Greenpeace Nordic Ass’n v. Ministry of Petroleum andEnergy (People v. Arctic Oil) (2020). Supreme Court of
Norway, HR-2020-2472-P, Case No. 20-051052SIV-HRET,
23 January (Norway). http://climatecasechart.com/non-uscase/greenpeace-nordic-assn-and-nature-youth-v-norwayministry-of-petroleum-and-energy/. Accessed 13 June
2023.

In re Alto Maipo Delaware LLC (2021). Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware No. 21-11507, 17 November(United States of America). http://climatecasechart.com/
case/in-re-alto-maipo-delaware-llc/. Accessed 15 June
2023.

Guyane Nature Environnement and France Nature
Environnement v. France (2022). Council of State ofFrance, Nos. 455465, 456314, 455497, 455500, 10
February (France). http://climatecasechart.com/non-uscase/guyane-nature-environnement-and-france-natureenvironnement-v-france/. Accessed 14 June 2023.
Hauraki Coromandel Climate Action Incorporated v.
Thames-Coromandel District Council (2020). High Courtof New Zealand, Case No. CIV-2019-419-173, NZHC 3228,
8 December (New Zealand). http://climatecasechart.
com/non-us-case/hauraki-coromandel-climate-actionincorporated-v-thames-coromandel-district-council/.
Accessed 12 June 2023.

In re Court on Its Own Motion v. State of Himachal Pradesh
and Others (2019). National Green Tribunal, CWPIL No.
15 of 2010, 9 May (India). http://climatecasechart.com/
non-us-case/sher-singh-v-state-of-himachal-pradesh/.
Accessed 13 June 2023.
In the Matter of AGL Limited (2022). Court of New South
Wales, Common Law Division, NSWSC 576, 12 May(Australia). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/inthe-matter-of-agl-limited/. Accessed 15 June 2023.
Institute of Amazonian Studies v. Brazil (2022). Federal
Regional Court, Fourth Region, Ação Civil Pública No.
5048951-39.2020.4.04.7000, 29 March (Brazil). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-jurisdiction/amazonas/.
Accessed 14 June 2023.

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | References

Italian Competition Authority Ruling Eni’s Diesel+ AdvertisingCampaign (2019). Regional Administrative Court of Lazio,
20 December (Italy). http://climatecasechart.com/nonus-case/italian-competition-authority-ruling-enis-dieseladvertising-campaign/. Accessed 15 June 2023.
Julia Habana et al., v. Mexico (Unconstitutionality of theReform to the Electricty Industry Law) (2022). Supreme
Court of Mexico, Amparo No. 210/2021, 22 December(Mexico). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/juliahabana-et-al-v-mexico-unconstitutionality-of-the-reform-tothe-electricity-industry-law/. Accessed 13 June 2023.=
Juliana v. United States (2020). United States Courtof Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 947 F.3d 1159,
Granted, 17 January (United States of America). http://
climatecasechart.com/case/juliana-v-united-states/.
Accessed 13 June 2023.
Kaiser, et al. v. Volkswagen AG (2021). Regional Courtof Braunschweig, 11 November (Germany). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/kaiser-et-al-vvolkswagen-ag/. Accessed 14 June 2023.
Kang et al. v. KSURE and KEXIM (2022). District
Court of Seoul, 23 March (Republic of Korea).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/kand-vksureandkexim/. Accessed 15 June 2023.
KEPCO Bylong Australia v. Independent Planning
Commission and Bylong Valley Protection Alliance(2021). Court of Appeal of Australia, NSWCA 216, 14
September (Australia). http://climatecasechart.com/nonus-case/kepco-bylong-australia-v-independent-planningcommission-and-bylong-valley-protection-alliance/.
Accessed 13 June 2023.
KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland (2022). European
Court of Human Rights, Application No. 53600/20, 5
December (European Court of Human Rights). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/union-of-swiss-seniorwomen-for-climate-protection-v-swiss-federal-council-andothers/. Accessed 13 June 2023.
Klimatická žaloba ČR v. Czech Republic (2022). Municipal
Court in Prague, Judgment No. 14A 101/2021, 15 June
(Czech Republic). http://climatecasechart.com/non-uscase/klimaticka-zaloba-cr-v-czech-republic/. Accessed 13
June 2023.

Page 81

La Rose v. Her Majesty the Queen (2019). Federal Court ofAppeal of Canada, T-1750-19, October (Canada). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/la-rose-v-her-majestythe-queen/. Accessed 15 June 2023.
Laboratório do Observatório do Clima v. Ministerof Environment and Brazil (2022). Seventh Federal
Environmental and Agrarian Court of the Judiciary
Section of Amazonas, Ação Civil Pública No. 102728296.2021.4.01.3200, 13 May (Brazil). http://climatecasechart.
com/non-us-case/laboratorio-do-observatorio-do-climav-environmental-ministry-and-brazil/. Accessed 13 June
2023.
Lawyers for Climate Action Complaint to the AdvertisingStandards Board (2021). Advertising Standards Authority
Complaints Board, No. 21/194, 6 July (New Zealand). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/lawyers-for-climateaction-complaint-to-the-advertising-standards-board/.
Accessed 15 June 2023.
Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan (2018). Lahore High Court,
W.P. No. 25501/201, Granted, 25 January (Pakistan). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/ashgar-leghari-vfederation-of-pakistan/. Accessed 13 June 2023.
Lho’imggin et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen (2020). Federal
Court of Appeal of Canada, T-211-20, 28 June (Canada).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/gagnon-et-al-vher-majesty-the-queen/. Accessed 15 June 2023.
Luciano Lliuya v. RWE AG (2022). Higher Regional Court of
Essen, Case No. 2 O 285/15, On Appeal, May (Germany).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/lliuya-v-rwe-ag/.
Accessed 15 June 2023.
Maria Khan et al. v. Federation of Pakistan et al. (2019).
Lahore High Court, No. 8960, Filed, 15 February (Pakistan).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/maria-khan-et-alv-federation-of-pakistan-et-al. Accessed 13 June 2023.
Marlene Lemme, et al. v. State of Bayern (Subsidiary Claim)(2021). Bayern Constitutional Court, 30 June (Germany).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/marlene-lemmeet-al-v-state-of-bayern-subsidiary-claim/. Accessed 13 June
2023.
Mataatua District Maori Council v. New Zealand (2020).
Waitangi Tribunal, WAI 2607, 16 January (New Zealand).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/mataatuadistrict-maori-council-v-new-zealand/. Accessed 15 June
2023.

