Legal Unit

In the face of the continued expansion of fossil fuel exploration, extraction and production by the Norwegian State, on 15 June 2021, 6 individuals together with Nature and Youth and GP Nordic filed an application to the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) under Articles 2 (right to life), 8 (right to private and family life) and 13 (effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention), after exhausting domestic remedies. The individuals also filed an Article 14 (discrimination) claim based on age and birth cohort and, for three of the applicants, their identity as Indigenous people.

The case had been litigated since 2016 when Nature and Youth filed a lawsuit against the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy for granting the 23rd licensing round for oil and gas drilling in new areas in the Barents Sea South and Barents Sea South East. The lawsuit argued that granting these licences violated the right to a healthy environment, the right to life and private and family life under the Convention and was incompatible with Norway’s commitments under the Paris Agreement and environmental law principles. Procedural law arguments were raised to show that in authorising the licences, the Parliament failed to take climate impacts into account (including greenhouse gas emissions resulting outside Norway after export). The Supreme Court found that there must be an assessment of climate impacts, including exported emissions, but that this could be done at a later stage. That, according to the applicants, also gives rise to a discrimination claim.

In December 2021, the Court communicated the case to the Norwegian State and asked key questions, including whether the postponement of the assessment of climate impacts was compatible with the Convention. The State responded in April 2022, citing the war in Ukraine as a pretext for the continued expansion of fossil fuel exploration, extraction and production. The applicants had an opportunity to further expand their arguments. The case has been adjourned (paused) until the Grand Chamber decides on three other climate cases (Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (application no. 53600/20) [see below], Carême v. France (application no. 7189/21) and Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others (application no. 39371/20)).

Klimasøksmål website

In 2018, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines started hearing a petition seeking to hold the investor-owned “Carbon Majors” (oil, natural gas, coal and cement companies) accountable for contributing to global emissions of GHGs fuelling climate impacts resulting in human rights harms. This is the world’s first national human rights investigation of its kind, brought by a coalition of 14 organisations, including Greenpeace Southeast Asia-Philippines, along with Filipino farmers, fisherfolk, human rights advocates, typhoon survivors, artists and concerned citizens. The petition was filed after super typhoon Haiyan wreaked havoc in the Philippines in 2013 and is grounded in research linking  a large share of global climate pollution to a small number of coal, oil, and gas and cement producers, known as the Carbon Majors.

The National Inquiry conducted by the Commission on Human Rights has become one of the most significant repositories of scientific, legal, and community evidence of fossil fuel industry’s responsibility for climate change impacts  and human rights harms. The Commission held hearings throughout 2018 in the Philippines, New York City, and London as part of its investigation. It received various testimonies from community representatives, prominent climate scientists, and legal and policy experts. The evidence is available to the public on the websites of Greenpeace Southeast Asia-Philippines and the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines.

On 6 May 2022, the Commission released its final report on its multi-year investigation into 47 investor-owned corporations for human rights violations resulting from the companies’ actions that caused, denied and exacerbated climate change. Among its key findings are: the Carbon Majors’ contributions to climate change are quantifiable and substantial; they knew of the harmful effects of their products since at least 1965; they engaged in wilful obfuscation and obstruction to prevent meaningful climate action; they could be held liable for all acts to obfuscate climate science, obstruct, delay or derail the global energy transition; and they have a corporate responsibility to do human rights due diligence and provide remediation.

The Climate Change & Human Rights Inquiry Archive – Greenpeace Philippines

In 2016, the KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz (“Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection”), supported by Greenpeace Switzerland, now representing more than 2000 women aged 64 and over, sent a formal legal complaint to the Swiss Government and three administrative bodies responsible for national climate policies. The senior women are challenging the government’s climate policies, highlighting heat waves that are putting their lives and health at risk. The authorities refused to rule on the request, so they appealed to the Federal Administrative Court. That court dismissed the case in December 2018 on the grounds that senior women were not more likely than other citizens to experience harmful effects of climate change – despite their increased incidence of death and acute health impacts during heat waves. They appealed to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court at the end of January 2019. In May 2020, the Swiss Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs’ asserted rights had not been affected with sufficient intensity, and that the remedy they seek must be achieved through political rather than legal means.

