At issue: Claimants challenged mining project, arguing that environmental assessment failed to consider climate impacts to human rights and environment.
At issue: Whether the oil drilling license obtained by ReconAfrica from the Namibian Government is legal with regard to exacerbating climate change in a region especially prone to droughts and endangerment of wildlife, as well as the duty to consult local communities.
At issue: Whether the implementation plan for the NDC provides constitutionally required protection of the fundamental rights of the plaintiffs from the threat of climate change.
At issue: Whether the South Korean NDC provides constitutionally required protection of the fundamental rights of the plaintiffs from the threat of climate change.
At issue: Whether the climate law provides constitutionally required protection of the fundamental rights of the plaintiffs from the threat of climate change.
At issue: Whether the greenhouse gas emitting activities of New Zealand’s largest emitters amount to violations of common law duties under public nuisance, negligence, and a novel climate tort.
At issue: Whether Norway has violated the fundamental rights of Norwegian citizens and lower legislation through the adoption of three decisions concerning the plans for development and operation of petroleum (oil and gas) deposits in the North Sea by failing to include Scope 3 emissions in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
At issue: Whether Kia Motors México could be sanctioned for non-compliance with the NOM-163-SEMARNAT-ENER-SCFI-2013, under the standards of the right to a healthy environment
At issue: Whether the defendant energy company has engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in its public statements concerning its greenhouse gas emission policies
At issue: Negative human rights impacts of (expanding) fossil fuel activities by State-owned company Saudi Amraco, with support of major private financial institutions domiciled in Saudi Arabia, Japan, USA, UK and France.
At issue: Negative human rights impacts of (expanding) the Scarborough gas project and LNG facilities by Woodside Energy and BHP in Australia, especially on indigenous people’s rights due to damage to indigenous sacred art and songlines in Murujuga
At issue: France’s continued development of mega-basin projects in a context of climate change, and their impacts on the rights to environment, food and water, including the rights of smaller farmers.
At issue: Post-disaster recovery for the Indigenous Raizal people after hurricanes Eta and Iota in Colombia, including through reconstruction of safe, culturally appropriate and climate-resilient housing
At issue: Ongoing forced evictions and home demolitions along Karachi’s waterways, despite devastating impacts of unusually heavy monsoons and flooding, allegedly as part of Pakistan’s climate adaptation strategies.
At issue: Compatibility of the arrest and excessive sentencing of two climate activists in the United Kingdom with the right to peaceful assembly in Article 21 ICCPR
At issue: Thailand’s large-scale (re)forestation strategy to achieve GHG emission targets threatens the human rights of 14 forest-dependent Isan minority members in Sab Wai village, who are also land-right defenders
At issue: Whether Slovenia’s decision to conduct an environmental impact assessment of Ascent’s proposed fracking projected has destroyed the value of Ascent’s investments in Slovenia energy sector
At issue: Whether the denial of the application for a Presidential Permit to construct the Keystone XL Pipeline and the Government’s actions leading to that denial amounted to unfair treatment of a Canadian corporation
At issue: Whether the SEA procedure imposes an obligation on the authorities to carry out a transboundary impact assessment under the Espoo Convention, an appropriate assessment pursuant to Article 6 of the Habitats Directive and an assessment of the project’s impact on climate change
At issue: Whether the state of Oaxaca’s ban on the distribution of non-recycled single-use plastic bags to protect the right to a healthy environment affects the right to carry-out business of plastic manufacturing companies.
At issue: Whether Amberg Corp. and/or Ms. Olga Kiiker failed to comply with the Emissions Management and Climate Resilience Act and the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Regulation
At issue: Whether federal cabinet’s order relating to the addition of plastic manufactured items to the list of toxic substances in Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection, 1999 (CEPA) was unreasonable and/or unconstitutional
At issue: Preventing that a Federal Order that changes the regime for protected areas in the Atlantic Forest allows the cancellation of environmental infraction notices for deforestation and the consolidation of occupation of protected areas.
At issue: Whether in a Criminal Action the dosimetry penalty of a crime of deforestation using fire can be increased considering the impact of the use of fire in the Amazon forest on climate change.
At issue: Whether and to what extent aviation emissions should play a role in deciding whether planning permission should be granted for the expansion of an airport.
At issue: Whether the Portuguese legislator has failed to implement the measures (laws and political acts) listed, and binding, in the Portuguese Climate Framework Law.