Page 82

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | References

Mathur, et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario(2020). Ontario Superior Court of Justice, CV-19-00631627,
15 April (Canada). http://climatecasechart.com/non-uscase/mathur-et-al-v-her-majesty-the-queen-in-right-ofontario/. Accessed 15 June 2023.
Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP p.l.c. (2023).
Supreme Court of the United States, No. 24-C-18004219, 3 January (United States of America). http://
climatecasechart.com/case/mayor-city-council-ofbaltimore-v-bp-plc/. Accessed 14 June 2023.
McVeigh v. Retail Employees Superannuation Trust (2020).
Federal Court of Australia, NSD1333/2018, Settled, 2November (Australia). http://climatecasechart.com/nonus-case/mcveigh-v-retail-employees-superannuation-trust/.
Accessed 15 June 2023.
Mejillones Tourist Service Association and others with theEnvironmental Evaluation Service (SEA) of Antofagasta(2022). Supreme Court of Chile, Case No. 6930-202169302021, 19 April (Chile). http://climatecasechart.com/
non-us-case/mejillones-tourist-service-association-andothers-with-the-environmental-evaluation-service-sea-ofantofagasta/. Accessed 14 June 2023.
Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc. (2022). The
Hague District Court, C/09/571932 / HA ZA 19-379, 25 April(Netherlands). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/milieudefensie-et-al-v-royal-dutch-shell-plc/. Accessed 14
June 2023.
Minister of Environment v. PT Kalista Alam (2017).
Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Decision
No. 12/PDT.G/2012/PN.MBO, 18 April (Indonesia).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/minister-ofenvironment-v-pt-kalista-alam/. Accessed 12 June 2023.
Ministério Público Federal v. IBAMA (2020). Seventh Federal
Environmental and Agrarian Court of the Judiciary Sectionof Amazonas, ACP No. 1007104-63.2020.4.01.3200, 21
May (Brazil). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/ministerio-publico-federal-v-ibama/. Accessed 14 June
2023.
Ministry of Environment and Forestry v. PT Arjuna Utama
Sawit (2020). Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia,
Decision No. 213/Pdt.G/LH/2018/PN.Plk, 10 December(Indonesia). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/ministry-of-environment-and-forestry-v-pt-arjuna-utamasawit/. Accessed 12 June 2023.

Ministry of Environment and Forestry v. PT Asia Palem
Lestari (2021). District Court of North Jakarta, Decision
No. 607/Pdt.G-LH/2019/PN.Jkt.Utr, 5 January (Indonesia).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/ministryof-environment-and-forestry-v-pt-asia-palem-lestari/.
Accessed 12 June 2023.
Ministry of Environment and Forestry v. PT Jatim Jaya
Perkasa (2018). Supreme Court of the Republic ofIndonesia, Decision No. 108/Pdt.G/2015/PN.Jkt.Utr., 28
June (Indonesia). http://climatecasechart.com/non-uscase/ministry-of-environment-and-forestry-v-pt-jatim-jayaperkasa/. Accessed 12 June 2023.
Ministry of Environment and Forestry v. PT Palmina
Utama (2018). Banjarmasin Court of Appeal, Decision
No. 48/PDT/2018/PT.BJM, 15 August (Indonesia).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/ministry-ofenvironment-and-forestry-v-pt-palmina-utama/. Accessed
12 June 2023.
Ministry of Environment and Forestry v. PT Rambang Agro
Jaya (2021). District Court of Central Jakarta, Decision
No. 445/Pdt.G/2019/PN.Jkt.Pst, 11 January (Indonesia).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/ministryof-environment-and-forestry-v-pt-rambang-agro-jaya/.
Accessed 12 June 2023.
Mullaley Gas and Pipeline Accord Inc v. Santos NSW(Eastern) Pty Ltd. (2021). New South Wales Land andEnvironment Court, NSWLEC 147, 16 December (Australia).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/mullaley-gasand-pipeline-accord-inc-v-santos-nsw-eastern-pty-ltd/.
Accessed 13 June 2023.
Müllner v. Austria (2021). European Court of Human Rights,
25 March (European Court of Human Rights). https://climate-laws.org/geographies/austria/litigation_cases/
mex-m-v-austria. Accessed 13 June 2023.
Natural Resources Defense v. Wheeler (2020). Court ofAppeals for the D.C. Circuit, 446 U.S. App. D.C. 93, 955
F.3d 68, 7 April 2020 (United States of America). http://
climatecasechart.com/case/natural-resources-defensecouncil-v-pruitt-2/. Accessed 21 June 2023.

