10 Climate litigation cases you need to know
· 12 min read
illuminem is proud to share the 10 climate litigation cases (1990-2024) you need to know as an environmental professional or a responsible citizen seeking accountability and climate action from all.
This list provides a comprehensive overview of the evolution of climate litigation, including the categorization of climate-aligned litigation and non-climate-aligned litigation, country of jurisdiction and case filing and ruling year, case status, and relevance.
The rising global demand for domestic and regional accountability on climate targets and ethical governance has entered a pivotal era. Climate litigation, the term used to describe a judicial strategy, means legally filing cases before judicial and quasi-judicial bodies involving material issues of climate change science, policy, or the law. Over recent years, the total number of climate litigation cases worldwide has significantly increased. According to the London School of Economics (LSE) report, over 2,180 climate change cases are documented globally.
Climate litigation first gained traction in the late twentieth century between the mid-1980s and the mid-2000s. Initially, this involved a relatively small number of cases filed against governments, primarily in the United States and Australia. Today, there is a new global wave of environmental justice activism, a movement to ensure that climate action and environmental stewardship are upheld by all actors in every industry, covering loopholes for greenwashing. The Global North accounts for nearly 90% of climate litigation documented cases, while a number of countries in the Global South are developing judicial responses to climate change.
Source: Global Trend in Climate Litigation, 2024 (LSE)
However, is climate litigation just a politically driven legal game and a distraction from addressing the climate crisis? Are companies aligning with the precedents these legal actions seek to achieve? What is their significance to the global need for responsible governance? Climate litigation has already significantly influenced climate targets and ethical governance, driving systemic changes, and compelling entities to adopt improved practices in their approach to climate change.
These are the top 10 climate litigation cases you need to know:
Jurisdiction: USA
Filing Year: 2003
Case Type: Non-climate-aligned litigation
Case Status: Ruling passed (2007)
Description:
This landmark case was initiated to compel the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Massachusetts, determining that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. This ruling mandated the EPA to determine whether these emissions endangered public health or welfare, leading to significant regulatory actions.
Facts & relevance:
The ruling established that greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, significantly expanding the EPA's regulatory authority. The decision underscored the importance of federal regulation in addressing climate change, influencing subsequent environmental policies and international climate commitments.
2. FOCSIV and others v. FCA Italy (Stellantis NV)
Jurisdiction: Italy
Filing year: 2022
Case type: Climate-aligned litigation
Case status: Ruling passed (2022)
Description:
The case involved FOCSIV (Federazione degli Organismi Cristiani Servizio Internazionale Volontario) and many other Italian associations filing a complaint against FCA Italy, a leading Italian company in the automotive sector and part of Stellantis NV. The complaint centered on the lack of transparency and disclosure regarding the company's cobalt supply chain, specifically cobalt sourced from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where significant human rights violations have been reported in mining operations.
Key facts & relevance:
The case represents a critical effort to enforce ethical standards and transparency in the global supply chains of large corporations, particularly in industries with significant environmental and social footprints. As one of the few ‘just transition’ cases, it highlights the need for multinational corporations to provide transparent and detailed information about their supply chains, particularly regarding raw materials linked to human rights abuses.
3. Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc
Jurisdiction: Netherlands
Filing year: 2019
Case type: Climate-aligned litigation
Case status: Ruling Passed (2021)|Defendant appealed the decision (2024)
Description:
The case "Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc" was brought by the environmental group Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands), several other NGOs, and over 17,000 Dutch citizens. They argued that Shell's contributions to climate change violated its duty of care under Dutch law and human rights obligations, particularly regarding the rights to life and private and family life as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Key facts & Relevance:
It is the first major case to hold a private corporation accountable under human rights law for its contributions to climate change, setting a significant precedent for future climate litigation against other large emitters. The ruling emphasized the importance of including Scope 3 emissions in corporate climate responsibilities, highlighting the broader impact of a company's supply chain and product use on the environment.
The decision underscores the link between human rights and environmental protection, reinforcing the notion that companies have a duty to prevent harm to human rights through their business operations. Although the ruling applies specifically to Shell, its implications are global. It could inspire similar lawsuits in other jurisdictions, pushing multinational corporations to adopt more rigorous climate policies.
Note: After announcing its intention to appeal the decision, Shell’s appeal hearing was held in April 2024. Despite the appeal, Shell remains obligated to comply with the emissions reduction order.