The KlimaSeniorinnen and 4 individual members filed an application to the European Court of Human Rights under articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to private and family life), 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (effective remedy). They face these serious impacts due to the Swiss State’s failures to reduce GHG emissions and to tackle dangerous climate change. They are already experiencing severe impacts on their health, well-being and dignity, and they face increased risks of more profound implications in the future. Switzerland is continuously and directly violating the Applicants’ rights by failing to adopt the necessary and appropriate measures available to protect the Applicants from the impacts and the risk of harm posed by dangerous climate change-induced heatwaves. Switzerland has also failed to protect and ensure the Applicants’ right of access to a court and to effective domestic remedies because its domestic courts have arbitrarily refused to consider their human rights demands.

In March 2021, the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) communicated the case and gave it priority status. It also accepted more than 20 third party interventions (amicus briefs) from them UN Human Rights Commissioner Michelle Bachelet and UN Special Rapporteurs. In April 2022 the Court “relinquished” the case to oral hearings before the ECtHR’s 17 judge Grand Chamber. This happens when a case “raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention.”. The case was heard by the Grand Chamber on 29 March 2023.
 
This is the first climate case heard by the ECtHR and its decision by that Court, expected in 2024, will impact the interpretation of human rights obligations in all 46 Member States of the Council of Europe, as well as beyond Europe due to the importance of the Court and the Convention.

Klimaseniorinnen website (English, German, Italian and French)

Fourteen youth and affected groups from various regions in Indonesia filed a complaint with the Indonesian National Human Rights Commission on July 14, 2022, claiming that the Indonesian government has violated their human rights by not taking necessary measures to prevent the effects of climate change.

The complaint alleges that the Indonesian government’s insufficient action on climate change has violated several rights under the Indonesian constitution, including the right to life and a good and healthy environment, the right to develop oneself through the fulfilment of basic needs, the right to food and water, the right to education, the right to work and earn a decent living, and children’s rights.

The complainants claim that the Indonesian government has violated their human rights by not taking necessary mitigation and adaptation measures to prevent temperature rises above 1.5 degrees. They argue that Indonesia still heavily depends on deforestation and fossil fuels, especially coal for economic growth, has inadequate emission reduction targets, allocates significant resources to support carbon-intensive industries, does not integrate adaptation planning into domestic policies and budgeting, fails to ensure that social protection mechanisms work to reduce vulnerability to disasters and climate-related stresses, and does not prioritise nature-based adaptation.

This case is significant not only because of its young plaintiffs but also because it highlights the responsibility of governments to protect their citizens’ human rights by taking necessary measures to prevent and minimise the effects of climate change. It also demonstrates the need for governments to transition to sustainable development and invest in nature-based adaptation to mitigate climate risks. This case may set a precedent for similar cases in other countries where governments are not taking sufficient action to address climate change.

Indonesian Youths and others v. Indonesia – Climate Change Litigation

In 2018, Greenpeace France, in collaboration with Notre Affaire à Tous, Oxfam France, and Fondation pour la Nature et l’Homme, filed a demande préalable (letter before action) as the first step in France’s first-ever climate lawsuit. Dubbed “L’Affaire du Siècle” (the trial of the century), the lawsuit claims that the French government’s inadequate steps to address the climate crisis and its failure to implement international, European, and national climate objectives breaches national and international law, including people’s human rights. Similar to the Swiss case, this lawsuit aims to align France’s climate laws and policies with the Paris Agreement, at a minimum. Within ten days of the letter, the groups’ appeal received more than 1.7 million signatures, demonstrating widespread public support for the case. Since the authorities refused to act as requested by the letter, the co-plaintiffs filed a case in the Administrative Court of Paris on 14 March 2019. On 16 March 2019, the day after the global school strike for climate protection, which mobilised more than 1.6 million young people around the world, 350,000 people marched in more than 200 cities in France in support of the case and to demand increased climate action from the government.

The lawsuit challenges the state’s inaction on climate change and failure to meet its own goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing renewable energy, and limiting energy consumption. On 20 May 2019, the 4 NGOs filed their additional pleading in front of the Administrative Court. On 3 February 2021, in a landmark decision, the Paris Administrative Court held the French state liable for its failure to meet its own greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. It is the first time the State’s responsibility in the climate crisis, because of its lack of action, is acknowledged by French justice.

On 14 October 2021, after giving the State some months to show it was meeting its own climate targets, the administrative court of Paris ordered the State to take immediate and concrete actions to comply with its commitments on cutting carbon emissions and repair the damages caused by its inaction by 31 December 2022. The court determined that France emitted 62 million extra tonnes of emissions from 2015-2018 and ordered France to subtract the emissions caused in excess of its legislative commitments from its current emissions budget. 