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | References

Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales v. Minister
for Water, Property and Housing (2022). New South WalesLand and Environment Court, Case 2021/00282599, 8 June
(Australia). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/nature-conservation-council-v-new-south-wales-nswnature-conservation-council-of-nsw-v-minister-for-waterproperty-and-housing/. Accessed 14 June 2023.
Neubauer, et al. v. Germany (2021). Federal Constitutional
Court of Germany, 29 April (Germany). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/neubauer-et-al-vgermany/. Accessed 13 June 2023.
Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v. France (2021).
Administrative Court of Paris, Nos. 1904967, 1904972,
1904976/4-1, 21 October (France). http://climatecasechart.
com/non-us-case/notre-affaire-a-tous-and-others-v-france/.
Accessed 13 June 2023.
Nuestros Derechos al Futuro y Medio Ambiente Sano et al.,v. Mexico (Unconstitutionality of the Reform to the ElectricIndustry Law) (2022). District Court in Administrative
Matters, Amparo No. 204/2021, 28 December (Mexico).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/nuestrosderechos-al-futuro-y-medio-ambiente-sano-et-al-v-mexicounconstitutionality-of-the-reform-to-the-electric-industrylaw/. Accessed 13 June 2023.

Page 83

Petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
Seeking to Redress Violations of the Rights of Children in
Cité Soleil, Haiti (2021). Inter-American Court of Human
Rights, 4 February (Inter-American Court of Human Rights).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/petition-to-theinter-american-commission-on-human-rights-seeking-toredress-violations-of-the-rights-of-children-in-cite-soleilhaiti/. Accessed 13 June 2023.
Plan B. Earth and Others v. The Secretary of State for
Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy (2019). High Courtof Justice of England and Wales, Claim No. CO/16/2018,25 January (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/plan-bearth-others-v-secretary-state-business-energy-industrialstrategy/. Accessed 13 June 2023.
Plan B.Earth and Others v. United Kingdom (2022). European
Court of Human Rights, 11 July (European Court of Human
Rights). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/planbearth-and-others-v-united-kingdom/. Accessed 13 June
2023.
Plaumann & Co. v. Commission of the European Economic
Community (1963). Court of Justice of the European
Union, Case No. 25/62, Order ECLI:EU:C:1963:17, 15 July
(European Union).

O’Donnell v. Commonwealth (2022). Federal Court ofAustralia, VID482/2020, 22 June (Australia). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/odonnell-vcommonwealth/. Accessed 15 June 2023.

Police v. Hanafin (2020). District Court of New Zealand,
Decision No. CRI-2019-076-001503, 13 November (New
Zealand). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/policev-hanafin/. Accessed 12 June 2023.

Pabai Pabai and Guy Paul Kabai v. Commonwealth ofAustralia (2022). Federal Court of Australia, VID622/2021,
31 March (Australia). http://climatecasechart.com/non-uscase/pabai-pabai-and-guy-paul-kabai-v-commonwealth-ofaustralia/. Accessed 15 June 2023.

PSB et al. v. Brazil (on Amazon Fund) (2022). Federal
Supreme Court of Brazil, ADO 59/DF, 3 November (Brazil).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/psb-et-al-vbrazil/. Accessed 14 June 2023.

People of the State of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corporation(2020). Supreme Court of New York, No. 452044/2018,27 February (United States of America). http://
climatecasechart.com/case/people-v-exxon-mobilcorporation/. Accessed 15 June 2023.
Peter Sabo et al. v. European Parliament and Council of theEuropean Union (2020). Court of Justice of the European
Union, Case No. T-141/19, Order ECLI:EU:T:2020:179, 6 May(European Union).

PSB et al. v. Brazil (on Climate Fund) (2022). Federal
Supreme Court of Brazil, ADPF 708, 1 July (Brazil). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/psb-et-al-v-federalunion/. Accessed 13 June 2023.
PSB et al. v. Brazil (on Deforestation and Human Rights)(2022). Federal Supreme Court of Brazil, ADPF 760, 6April (Brazil). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/brazilian-socialist-party-and-others-v-brazil/. Accessed 13
June 2023.

Page 84

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | References

PUSH Sweden, Nature and Youth Sweden and Others v.
Government of Sweden (2016). Stockholm District Court,
15 September (Sweden). http://climatecasechart.com/
non-us-case/push-sweden-nature-youth-sweden-et-al-vgovernment-of-sweden/. Accessed 15 June 2023.
R (Finch on behalf of the Weald Action Group & Others) v.
Surrey County Council (& Others) (2022). Court of Appeal(Civil Division) of England and Wales, CO/4441/2019
and C1/2021/0261 (United Kingdom of Great Britain andNorthern Ireland). http://climatecasechart.com/non-uscase/r-finch-v-surrey-county-council/. Accessed 14 June2023.
R (oao Friends of the Earth) v. Secretary of State for
Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (2022). High Courtof Justice of England and Wales, EWHC 1841, 18 July
(United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/r-oao-friendsof-the-earth-v-secretary-of-state-for-business-energy-andindustrial-strategy/. Accessed 13 June 2023.
R. v. Brown (Extinction Rebellion protest, London City Airport)(2022). Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) of England andWales, Case No. [2022] EWCA Crim 6, 14 January (United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/r-v-brown-extinctionrebellion-protest-london-city-airport/. Accessed 12 June2023.
Rabab Ali v. Federation of Pakistan & Another (2016).
Supreme Court of Pakistan, Constitution Petition No.
I of 2016, April (Pakistan). http://climatecasechart.
com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/non-us-casedocuments/2016/20160401_Constitutional-Petition-No.___-I-of-2016_petition.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2023.
Ramirez v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2022). District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, No. 3:16-cv-3111, 31 March(United States of America). http://climatecasechart.com/
case/ramirez-v-exxon-mobil-corp/. Accessed 15 June 2023.
Regional Government of Atacama v. Ministry of Mining
and Other (2022). Court of Appeal of Copiapo, 9-2022, 30
January (Chile). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/regional-government-of-atacama-v-ministry-of-mining-andother/. Accessed 15 June 2023.