At issue: Whether Italy has breached its obligations under the Aarhus Convention by failing to inform and consult the public within the process of updating the National Energy and Climate Plan.
At issue: Whether Pasubio violated the OECD Guidelines by sourcing leather from cattle farms operating in Ayoreo lands, contributing to their illegal deforestation.
At issue: Whether a post on a dog food retailer’s Facebook page about its plant-based products made misleading and unsubstantiated environmental claims
At issue: Whether a poster, a TV ad, and a YouTube ad for Shell misleadingly omitted material information about the proportion of their business activities that were comprised of lower carbon activities.
At issue: Whether a paid-for online display ad by a global energy company omitted significant information about the overall impact of its carbon footprint
At issue: Whether a TV ad for Petronas misleadingly omitted material information about the balance of its current activities, its emissions, and the pathway to reducing them
At issue: Whether two posters for a bank that promoted its green initiatives omitted significant information about its contribution to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions and were therefore misleading
At issue: The requirement of the Municipality of Niterói to carry out a Neighborhood Impact Study (EIV) before granting a license for the construction of large residential and commercial buildings, with more than six floors, in the Icaraí neighborhood of Niterói.
At issue: The unconstitutionality of Municipal Law 4.968/2019 of Eldorado Sul, for reducing environmental protection in the city, without popular participation during the legislative process, in violation of the state and federal constitutions, as well as with no environmental or neighborhood impact study that analyzed the possible negative effects on the environment.
At issue: The nullity of Normative Instruction (IN) 23/2021, issued by IBAMA, which extends the validity of Licenses for the Use of Vehicle or Engine Configuration for models that do not meet the new pollutant emission limits of the PROCONVE L-7 phase, provided for in CONAMA Resolution 491/2018, referring to light road vehicles.
At issue: It calls for the cancellation of all licenses and permits issued by the state agency regarding authorization for the controlled burning of sugarcane straw in the municipalities covered by the Campinas Judicial Subsection, as well as for the defendants to be prevented from issuing new licenses without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Study and Environmental Impact Report (EIA/RIMA).
At issue: Access to information about the IncentivAuto Program (Automotive Regime for New Investments) and its adequacy to rules protecting the climate system.
At issue: Brazil’s federal environmental agency claims for a multiple times fined cattle raiser for illegal deforestation to compensate for climate damage.
At issue: The action seeks the annulment of an act, ordered by the President of Republic, that determined the reduction of the mandatory blending of biodiesel in diesel oil to 10% during 2022 ("B10"), under the terms of a CNPE Resolution 25/2021.
At issue: Whether the appellant was an internally displaced person according to the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. Whether the appellant was a refugee within the definition of 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Whether the appellant was a protected person within the meaning of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
At issue: Whether the implementation of the REDD+ project and the purchase of carbon credits violated the plaintiffs’ (Indigenous community) fundamental rights to free, prior and informed consultation, active and effective participation in decision making, territory as collective property, self-determination and environmental justice from an Indigenous perspective
At issue: The return of the federal environment sanctioning process, amended by the Federal Decree 9.760/2019, the constitutionality of which is being questioned.
At issue: The unconstitutional omission of the Federal Government and of the states of Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul in the management and prevention of wildfires in the region of the Pantanal.
At issue: Whether the state Complementary Law (LC) 1.089/2021, initiated by the State Governor, is unconstitutional, questioning in particular: (i) art. 1º, caput, and its paragraphs 1º and 2º; (ii) art. 2º, caput and paragraphs 1º and 2º; (iii) art. 15, caput and sole paragraph; (iv) art. 17, caput and its items; and (v) Annexes I, II, V, VI, VII and VII.
At issue: The lawsuit seeks to order the defendants to adopt effective measures to comply with the guidelines, deadlines and targets set out in federal and state (Rio Grande do Sul) climate laws.
At issue: Whether a precautionary order can be ordered preventing seismic exploration/fossil fuel exploitation until proper environmental impact assessments can be conducted
At issue: Whether the Article 8(1) of the Carbon Neutrality Act and the Article 3(1) of its Enforcement Decree, which set the Nationally Determined Contributions, violates the state’s obligation to protect fundamental rights of the plaintiffs, the principle of non-blanket-delegation, principle of parliamentary reservation, and principle of equality