Climate change litigation update

Introduction

In the two years since our last climate litigation update, the prevalence and variety of global climate litigation around the world has continued to increase. As in preceding years, most new cases were filed in the United States, however the uptake in other jurisdictions has been sharp (with 95 cases filed in Brazil alone since July 2023). Jurisdictions such as Namibia, Costa Rica, Panama, and the Vatican City have also seen their first climate litigation cases.

As of July 2025, the total number of climate change cases filed globally has reached 3,099, up from approximately 2,550 in July 2023.¹

In this update, we consider the broad trends in recent climate litigation and then consider a selection of standout cases from the past two years in more detail. 

Key trends

Reviewing the developments in climate litigation since July 2023, it is clear that it is not only accelerating in magnitude and geographical reach, but there have been a number of landmark judgments which – sometimes, even in the case of a loss – have shifted norms and expectations with regard to state obligations, polluter accountability for future emissions (and liability for past emissions), shareholder behaviour, and much more.

The following are just some of the trends we have identified from this period:

1. Role of international courts & tribunals: Whilst it is not new for climate litigants to seek relief from international bodies (see past updates which summarised decisions of the Human Rights Committee for example), litigants have had high-profile successes in more authoritative courts.

The victory in KlimaSeniorinnen in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is the best example, and the advisory opinions from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are perhaps a joint second. We can also expect similar advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice (on 23 July 2025) and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights soon.

1. New tests and criteria for climate liability: Recent cases have also been useful for the development of judicial tests which can be applied elsewhere as a guide to whether states and other parties are failing in their climate obligations. Examples of these judicial tests include:
   1. The ECtHR’s five stage test for determining whether a state is in its margin of appreciation for meeting its emissions reduction obligations (from KlimaSeniorinnen)
   2. The three criteria set out by the South Korea Constitutional Court for assessing climate-related measures under the South Korean constitution (from Woodpecker).

   The criteria for exercising proper due diligence when operating a REDD+ project (from Pirá Paraná) is another example which actors in carbon markets should be alive to.

2. Environmental impact assessments (EIAs): There have also been several decisions which have considered whether future scope 3 emissions should be factored into EIAs and planning permission decisions (and if so, to what extent).

The most notable case here is Finch, in which the UK Supreme Court decided that a local authority’s decision to grant planning permission for a project involving four new oil wells was unlawful because it did not properly factor in its downstream emissions. The case brought by Greenpeace Nordic in Norway, which is currently ongoing, may advance this area further.

1. Government-initiated litigation against fossil fuel entities: Driven by the US thus far, there has also been a sweep of cases in which state and local authorities have sued fossil fuel companies for their historical emissions, whilst also alleging some form of deceptive conduct (on the basis that these companies knew that their products would cause changes to the climate and sought to hide or downplay this).

The most cited example is likely the ongoing case brought by 16 Puerto Rican municipalities against 11 fossil fuel majors, alleging that the defendants caused an intensification of the storms which Puerto Rico experienced in 2017. The case brought by the State of Minnesota against the American Petroleum Institute and others is a further example.

1. Climate attribution: Finally, litigation continues to test the boundaries of whether it is possible to hold actors to account for harms which occur far from where they released their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

This was the central issue in Lliuya, which involved a Peruvian farmer and mountain guide seeking a pro rata reimbursement from the German utility RWE for the cost of his flood protection defences (which, he argued, became necessary owing to climate change). He sought an amount from RWE based on its 0.47 per cent contribution to global GHG emissions, (equal to about $US 19,000). Whilst his claim did not succeed, it may inspire other climate litigants to try a similar approach under Germany’s Civil Code (or similar codes in other jurisdictions).

Key cases

In the remainder of this update, we consider these and other notable cases from around the world which have shaped the development of climate litigation over the past two years.

Administrative law

South Africa | Africa Climate Alliance & ors v Minister of Mineral Resources & Energy & ors (#CancelCoal case)

In November 2021, a coalition of environmental and climate justice groups including the youth-led African Climate Alliance filed proceedings in the High Court of South Africa against the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, the National Energy Regulator of South Africa, the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, and the President over the South African Government’s plan to generate 1,500 megawatts of new coal-fired power between 2023 and 2027.

The applicants argued that the decision fundamentally infringed upon multiple constitutional provisions, such as the right to a healthy environment and to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations, the right to life, dignity and equality, and the importance of acting in the best interests of children. The applicants also emphasised the lack of consideration of feasible cleaner technology and renewable energy. The respondents argued that South Africa’s energy crisis warranted the procurement of coal-fired power.