Request for an Advisory Opinion submitted by theCommission of Small Island States on Climate Change andInternational Law (2022). International Tribunal for the Lawof the Sea, Case No. 31/2022, 12 December (International
Tribunal for the Law of the Sea). http://climatecasechart.
com/non-us-case/18416/. Accessed 13 June 2023.
Rete Legalità per il Clima (Legality for Climate Network)and others v. ENI (2022). Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development National Contact Point, 15
February 2022 (Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development). http://climatecasechart.com/non-uscase/rete-legalita-per-il-clima-legality-for-climate-networkand-others-v-eni/. Accessed 14 June 2023.
Rete Legalità per il Clima (Legality for Climate Network)v. Intensive Livestock Farming Multinational Companies
Operating in Italy (2021). Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development National Contact Point, 6
December (Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/rete-legalita-per-il-clima-legality-for-climate-networkand-others-v-intensive-livestock-farming-multinationalcompanies-operating-in-italy/. Accessed 14 June 2023.
Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Products Co. (2023). Supreme
Court of the United States, No. PC-2018-4716, 22 February(United States of America). http://climatecasechart.com/
case/rhode-island-v-chevron-corp/. Accessed 14 June
2023.
Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India & Ors. (2017). National
Green Tribunal, Original Application No. 187/2017, March(India). http://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/
sites/16/non-us-case-documents/2017/20170325_
Original-Application-No.-___-of-2017_petition-1.pdf.
Accessed 13 June 2023.
Rights of Indigenous People in Addressing ClimateForced Displacement (2020). United Nations Special
Rapporteurs, Ref. AL USA 16/2020, 15 September (United
Nations). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/rights-of-indigenous-people-in-addressing-climate-forceddisplacement/. Accessed 13 June 2023.
Ruling on Modification to Ethanol Fuel Rule (2020). Supreme
Court of Mexico, 610/2019, Opinion, 22 January (Mexico).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/ruling-onmodification-to-ethanol-fuel-rule/. Accessed 13 June 2023.

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | References

RWE and Uniper v. the Netherlands (Ministry of Climate
and Energy) (2022). District Court of North Holland,
ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:12628; ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:12635;
ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:12653, 30 November (Netherlands).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/rwe-and-uniperv-state-of-the-netherlands-ministry-of-climate-and-energy/.
Accessed 15 June 2023.
RWE v. the Kingdom of the Netherlands (2021). International
Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, Case No.
ARB/21/4, 2 February (International Centre for Settlementof Investment Disputes). http://climatecasechart.com/nonus-case/rwe-v-kingdom-of-the-netherlands/. Accessed 15
June 2023.
S.S. Gölmarmara ve Çevresi Su Ürünleri Kooperatifi v.
Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry(2022). Administrative Court of Manisa, July (Türkiye).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/ss-golmarmarave-cevresi-su-urunleri-kooperatifi-v-republic-of-turkiyeministry-of-agriculture-and-forestry-manisa-directorateof-provincial-agriculture-and-forestry/. Accessed 14 June
2023.
Sacchi, et al. v. Argentina, et al. (2021). United Nations
Committee on the Rights of the Child, Communication
No. 104/2019 (Argentina), Communication No.
105/2019 (Brazil), Communication No. 106/2019(France), Communication No. 107/2019 (Germany),
Communication No. 108/2019 (Türkiye), 12 October(United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/sacchi-et-al-vargentina-et-al/. Accessed 12 June 2023.
Santos NA Barossa Pty Ltd v. Tipakalippa (2022). Federal
Court of Australia, FCAFC 193, 2 December (Australia).
https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-andtranscripts/online-files/santos-v-tipakalippa. Accessed 15
June 2023.
Saonu and Morobe Provincial Government v. Minster
for Environment and Conservation and Climate Change
and Others (2021). Court of Justice at Waigani, OS(JR) 35 of 2021, 20 September (New Zealand). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/saonu-and-morobeprovincial-government-v-minster-for-environment-andconservation-and-climate-change-and-others/. Accessed
14 June 2023.
Sharma and others v. Minister for the Environment (2022).
Federal Court of Australia, VID 389, 22 April (Australia).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/raj-seppings-vley/. Accessed 20 June 2023.

Page 85

Shrestha v. Office of the Prime Minister et al (2018).
Supreme Court of Nepal, Order 074-WO-0283, 25 December(Nepal). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/shrestha-v-office-of-the-prime-minister-et-al/. Accessed 12
June 2023.
Six Youths v. Minister of Environment and Others (2021).
Fourteenth Federal Civil Court of São Paulo, Ação Popular
no. 5008035-37.2021.4.03.6100, 28 May (Brazil). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/six-youths-v-ministerof-environment-and-others/. Accessed 15 June 2023.
SkeenaWild Conservation Trust v. Government of Canada(2016). Federal Court of Canada, Application No. T-1836-16,
27 October (Canada). http://climatecasechart.com/nonus-case/skeenawild-conservation-trust-v-government-ofcanada/. Accessed 12 June 2023.
Smith v. Fonterra Co-Operative Group Limited (2022). High
Court of New Zealand, NZSC 35, 31 March (New Zealand).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/smith-vfronterra-co-operative-group-limited/. Accessed 14 June
2023.
Soubeste and Others v. Austria and 11 Other States(2022). European Court of Human Rights, Case No.
31925/22 (European Court of Human Rights). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/soubeste-and-othersv-austria-and-11-other-states/. Accessed 13 June 2023.
South Durban Community Environmental Alliance &Groundwork v. Minister of Forestry, Fisheries, and theEnvironment (2021). High Court of South Africa, 8 April(South Africa). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/sdcea-groundwork-v-minister-of-forestry-fisheries-and-theenvironment/. Accessed 14 June 2023.
South Durban Community Environmental Alliance v. Ministerof Environment and Others (2021). High Court of South
Africa, June 2021 (South Africa). http://climatecasechart.
com/non-us-case/south-durban-community-environmentalalliance-v-minister-of-environment-et-al/. Accessed 14 June
2023.
State v. American Petroleum Institute (2023). Court ofAppeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 62-CV-20-3837, 23 March(United States of America). http://climatecasechart.com/
case/state-v-american-petroleum-institute/. Accessed 14
June 2023.

