At issue: Whether GABRIËLS & CO l.c.'s new gas station project in Boechout complies with the climate objectives under the Flemish Code for Spatial Planning
At issue: The Supreme Court declared the responsibility of the defendant company as the seller of a vehicle to the appellant, for fraud in the installation in its vehicles of a computer program designed to falsify the measurements of polluting gas emissions. The responsibility derived from the letter sent to the acquirers and users of their vehicles, in terms that only the manufacturer can assume, which constitutes an act of its own.
At issue: Whether who were responsible for the environmental damage caused by the oil spill of “Prestige” and the determination of the amounts of compensation of each party held liable.
At issue: Whether the approval by the Flemish authorities of INEOS' Project One is illegal under EU and Belgium laws due to INEOS' inadequate assessment of how the project would impact the climate.
At issue: Whether, in the course of preparing its environment plan for regulatory approval, Santos should have consulted with the applicant and his community; Whether the applicant and his community are considered “relevant persons” for consultation under the relevant regulations
At issue: Whether the environmental license of Cerrejón Zona Norte Coal Mining Project violates environmental provisions and human rights to FPIC, health and a healthy environment due to its effects on climate change and GHG emissions.
At issue: Whether the permitting of a open-pit coal project has been conducted without the participation of indigenous communities and considerations of GHG emissions.
At issue: Civil liability of major GHG emitter for climate change-related damages suffered in a different jurisdiction; financing of anti-flooding measures; GHG emissions reductions
At issue: Whether AGL's Demerger Booklet provided adequate disclosure for shareholders to make a fairly informed decision in exercising their vote on whether or not to support the demerger.
At issue: Whether Shell’s Drive Carbon Neutral program violates the Canadian Competition Act by making false and/or misleading representations to the public.
At issue: Holding the Board of Directors of Shell Liable under the UK Companies Act s.172 and 174. ClientEarth UK are arguing that the board has not implemented a climate strategy that is in keeping with the Paris Agreement goal.
At issue: Whether associations have standing to act in defense of a collective interest and obtain a measure of inquiry against a French company carrying out activities in a foreign country?
At issue: Lack of disclosure of information on supply chain control in relation to the risk of human rights violations by cobalt suppliers in the Democratic Republic of Congo.