In the judgment handed down on 4 December 2024, the High Court held that the Government’s plan was unconstitutional and therefore unlawful and invalid. The Government had failed to meet its obligations to assess the potential infringements on constitutional rights, particularly the health and wellbeing of children, and had not properly considered the feasibility of alternative options. Additionally, the Government also failed to ensure transparency in its decision-making process. This is a significant decision in relation to the consideration given to the rights of children, and in light of South Africa’s urgent and ongoing energy crisis.

United Kingdom | R (on the application of Finch on behalf of the Weald Action Group) v Surrey County Council & ors

In June 2024, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom handed down a landmark judgment, with potentially wide-reaching ramifications for the fossil fuel industry. The case concerned a judicial review of planning permission granted by a local authority to a developer for four new oil wells in Surrey, which would produce crude oil over a 25-year period. The subject of the challenge was that the developer’s EIA had considered the scope 1 and 2 emissions of the new wells but not their potential scope 3 emissions, contrary to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, which gave domestic effect to the Directive 2011/92 EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (Directive).

The Supreme Court held that the local authority’s decision to grant the planning permission was unlawful because the EIA failed to assess the effect of the wells’ scope 3 emissions. The Directive does not impose a geographical limit to the consideration of the environmental impact of a project and, therefore, an EIA should not be confined to emissions released only at the project site. As a result of this case, local authorities in the UK will need to be mindful that the failure to take downstream emissions into account may open planning decisions up to challenge.

Following this judgment, in June 2025, the UK’s Department for Energy Security & Net Zero released guidance on assessing the effects of scope 3 emissions when conducting EIAs. Please find this linked here.

United States | Greenidge Generation LLC v New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

On 14 November 2024, the New York Supreme Court overturned a decision by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to deny the renewal of the air emissions permit for Greenidge Generation LLC’s (Greenidge) Bitcoin mining powerplant. This denial would entail the mining powerplant being shut down.

The DEC rejected the renewal of the permit on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the Climate Leadership and Community Protect Act (CLCPA), specifically section 7. This requires New York state agencies to consider if decisions are “inconsistent with, or will interfere with, the attainment of the statewide [greenhouse gas] emission limits”. Greenridge challenged the DEC’s authority to deny its application under the CLCPA.

The court affirmed the DEC’s authority to deny a permit where it would be inconsistent with the CLCPA. However, it also found the DEC’s decision to be procedurally deficient because it had failed to properly consider potential justifications for the inconsistency (as permitted under the CLCPA). The matter was remitted to the DEC for further consideration, which would require a proper justification analysis by the DEC for its denial of Greenidge’s application. This judgment is significant as it underscores the ability of New York state agencies to make decisions that have regard to the state’s ambitious emissions reduction goals.

Norway | Greenpeace Nordic and Nature & Youth v Energy Ministry (The North Sea Fields Case)

In June 2023, two environmental non-governmental organisations, Greenpeace Nordic and Natural og Ungdom (Nature & Youth), challenged three decisions of the Norwegian Energy Ministry (Ministry) to permit the development of three oil and gas fields in the North Sea (Yggdrasil, Tyrving and Breidablikk).

On 18 January 2024, the Oslo District Court declared the Ministry’s decisions to be invalid. While the oil fields had undergone EIAs, the court found the Norwegian Government had failed to consider scope 3 emissions from the oil produced from the project (which is required under petroleum legislation when interpreted in light of the right to a healthy environment in the Norwegian Constitution). The court issued an injunction, halting any advancement of the projects.

Then, in October 2024, the Oslo Court of Appeals reversed the interim injunction on the basis that upholding it would invalidate all recent approvals of oil and gas projects. The Court of Appeals also considered that the appellants’ arguments were about Norway’s national approach to petroleum (as opposed to only relating to the three gas fields which were the subject of the EIA) and thus should be dealt with by the Norwegian Parliament.

Following an appeal, on 11 April 2025, the Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeal’s orders must be set aside and it must rehear the matter. When it rehears the matter, it must appropriately consider whether the fundamental conditions for granting an interim injunction are met.

Separately, on 5 July 2024, the Court of Appeals had referred this matter to the European Free Trade Agreement (EFTA) Court for an advisory opinion on whether the scope 3 emissions of extracted petroleum and natural gas constitute “effects” under the European Union Environmental Impact Assessment Directive.