Page 86

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | References

Steinmetz, et al. v. Germany (2022). Federal Constitutional
Court of Germany, 24 January (Germany). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/steinmetz-et-al-vgermany/. Accessed 13 June 2023.

Thomas & De Freitas v. Guyana (2021). Supreme Court ofGuyana, 27 September (Guyana). http://climatecasechart.
com/non-us-case/thomas-de-freitas-v-guyana/. Accessed
14 June 2023.

Students for Climate Solutions Inc v. Minister of Energy andResources (2022). High Court of New Zealand, NZHC 2116
Decided, 24 August (New Zealand). http://climatecasechart.
com/non-us-case/students-for-climate-solutions-inc-vminister-of-energy-and-resources/. Accessed 13 June
2023.

Tsama William and Others v. Uganda’s Attorney Generaland Others (2020). High Court of Uganda at Mbale,
Miscellaneous Case No. 024 of 2020, 14 October (Uganda).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/tsama-williamand-others-v-ugandas-attorney-general-and-others/.
Accessed 13 June 2023.

Sustaining the Wild Coast NPC and Others v. Minister ofMineral Resources and Energy and Others (2022). High
Court of South Africa, Case No. 3491/2021, 1 September(South Africa). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/sustaining-the-wild-coast-npc-and-others-v-minister-ofmineral-resources-and-energy-and-others/. Accessed 14
June 2023.

Uniper v. the Kingdom of the Netherlands (2022).
International Centre for Settlement of Investment
Disputes, Case No. ARB/21/22, Withdrawn (International
Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/uniper-v-netherlands/.
Accessed 15 June 2023.

Texans Against High-Speed Rail, Inc. v. U.S. Department ofTransportation (2021). District Court for the Western Districtof Texas, No. 6:21-cv-00365, 18 August (United States ofAmerica). http://climatecasechart.com/case/texas-againsthigh-speed-rail-inc-v-us-department-of-transportation/.
Accessed 15 June 2023.
The City of Cape Town v. National Energy Regulator of South
Africa and Minister of Energy (2020). High Court of South
Africa, Case No. 51765/17, 11 August (South Africa). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/the-city-of-cape-townv-national-energy-regulator-of-south-africa-and-minister-ofenergy/. Accessed 12 June 2023.
The Climate Movement v. Ministry of Transportation (2021).
Western High Court of Denmark, 22 October (Denmark).
http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/the-climatemovement-v-ministry-of-transportation/. Accessed 14 June
2023.
The Netherlands v. RWE and Uniper (Anti-arbitration
Injunctions) (2023). Higher Regional Court of Cologne,
January (Netherlands). http://climatecasechart.com/
non-us-case/netherlands-v-rwe-and-uniper-anti-arbitrationinjunctions-before-the-higher-regional-court-of-cologne/.
Accessed 15 June 2023.
The Planet v. Bolsonaro (2021). International Criminal
Court, 12 October (International Criminal Court). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/the-planet-vbolsonaro/. Accessed 13 June 2023.

Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands (2019).
Supreme Court of the Netherlands, Case No. 19/00135,
20 December (Netherlands). http://climatecasechart.
com/non-us-case/urgenda-foundation-v-kingdom-of-thenetherlands/. Accessed 12 June 2023.
Uricchio v. Italy and 32 Other States (2021). European
Court of Human Rights, Complaint No. 14615/21,
3 March (European Court of Human Rights). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/uricchio-v-italy-and-32other-states/. Accessed 13 June 2023.
Vegetarian Society et al. of Denmark v. Danish Crown(2022). Western High Court of Denmark (Denmark). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/vegetarian-society-etal-of-denmark-v-danish-crown/. Accessed 15 June 2023.
Vermont v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2022). District Court for theDistrict of Vermont, No. 2:21-cv-260-wks, 2 September(United States of America). http://climatecasechart.com/
case/vermont-v-exxon-mobil-corp/. Accessed 14 June
2023.
Ville de Paris and Others v. European Commission (2022).
Court of Justice of the European Union, Case No. C-177/19
P to C-177/19 P, 13 January (European Union). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/germany-v-ville-deparis-and-others/. Accessed 13 June 2023.
VZW Klimaatzaak v. Kingdom of Belgium & Others (2021).
Brussels Court of First Instance, 17 November 2021
(Belgium). http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/vzwklimaatzaak-v-kingdom-of-belgium-et-al/. Accessed 13
June 2023.

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | References

West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022).
Supreme Court of the United States, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 30
June (United States of America). http://climatecasechart.
com/case/american-lung-association-v-epa/. Accessed 13
June 2023.
Women from Huasco and Others v. the Government of Chile,
Ministry of Energy, Environment and Health (2022). Courtof Appeal of Copiapo, No. 323-2021, 7 May (Chile). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/women-from-huascoand-others-v-the-government-of-chile-ministry-of-energyenvironment-and-health/. Accessed 13 June 2023.

Page 87

Youth v. Government of Mexico (2022). District Court
in Administrative Matters, 20 May (Mexico). http://
climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/youth-v-governmentof-mexico/. Accessed 15 June 2023.
Youth Verdict v. Waratah Coal (2020). Queensland Land
Court, QLC 33, 13 May (Australia). http://climatecasechart.
com/non-us-case/youth-verdict-v-waratah-coal/. Accessed
15 June 2023.