On 14 June 2023, the plaintiffs re-filed a lawsuit to enforce the 2021 decision, calling for the the implementation of structural and systemic measures to reduce France’s GHG emissions, as well as a financial penalty of 1 billion euros to force it to act and information on the measures that France considers it has taken and that it has refused to transmit to the plaintiffs even though it is legally obliged to do so.

This case began in late spring 2020 and received positive results in early November 2020. The Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA) and Greenpeace Mexico have successfully challenged new federal decrees that limited the participation of renewable energy companies in the domestic market. It is a major victory against anti-renewable measures and helps secure the human right to affordable and accessible clean energy. Community-based renewable projects can help to combat the energy poverty that afflicts millions of households. In addition to the successful proceeding against a local energy secretariat Sener and electricity system operator Cenace obtaining a temporary suspension of parts of the energy policy, Greenpeace Mexico has initiated three additional injunction proceedings demanding the non-compliance of the intermediate targets of the NDC regarding the percentage of clean energies in the country’s power mix. 

On 3 February 2021, four individual plaintiffs who live in the areas that are directly impacted by the simulated sea-level rise and storm surge, as well as Greenpeace East Asia and Environmental Jurists Association, filed a lawsuit against Taiwan’s Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA). The plaintiffs submit that the MOEA failed to exercise proper administrative discretion when it enacted the “Regulations Governing the Chartered Capacity on Electricity Consumption Agreements Which the Users Shall Install Renewable Energy Facilities for Exceeding a Certain Capacity” (Regulation for Large Power Consumers), in force since January 1st, 2021. Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that the Regulation for Large Power Consumers does not comply with its enabling law, the Renewable Energy Development Act, and that its clauses are insufficient to fulfill the 2025 renewable energy goals under the Renewable Energy Development Act. Therefore, the plaintiffs request the Taipei Administrative Court to order the MOEA and its Energy Bureau to amend the “Regulation for Large Power Consumers” in accordance with the Renewable Energy Development Act and the 2025 renewable energy goal. The filing of this case is a first in Taiwan and a breakthrough in citizen suits and climate litigation. The lawsuit is the first example of ordinary people in Taiwan using the power of strategic litigation to hold the government accountable for its climate inaction.

On 2 September 2021, Greenpeace Germany launched a letter announcing a lawsuit against Volkswagen[1], the second biggest global car manufacturer for failing to decarbonise the company in line with the 1.5°C goal agreed in the Paris Agreement. At the end of October 2021, VW rejected Greenpeace’s legal demand to reduce its CO2 emissions faster and to phase out internal combustion vehicles by 2030 at the latest.  On 9 November 2021, the two executive directors of Greenpeace Germany and a climate activist launched a lawsuit demanding to end the production of climate-damaging internal combustion vehicles by 2030 at the latest and for VW to reduce its carbon footprint by 65% by 2030 at the latest. The lawsuit builds on the recent Shell victory in the Netherlands, paving the way for the next generation of corporate accountability for climate-damaging business models.

The lawsuit has been split up in two. Greenpeace Germany supports Ulf Allhof-Cramer, an organic farmer, who filed his case at the regional court in Detmold where his farm is located. Meanwhile, Clara Mayer, a young climate activist, as well as GP Germany’s two EDs as private citizens (since GP Germany was unable to sue as an organisation) filed their suit in Braunschweig (the regional court responsible for Wolfsburg where VW’s headquarters are located). In February 2023, both the Detmold District Court and the regional court of Braunschweig rejected the applications of the plaintiffs. Both cases are now in the process of being appealed. 
The cases against Volkswagen are the first lawsuits launched after the successful Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell decision against a non-fossil fuel major corporation, emphasising that decision’s statement that all business enterprises have human rights due diligence obligations in the climate context.

Find out more about the cases: VW lawsuit in court and Greenpeace files suit against Volkswagen

¹Greenpeace Germany et al. v. Volkswagen AG. November 9th, 2021. Motion, Federal Constitutional Court.

Want to know more about strategic, human rights climate litigation? Check out act.gp/PeoplesGuide for a legal toolbox to hold your government accountable on climate inaction.

The People’s Guide is a useful tool for those considering whether to bring a human rights-based climate case against their government and build a parallel campaign in their fight for climate justice. The Guide should only be used as a stepping-stone in developing a comprehensive strategy.