On 21 May 2025, the EFTA Court determined that the GHG emissions from the combustion of oil and gas must be considered before oil and gas extraction projects are approved, because such emissions are likely significant effects of those projects. The EFTA Court judgment will now be relevant to the rehearing of this matter in the Court of Appeals, set to be heard in September 2025.

Human and/or constitutional rights

Switzerland | KlimaSeniorinnen v Switzerland (ECtHR)

In November 2020, after having exhausted all available domestic legal remedies, a group of elderly Swiss women brought a claim against Switzerland in the ECtHR for its failure to adopt adequate climate policies, which they argued infringed their right to life and health under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (Convention). They argued their demographic is particularly vulnerable to heat waves, which are exacerbated by the climate crisis.

The applicants’ claim also alleged that the handling of their case by the Swiss courts was a violation of their rights under Article 6 and 13 of the Convention (to a fair trial and an effective remedy, respectively).

In April 2024, the ECtHR handed down its judgment, finding that member States do have positive obligations in relation to climate change, including by establishing a national carbon budget or GHG emissions limits. The ECtHR provided the following five stage test to assess whether a State is within its ‘margin of appreciation’ for meeting this obligation, which asks whether domestic authorities “be it at the legislative, executive or judicial level”:

1. Have specified a timeline for achieving carbon neutrality, with some method of quantifying future GHG emissions (such as a carbon budget).
2. Have set out intermediate emissions reduction targets which are capable, in principle, of meeting the overall GHG reduction goals.
3. Have evidenced that they are complying with the relevant GHG reduction targets.
4. Are keeping GHG reduction targets updated with the best available science.
5. Are acting in good time, and in an appropriate and consistent manner, when devising and implementing relevant legislation and measures.

In October 2024, the Swiss Government submitted an action report in response to the judgment, claiming they are now compliant with the requirements imposed by the ECtHR. However, the claims made by the Swiss Government in the action report are disputed by KlimaSeniorinnen, who argue that the Swiss Government remains non-compliant.

The judgment has been recognised as a landmark ruling because it is the first instance in which the ECtHR has recognised that States have a positive obligation to reduce their GHG emissions. Furthermore, it has provided a test which other climate litigants will be able to use when determining whether to bring a claim, and when arguing their case.

Canada | La Rose & ors v His Majesty the King

In October 2019, 15 youth plaintiffs filed a claim against the Canadian Government and the Attorney-General of Canada alleging that Canada violated their rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom (Charter) to life, liberty, security of the person and equality (as youth are disproportionately affected by climate change).

The plaintiffs argued that Canada’s failure to take adequate climate action or prevent fossil fuel development is incompatible with supporting a stable climate. Some of the impacts noted by the plaintiffs included deterioration of health, damage to property (for example by increased flooding) and increased exposure to unprecedented natural disasters. The defendants acknowledged the significant effect of climate change on Canada, but argued the plaintiffs lacked public standing and so their claims were not justiciable. In October 2020, the Federal Court struck out the case for failing to state a reasonable cause of action.

Following this, the plaintiffs filed a successful Notice of Appeal (with a narrower cause of action). In December 2023, the Federal Court of Appeal decided that the case could progress to trial on the question of section 7 of the Charter (but not section 15). In particular, the court sympathised with the argument that the infringement of section 7 was linked to the failure of Canada to meet its Paris Agreement commitments, which are “legally defined, objective standards against which the Charter claims can be assessed”.²

In December 2024, the Federal Court ordered that the eight-week trial will begin on 26 October 2026 in Vancouver.

Japan | Youth Climate Lawsuit for Tomorrow

On 6 August 2024, 16 young people from Japan applied for an injunction in the Nagoya District Court against ten thermal power companies. The plaintiffs are seeking to enforce internationally recognised CO2 emissions reductions targets on the power companies.³

The plaintiffs allege that this injunction is essential for the companies to fulfil their legal obligation under Articles 709 and 719 of Japan’s Civil Code to reduce their CO2 emissions to the levels indicated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s AR6 Synthesis Report: 48 per cent by 2030 and 65 per cent by 2035 compared to 2019 levels. This aligns with the 1.5°C target under the Paris Agreement. Article 709 of the Civil Code provides that: “A person that has intentionally or negligently infringed the rights or legally protected interests of another person is liable to compensate for damage caused by his/her infringement.”

The plaintiffs argue that the ten companies account for about 33 per cent of Japan’s energy-derived CO2 emissions and the companies’ current 2030 reduction targets are “extremely inadequate” and rely on “technically unproven technologies” such as hydrogen/ammonia co-firing and carbon capture and storage to reduce CO2 emissions.