York County v. Rambo (2019). District Court for the Northern
District of California No. 3:19-cv-00994, 22 February (UnitedStates of America). http://climatecasechart.com/case/york-county-v-rambo/. Accessed 15 June 2023.

LiteratureBetz, B. (2022). Netherlands join Germany, Austria, Italy
in reverting to coal amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, 20
June. https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/netherlandsjoin-germany-austria-italy-in-reverting-to-coal-amid-russiasinvasion-of-ukraine. Accessed 10 April 2023.
Burger, M., Wentz, J. and Horton, R. (2020). The law andscience of climate change attribution. Columbia Journalof Environmental Law 45(1). https://doi.org/10.7916/cjel.
v45i1.4730.
Climate Action Tracker (2022). Global reaction to energy
crisis risks zero carbon transition, 8 June. https://climateactiontracker.org/publications/global-reaction-toenergy-crisis-risks-zero-carbon-transition/. Accessed 27
July 2022.
Cruz Carrillo, C.A. (2021). ITLOS advisory opinion on climatechange and oceans: possibilities and benefits, 21 July.
http://opiniojuris.org/2021/07/21/itlos-advisory-opinionon-climate-change-and-oceans-possibilities-and-benefits/.
Accessed 10 April 2023.
de Freitas Netto, S.V., Sobral, M.F.F., Ribeiro, A.R.B. andda Luz Soares, G.R. (2020). Concepts and forms ofgreenwashing: a systematic review. Environmental Sciences
Europe 32, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-020-03003.

De Shong, D. (2021). Antigua and Tuvalu join forces to seek
climate justice, 31 October. https://caribbean.loopnews.
com/content/antigua-and-tuvalu-join-forces-seek-climatejustice. Accessed 10 April 2023.
Dejusticia (2019). The Colombian Government has failed
to fulfill the Supreme Court’s landmark order to protect
the Amazon, 5 April. https://www.dejusticia.org/en/thecolombian-government-has-failed-to-fulfill-the-supremecourts-landmark-order-to-protect-the-amazon/. Accessed
10 April 2023.
Dubash, N.K. Mitchell, C., Boasson, E.L., Borbor-Cordova,
M.J., Fifita, S., Haites, E. et al. (2022). Chapter 13: Nationaland sub-national policies and institutions. In Climate
Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Working
Group III Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Reportof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/
IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Chapter_10.pdf.
Etchart, L. (2017). The role of Indigenous Peoples incombating climate change. Humanities and Social Sciences
Communications 3 (17085). https://www.nature.com/
articles/palcomms201785.

Page 88

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | References

European Commission (2019). Guidelines on Reporting
Climate-Related Information. Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/
finance/docs/policy/190618-climate-related-informationreporting-guidelines_en.pdf.
European Commission (2022). Corporate sustainability
reporting. Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/info/businesseconomy-euro/company-reporting-and-auditing/companyreporting/corporate-sustainability-reporting_en. Accessed
10 April 2023.
European Union (2007). Consolidated version of theTreaty on European Union. Luxembourg: Official Journalof the European Union. https://www.refworld.org/
docid/4b179f222.html.
European Union (2008). Consolidated version of Treaty
on the Functioning of the European Union - Part Six:
Institutional and Financial Provisions - Title I: Institutional
Provisions - Chapter 1: The Institutions - Section 5: The Courtof Justice of the European Union - Article 263 (ex Article
230 TEC). Luxembourg: Official Journal of the European
Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12008E263.
Finance Center for South-South Cooperation (2022). Global
South Countries (Group of 77 and China). http://www.fcssc.org/en/partnership_program/south_south_countries.
Accessed 13 April 2023.
Freestone, D., Barnes, R. and Akhavan, P. (2022). Agreement
for the establishment of the Commission of Small Island
States on Climate Change and International Law (COSIS).
The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 37(1),166-178. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10087.
Global Change Data Lab (2015). Continents according to
Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/
continents-according-to-our-world-in-data. Accessed 13
April 2023.
Gociu, A. and Roy, S. (2021). Extraterritoriality of oilconstitutionalism in People v Arctic Oil, 16 February. https://www.ejiltalk.org/extraterritoriality-of-oil-constitutionalismin-people-v-arctic-oil/. Accessed 27 July 2022.
Gradoni, L. and Mantovani, M. (2022). No Kidding!: Mapping
youth-led climate change litigation across the north-south
divide, 23 March. https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/no-kidding/.
Accessed 10 April 2023.

Gray, K. and Gills, B. (2016). South-South cooperation andthe rise of the Global South. Third World Quarterly 37(4),557–574. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.
1080/01436597.2015.1128817?needAccess=true&role=button.
Hartmann, J. and Willers, M. (2022). Protecting rights
through climate change litigation before European courts.
Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 13(1),90–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3832674.
Human Rights Committee (2020). Historic UN humanrights case opens door to climate change asylum
claims. 21 January. https://www.ohchr.org/en/pressreleases/2020/01/historic-un-human-rights-case-opensdoor-climate-change-asylum-claims. Accessed 10 April
2023.
Hurst, L. (2021). Shell investors back headquarters move
to U.K, 10 December. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/
articles/2021-12-10/shell-investors-look-set-to-back-movefrom-netherlands-to-u-k. Accessed 10 April 2023.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (2021a).
Climate Emergency: Scope of Inter-American Human
Rights Obligations – Resolution 3/2021. Washington,
D.C. https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/decisions/pdf/2021/
resolucion_3-21_ENG.pdf.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2018). Special
Report: Global Warming of 1.5°C Summary for Policymakers.
Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge
University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2022).
Summary for policymakers. In Climate Change 2022:
Mitigation of Climate Change. Working Group III Contribution
to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Geneva. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SPM.
pdf.
International Criminal Court (2016). Annex to the “Paperon some policy issues before the Office of the Prosecutor”:
Referrals and Communications. The Hague. https://www.
icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/NR/rdonlyres/278614EDA8CA-4835-B91D-DB7FA7639E02/143706/policy_annex_
final_210404.pdf.