4. Urgenda Foundation and Dutch Citizens v. The State of the Netherlands (2013)
Jurisdiction: Netherland
Filing year: 2013
Case type: Climate-aligned litigation
Case status: Ruling Passed (2019)
Description:
Urgenda Foundation, alongside 886 Dutch citizens, sued the Dutch government to take more robust climate action, arguing that the government’s inaction violated human rights by failing to prevent dangerous climate change.
In 2015, the District Court of The Hague ruled in favor of Urgenda, ordering the Dutch government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% from 1990 levels by 2020. The ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2018 and the Supreme Court in 2019.
Key facts & relevance:
The Urgenda case is the first instance where a court has ordered a government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions based on human rights obligations. This groundbreaking decision has set a global precedent, inspiring similar lawsuits in countries like Belgium, France, Ireland, Germany, New Zealand, the UK, Switzerland, and Norway.
In response to the ruling, the Dutch government implemented measures to meet the emissions target, including shutting down coal power plants earlier than planned and adopting a new climate plan targeting a 49% reduction in emissions by 2030.
The case has significantly influenced international climate litigation, demonstrating the judiciary's critical role in enforcing climate action and protecting human rights. It has also highlighted the effectiveness of using human rights arguments in environmental litigation, encouraging activists and legal experts worldwide to adopt similar strategies.
5. Portugal’s Gen-Z v. 36 European governments
Jurisdiction: Portugal
Filing year: 2023
Case type: Climate-aligned litigation
Case status: Ruling Passed
Description:
In September 2023, six young Portuguese climate activists aged between 11 and 24 took legal action against 32 governments, including all EU member states, along with Norway, Turkey, the UK, Switzerland, and Russia. The case, filed at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), is the largest climate lawsuit brought before the court and focuses on the alleged failure of these governments to adequately address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The case is ongoing as of now, with the ECHR expected to rule in the first half of 2024. The plaintiffs argue that governments' inaction on climate change violates their rights to life, privacy, family life, and freedom from discrimination, as protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.
Key facts & relevance:
If successful, this case could have far-reaching implications. It could result in legally binding orders for governments to take more substantial actions to reduce emissions and adhere to the commitments made under the Paris Agreement. The case highlights the growing use of human rights arguments in climate litigation and underscores the role of youth activism in demanding urgent climate action. It also parallels other significant climate lawsuits globally, such as the recent Montana climate trial in the US, where young plaintiffs successfully held their state accountable for environmental protection
6. Mike Smith on behalf of the whenua v. Major New Zealand corporations
Jurisdiction: New Zealand
Filing year: 2022
Case type: Climate-aligned litigation case
Case status: Ruling passed (2022)
Description:
The case, brought forward by Māori elder Mike Smith, involves significant claims against New Zealand's major greenhouse gas emitters. Smith's lawsuit argues that the activities of these corporations have caused public nuisance, negligence, and a new form of civil wrong referred to as "climate system damage." This case seeks to hold these corporations accountable for their contributions to global climate change and demands that they reduce their emissions substantially
Key facts & relevance
The ruling is set to incorporate tikanga Māori (Māori customs and practices), marking a notable integration of indigenous principles in environmental law. The case is being closely watched internationally as it challenges traditional wrongful principles and seeks to adapt them to address global environmental issues.
Jurisdiction: Switzerland
Filing year: 2016
Case type: Climate-aligned litigation case
Case status: Ruling Passed (2024)
Description:
The case was initiated by an association known as "KlimaSeniorinnen'' (Senior Women for Climate Protection), comprising over 2,000 elderly Swiss women with an average age of 73. They argued that the Swiss government's insufficient efforts to combat climate change violated their rights, particularly due to the increased health risks they face from heat waves exacerbated by global warming. After exhausting their options in the Swiss courts, which dismissed their claims, the plaintiffs escalated the case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Key facts & relevance:
The association (Verein) KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz as well as four individual women filed a request in 2016 for issuance of a ruling on real acts in terms of Art. 25a (1) (a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for discontinuation of omissions in climate protection. The request was addressed to four administrative authorities which had was, according to the appellants, had failed to fulfill their commitments.The authorities include: the Federal Council, as the highest executive body; DETEC, as the department responsible for the protection and preservation of natural resources and protection against natural hazards; and finally two of DETEC’s subordinate administrative units, the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) and the Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE).