The first hearing was held on 24 October 2024, with the subsequent hearing held on 18 February 2025. Hearings are expected to continue throughout 2025, with the third hearing held on 22 May 2025 and the fourth hearing scheduled for 17 September 2025.

This is the first youth-led climate case brought in Japan.

South Korea | Woodpecker & ors v South Korea

In June 2022, 60 child plaintiffs filed a claim against the Government of South Korea, arguing that they failed to protect the plaintiffs from the threat of climate change as per their rights under the South Korean Constitution (including the right to life, general freedom, the pursuit of happiness and a healthy environment). This claim related to South Korea’s Carbon Neutrality Plan and proposed emissions reduction target of 40 per cent by 2030 (against 2018 levels). The emissions target is contained in Article 8, Section 1 of the Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth for Coping with the Climate Crisis.

On 29 August 2024, the South Korean Constitutional Court handed down its ruling. In doing so, it established the following principles for assessing climate-related measures under the constitution. These must:

1. Be based on South Korea’s fair share of global efforts to mitigate and adapt.
2. Not impose an excessive burden on the future.
3. Be based on a legal framework incorporating continuous GHG reductions.

On this basis, the court held that the 2030 target did not violate the state’s obligations (due to a lack of criteria for determining South Korea’s appropriate share of global emissions reductions). However, it did find that the lack of targets for the years beyond 2030 fell below the standard required by the above principles. A majority of the court also found South Korea’s Carbon Neutrality Plan was unconstitutional, on the basis that its emissions reduction efforts would not actually meet the 2030 40 per cent target.

This is the first ruling of its kind in Asia. South Korea’s National Assembly is now required to amend the law and create year-by-year carbon-reduction targets for 2031 to 2049 by February 2026.

Colombia | Pirá Paraná Indigenous Council and Association of Indigenous Traditional Authorities of River Pirá Paraná “ACAIPI” v Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development & ors

In July 2022, the Pirá Paraná Indigenous Council and the Association of Indigenous Traditional Authorities filed a legal complaint in Colombia, alleging that companies operating REDD+ projects had violated their rights to self-determination, cultural integrity, governance, and territorial sovereignty.

REDD+ projects link local communities that protect forests, with companies that buy carbon credits to offset their emissions. The plaintiffs argued that the companies failed to conduct human rights due diligence, obtain free, prior, and informed consent, and monitor the potential harms. They also believed that their rights were violated due to an exclusion of Indigenous authorities and inadequate protection by the Government.

Lower courts dismissed the case on procedural grounds. In 2023, Colombia’s Constitutional Court reviewed it, partially in recognition of the need for clear judicial guidelines on the implementation of REDD+ projects and the protection of Indigenous rights. In June 2024, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, affirming their rights were violated. The court ruled that private companies operating REDD+ projects should exercise due diligence by:

1. Incorporating domestic and international human rights standards.
2. Ensuring there is a free, prior, and informed consent.
3. Adequately monitoring harms from the project.
4. Integrating ethnic and Indigenous perspectives into the project.

Acknowledging the importance of the projects for sustainable forest management, the court ordered a dialogue between the parties so that Indigenous groups can decide if, and how, to implement REDD+ projects in their territories.

India | M K Ranjitsinh & Ors v Union of India & Ors

In April 2019, Mr Ranjitsinh brought a petition against the Union of India in the Supreme Court of India. The petition related to the conservation of two endangered bird species, the Grean Indian Bustard and the Lesser Florican.

In April 2021, the Supreme Court ordered restrictions on overhead transmission lines and directed instead that underground cables be used, in addition to other conservation friendly initiatives around the birds’ “critical habitats”. In November 2021, the Union of India applied to modify this judgment, due to its alleged unfeasibility and the detrimental impact on India’s renewable energy transition and international climate commitments.

In March 2024, the Supreme Court decided to modify its April 2021 decision, and appointed an expert committee to determine the feasibility of underground cables within “priority” habitat areas. With references to the right to equality (Article 14) and the right to life (Article 21) in the Indian Constitution, the court recognised a distinct “right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change.” To balance conservation efforts with the need for sustainable development and emissions reduction, it eased some of the restrictions from its April 2021 order.

The case is noteworthy for its recognition that efforts to tackle the climate crisis will have their own environmental impacts and the use of rights-based litigation as a means to resolve these conflicts.

United States | Held & ors v State of Montana

In 2020, 16 youth plaintiffs filed a complaint against the State of Montana, arguing that the state’s energy policy and a specific provision in the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) violated their constitutional rights under the state’s constitution. This case was the first in the USA to be brought on the basis of a constitutional right to a healthy environment.