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | References

International Energy Agency (2022). Global CO2 emissions
rebounded to their highest level in history in 2021. 8
March. https://www.iea.org/news/global-co2-emissionsrebounded-to-their-highest-level-in-history-in-2021.
JUMA (2022). Climate Litigation Platform in Brazil. https://www.litiganciaclimatica.juma.nima.puc-rio.br/listagem/
visualizar. Accessed 13 April 2023.
JusClima 2030 (2022). Climate Disputes. https://jusclima2030.jfrs.jus.br/litigio/. Accessed 13 April 2023.
Litigasia (2022). About Litigasia, no date. https://www.
litigasia.org/AboutUs. Accessed 13 April 2023.
Liu, Z., Deng, Z., Davis, S.J., Giron, C. and Ciais, P. (2022).
Monitoring global carbon emissions in 2021. Nature
Reviews Earth & Environment 3, 217–219. https://www.
nature.com/articles/s43017-022-00285-w.
Marcum, C. (2022). The ends and the means: Indigenous
sovereignty, climate-related legal actions, and frameworksof justice. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 29(1),261–278. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijgls/
vol29/iss1/8/.
Markell, D. and Ruhl, J.B. (2012). An empirical assessmentof climate change in the courts: a new jurisprudence orbusiness as usual? Florida Law Review 64(15), 65–70.
https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol64/iss1/2/.
Murcott, M., Tigre, M.A. and Zimmermann, N. (2022).
Climate change litigation: what the ECtHR could learn
from courts in the Global South, 22 March. https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/climate-change-litigation-whatthe-ecthr-could-learn-from-courts-in-the-global-south/.
Accessed 10 April 2023.
Parker, L., Mestre, J., Jodoin, S. and Wewerinke-Singh, M.
(2022). When the kids put climate change on trial: youthfocused rights-based climate litigation around the world.
Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 13(1). https://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2022.01.03.
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (2021).
Committee proposes draft of a new protocol to theEuropean Convention on Human Rights on the right to ahealthy environment, 9 September. https://pace.coe.int/en/
news/8419/committee-proposes-draft-of-a-new-protocolto-the-european-convention-on-human-rights-on-the-rightto-a-healthy-environment. Accessed 10 April 2023.

Page 89

Peel, J. and Lin, J. (2019). Transnational climate
litigation: the contribution of the Global South. American
Journal of International Law 113(4), 679–726. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journalof-international-law/article/transnational-climatelitigation-the-contribution-of-the-global-south/
ABE6CC59AB7BC276A3550B9935E7145A.
Peel, J. and Markey-Towler, R. (2022). Recipe for success?:
Lessons for strategic climate litigation from the Sharma,
Neubauer, and Shell cases. German Law Journal 22(8),1484-1498. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2021.83.
Peel, J. and Osofsky, H.M. (2020). Climate change litigation.
Annual Review of Law and Social Science 16, 21-38. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-022420-122936.
Philippines, Commission on Human Rights of thePhilippines (2022). National Inquiry on Climate Change
Report. Quezon City. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/
uploads/2023/02/CHRP-NICC-Report-2022.pdf.
Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (2022a). Climate
Change Litigation Databases. http://climatecasechart.com.
Accessed 13 April 2023.
Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (2022b). Global
network of peer reviewers on global climate litigation, nodate. https://climate.law.columbia.edu/content/globalnetwork-peer-reviewers-climate-litigation. Accessed 13
April 2023.
Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (2023). Climate
Change Litigation Databases. http://climatecasechart.com.
Accessed 24 January 2023.
Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (2023). U.S.
Climate Change Litigation – Public Trust Doctrines. http://
climatecasechart.com/principle-law/public-trust-doctrine/.
Accessed 10 April 2023.
Sacchi, C., Anjain, R., Kabua, L., Thunberg, G., Lorenzo, C.,
Duquesne, I. et al. (2021). Children’s petition to the United
Nations Secretary-General to declare a climate emergency
and mobilize a comprehensive UN response, 10 November.
Savaresi, A. and Setzer, J. (2022). Rights-based litigationin the climate emergency: mapping the landscape andnew knowledge frontiers. Journal of Human Rights and theEnvironment 13(1). https://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2022.01.01.

Page 90

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | References

Savaresi, A., Kulovesi, K. and van Asselt, H. (2021). Beyond
COP26: Time for an advisory opinion on climate change?,
17 December. https://www.ejiltalk.org/beyond-cop26-timefor-an-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change/. Accessed 10
April 2023.
Schmid, E. (2022). Victim Status before the ECtHR in Casesof Alleged Omissions: The Swiss Climate Case, 30 April.
https://www.ejiltalk.org/victim-status-before-the-ecthrin-cases-of-alleged-omissions-the-swiss-climate-case/.
Accessed 10 April 2023.
Stuart-Smith, R., Roe, G.H., Li, S. and Allen, M.R. (2021).
Increased outburst flood hazard from Lake Palcacocha
due to human-induced glacier retreat. Nature Geoscience14, 85-90. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-02100686-4.
Tigre, M.A. (2022a). A look back at significant decisions
in climate litigation in 2022, 22 December. https://blogs.
law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2022/12/22/a-lookback-at-significant-decisions-in-climate-litigation-in-2022/.
Accessed 10 April 2023.

Tigre, M.A., Ortúzar, F. and Dávalos, J. (2022). Climate
litigation in Latin America and the Caribbean: Launchinga regional platform, 15 February. https://aida-americas.
org/en/blog/climate-litigation-in-latin-america-and-thecaribbean-launching-a-regional-platform. Accessed 13 April
2023.
Tigre, M.A., Zenteno, L., Hesselman, M., Urzola, N. andCisterna-Gaete, P. (2023). Just Transition Litigation in Latin
America: An Initial Categorization of Climate Litigation Cases
Amid the Energy Transition. New York: Sabin Center for
Climate Change Law. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/
cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1198&context=sabin_climate_change.
United Nations (2022). Information Portal on Multilateral
Agreements – Introductory Course on Climate Rights
Litigation Course Workbook. https://elearning.informea.
org/. Accessed 10 April 2023.
United Nations Environment Programme (2017). The Statusof Climate Change Litigation: A Global Review. Nairobi.
https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/20767.

Tigre, M.A. (2022b). Australian federal court dismisses
the novel duty of care previously found in Sharma:
What does it mean for future climate litigation inAustralia?, 21 March. https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/
climatechange/2022/03/21/australian-federal-courtdismisses-the-novel-duty-of-care-previously-found-insharma-what-does-it-mean-for-future-climate-litigation-inaustralia/. Accessed 10 April 2023.

United Nations Environment Programme (2020). Global
Climate Litigation Report: 2020 Status Review. Nairobi.
https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/34818.

Tigre, M. A. (2022c). Climate change and Indigenous
groups: the rise of Indigenous voices in climate litigation.
E-Publica 9(3). https://e-publica.pt/article/57634-climatechange-and-indigenous-groups-the-rise-of-indigenousvoices-in-climate-litigation.

United Nations, Framework Convention on Climate Change(2022a). Nationally Determined Contributions Under theParis Agreement: Synthesis Report by the Secretariat. 26
October. FCCC/PA/CMA/2022/4. https://unfccc.int/sites/
default/files/resource/cma2022_04.pdf. Accessed 13 April
2023.

Tigre, M.A. and Lichet, V. (2021). The CRC Decision in
Sacchi v. Argentina. American Society of International Law
Insights 25(26). https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/25/
issue/26.
Tigre, M.A. and Urzola, N. (2021). The 2017 Inter-American
Court’s advisory opinion: changing the paradigm forinternational environmental law in the Anthropocene.
Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 12(1), 24-50.
https://www.elgaronline.com/view/journals/jhre/12-1/
jhre.2021.01.02.xml.

United Nations Environment Programme (2022). Emissions
Gap Report 2022: The Closing Window – Climate Crisis Calls
for Rapid Transformation of Societies. Nairobi. https://www.
unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2022.

United Nations, Framework Convention on Climate Change(2022b). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its
Twenty-Sixth Session, Held in Glasgow from 31 October to
13 November 2021. 8 March. FCCC/CP/2021/12/Add.1.
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cp2021_12_
add1_adv.pdf. Accessed 13 April 2023.
United Nations, General Assembly (2022). Human Right
to a Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment. 26 July.
A/76/L.75.

Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review | References

United Nations, Human Rights Committee (2020). Views
adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional
Protocol, concerning communication No. 2728/2016.
CCPR/C/127/D/2728/2016. http://climatecasechart.com/
non-us-case/un-human-rights-committee-views-adoptedon-teitiota-communication/. Accessed 24 January 2023.
United Nations, Human Rights Council (2017). Report of
the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
1 November. A/HRC/36/46. https://documents-dds-ny.
un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/330/97/PDF/G1733097.pdf.
Accessed 10 April 2023.
United Nations, Human Rights Council (2021). 48/13:
The Human Right to a Clean, Healthy and Sustainable
Environment. 8 October. A/HRC/RES/48/13. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G21/289/50/
PDF/G2128950.pdf. Accessed 10 April 2023.
United States of America, Securities and Exchange
Commission (2022). The Enhancement and Standardizationof Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors. Washington,
D.C.: Federal Register. https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2022/04/11/2022-06342/the-enhancementand-standardization-of-climate-related-disclosures-forinvestors.
University of Melbourne (2022). Australian and PacificClimate Change Litigation. https://law.app.unimelb.edu.au/
climate-change/index.php. Accessed 13 April 2023.

Page 91

Urzola, N. (forthcoming). Gendering climate litigation in
Latin America: climate justice through a feminist lens.
Journal of Human Rights Practice.
Vanuatu ICJ Initiative (2023). ICJ resolution, 29 March.
https://www.vanuatuicj.com/resolution. Accessed 10 April
2023.
Vilchez Moragues, P. and Savaresi, A. (2021). The right toa healthy environment and climate litigation: a mutually
supportive relation? SRRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract_id=3829114.
Voigt, C. (2021). The first climate judgment before theNorwegian Supreme Court: aligning law with politics.
Journal of Environmental Law 33(3), 697-710. https://doi.
org/10.1093/jel/eqab019.
Winter, G. (2020). Case Comment: Armando Carvalho
and Others v. EU: Invoking Human Rights and the Paris
Agreement for Better Climate Protection Legislation.
Transnational Environmental Law 9(1), 137–64. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/transnationalenvironmental-law/article/armando-carvalho-andothers-v-eu-invoking-human-rights-and-the-parisagreement-for-better-climate-protection-legislation/
E88581624C67AEAD876CC2373F08FFAF.

Global Climate Litigation Report
2023 Status Review
UN Environment Programme
United Nations Avenue, Gigiri
Nairobi, Kenya
P.O. Box 30552, 00100
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254 (0)20 762 1234