As of the ruling in April 2024, the Swiss government was required to review and enhance its climate policies to comply with the ECtHR's judgment. This involves establishing more stringent GHG reduction targets and implementing a robust legislative framework to mitigate climate change effectively. However, Swiss lawmakers have rejected the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decision with total votes 111 to 72 against the ruling, arguing that the court had overreached.
8. Greenpeace Luxembourg v. Schneider (Luxembourgish Minister of Social Security)
Jurisdiction: Luxembourg
Filing year: 2019
Case type: Climate-aligned litigation
Case status: Ruling passed (2019)
Description:
In September 2019, Greenpeace Luxembourg filed a legal action against Romain Schneider, the Luxembourgish Minister of Social Security. The case arose from the Minister's failure to respond to a letter sent by Greenpeace in August 2019. The letter sought information on how Luxembourg's sovereign pension fund intended to align its investments with the goals of the Paris Agreement and assess the climate-related financial risks associated with its investments.
The administrative court ruled that the claim was admissible, recognizing the Minister's obligation to respond to Greenpeace's request under the law. However, the court did not find a legal basis to compel the Minister to ensure the pension fund's compliance with the Paris Agreement's objectives
In response to the court's ruling, the president of the sovereign pension fund committed to delivering a sustainability report in the third quarter of 2020, including an analysis of the carbon footprint and climate-related financial risks of the fund's investments.
Key facts and relevance:
The case highlights the importance of aligning public investments with climate goals, reflecting a broader trend of environmental litigation aimed at enforcing climate action commitments globally. It highlights the legal responsibilities of government officials to provide environmental information, reinforcing the role of environmental advocacy groups in holding governments accountable for their climate policies.
9. Massachusetts v. ExxonMobil
Jurisdiction: USA
Filing year: 2019
Case type: Non climate-aligned litigation
Case status: Ruling Passed (2023)
Description:
"Massachusetts v. ExxonMobil" is a significant climate litigation case where the Massachusetts Attorney General sued ExxonMobil for allegedly misleading investors and consumers about the risks posed by climate change to its business and the environment. The lawsuit claims that ExxonMobil engaged in deceptive advertising and failed to disclose the true impact of its products on climate change.
Key facts and relevance:
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that ExxonMobil must face the lawsuit, rejecting the company's motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) statute. The court found that ExxonMobil's communications were aimed at investors and consumers rather than influencing government bodies, thus not protected under the anti-SLAPP law.
This case could set a significant precedent for holding corporations accountable for their public statements regarding climate change, emphasizing the need for transparency in how companies communicate climate risks to investors and consumers.
10. Request for an advisory opinion on the obligations of States with respect to climate change
Jurisdiction: International Courts & Tribunal | International Court of Justice
Filing year: 2023
Case type: Advisory Opinion
Case status: Ongoing
Description:
In a historic move, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution co-sponsored by 105 governments requesting the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to give an advisory opinion on states' obligations regarding climate change. This proposal was driven by the critical need to address the effects of climate change, particularly in small island developing states and other vulnerable countries.
The ICJ commenced proceedings following the UNGA request, with several written statements and comments being submitted and key deadlines extending into 2024. Although advisory opinions are non-binding, they carry significant moral and legal authority and can influence national and international climate litigation.
The court's final advisory opinion is anticipated to provide crucial guidance on international legal standards for climate action.
Key facts & relevance:
The resolution was driven by Vanuatu and other Pacific Island nations, reflecting the severe threat that climate change poses to these regions. The judicial procedures seek to clarify the following:
• The obligations of states under international law to protect the climate system from anthropogenic emissions
• The legal consequences for states that have caused significant harm to the climate system, especially for vulnerable states and future generations
The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law’s Climate Litigation Databases reveal that more than 230 new climate cases were filed in 2023, but the overall rate of growth may be slowing down. However, around 70% of these have been filed since 2015, the year the Paris Agreement was adopted. 233 of these cases were filed in 2023.
Are you a sustainability professional? Stay ahead of the curve by subscribing to our weekly CSO Newsletter
David McEwen
Climate Change · ESG
illuminem briefings
Sport · Climate Change
illuminem briefings
Public Governance · Ethical Governance
The Guardian
Climate Change · Environmental Sustainability
CNN
Climate Change · Effects
France24
Public Governance · Climate Change