The plaintiffs argued that the state’s energy policy “permitted” and “encouraged” fossil fuel extraction and did not adequately consider the negative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change. The plaintiffs also argued that a specific provision in the MEPA prevented state agencies from considering greenhouse gas emissions or the potential impacts on climate when conducting environmental reviews.

On 18 December 2024, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed a District Court’s decision from July 2023 that the Montana Constitution protects the right to a stable climate system, and that the provision in the MEPA that restricted consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews violated that constitutional right.

We covered this ruling in a more detailed legal update, which can be found here.

The Netherlands | Milieudefensie & ors v Royal Dutch Shell plc.

In April 2019, the plaintiffs filed a summons against Shell in the Hague District Court alleging that Shell had breached its duty of care under the Dutch Civil Code and its human rights obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

In our updates from August 2021 and September 2022, we outlined in more detail the District Court’s orders for Shell to reduce CO2 emissions by 45 per cent by 2030 (based on 2019 levels). It did so on the basis that Shell had an obligation under the “unwritten standard of care” in the Dutch Civil Code to mitigate climate change.

On 12 November 2024, the Court of Appeal of the Hague overturned the District Court’s decision. While it endorsed the interpretative approach of the lower court and affirmed Shell’s duty of care to mitigate climate change, it declined to impose a specific emission reduction target on Shell, stating that a 45 per cent reduction obligation, or any other percentage, does not apply to Shell’s scope 3 emissions. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that there are obstacles, both legally and practically, that would make it hard to require Shell to limit GHG-related activities in such a specific way. Furthermore, it recognised that businesses should have the flexibility to determine their own emissions reduction strategies.

In May 2025, Milieudefensie announced that it would be launching a new case against Shell for having “another 700 oil and gas fields in the pipeline”. In announcing the claim, Milieudefensie linked the claim to a recognition in the November 2024 judgment that new oil and gas fields were “at odds” with international emissions reduction targets.

European Union | Duarte Agostinho & ors v Portugal and 32 Other States

In September 2020, six young Portuguese nationals filed a claim in the ECtHR against Portugal and 32 other countries. The applicants claimed that their rights under Articles 2, 3, 8 and 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms were threatened by the effects of climate change attributable to the respondent Governments and sought an order requiring these countries to take more ambitious action to address climate change.

The applicants relied on the effects of heatwaves and wildfires in Portugal to demonstrate the effects of climate change on their rights to life, well-being, mental health and amenities of their homes.

In April 2024, the ECtHR dismissed the claim. It found that the applicants could not establish extraterritorial jurisdiction in respect of the 32 additional countries. The ECtHR found no existing basis on which to establish such jurisdiction, and that the facts of the case did not justify expanding an existing basis or establishing a novel basis (in brief, ECtHR maintained that jurisdiction requires “control over the person himself or herself rather than the person’s interests”).⁴

Furthermore, whilst the applicants established territorial jurisdiction in respect of Portugal, the ECtHR nevertheless dismissed the application as the applicants’ domestic legal remedies had not been exhausted.

Advisory opinions

Various states | Request for an advisory opinion on the obligations of States with respect to climate change

On 29 March 2023, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 77/276 at its 74th plenary meeting, entitled “Request for an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of States in respect of climate change” (the Request).

The Request asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to consider what the obligations of States are under international law, including conventions, duties and principles, to protect the climate system from anthropogenic GHG emissions and what the legal consequences are for States where they have caused significant harm to the climate system through their acts and omissions.

Throughout 2024, 62 States submitted written comments to the ICJ for their consideration before a two-week hearing was held in December 2024. In the hearing, 96 States and 11 international organisations presented oral statements. States including China, Saudi Arabia, the United States and the United Kingdom argued for a narrow interpretation of States’ obligations as contained within the Paris Agreement and a limited number of other international climate agreements. Meanwhile, States including Vanuatu, Bolivia, Samoa and Kenya argued for a broader interpretation, which would include obligations to prevent significant environmental harm, protect human rights, and not cause transboundary harm.

The ICJ is currently deliberating and will issue its advisory opinion at a public sitting at a date on 23 July 2025. The ICJ’s advisory opinion will provide important guidance for States on their obligations under international law to protect the climate system and what legal consequences may arise for failing to fulfil those obligations.

Various states | Request for an Advisory Opinion submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law

On 12 December 2022, the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law submitted a request to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) to provide an advisory opinion regarding the specific obligations of State Parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to: