10 Landmark Climate Change Cases

This report details ten landmark climate change cases across different countries, highlighting how courts are holding governments and corporations accountable. Key examples include the Urgenda case in the Netherlands, which established a state's legal duty to increase climate ambition, and the Milieudefensie v. Shell case, which held a private company liable for inadequate emissions reductions. The document explores diverse legal strategies, including human rights obligations, fiduciary duties of corporate boards, and the necessity of climate considerations in environmental impact assessments.

• In Australia, the New South Wales Land and Environment Court rejected a proposed open-cut coal mine in the Gloucester valley, marking the first time an Australian decision to reject a coal mine was based on its potential contribution to climate change. The court rejected arguments that emissions would be offset or that the project was justifiable because it produced coking coal for steel production, concluding the project was "in the wrong place at the wrong time".
• The Netherlands Supreme Court ruled that the Dutch government is legally obliged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% over 1990 levels by the end of 2020. The court based this on human rights law, specifically Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, establishing that a State has an individual responsibility to do "its part" even though climate change is a global problem.
• Germany's Federal Constitutional Court found parts of the Federal Climate Change Act unconstitutional because it lacked provisions for updating emission reduction targets after 2030. The court introduced the concept of an "intertemporal guarantee of freedom", arguing that one generation cannot consume a disproportionate share of the CO2 budget, thereby leaving future generations with a drastic reduction burden.
• A Dutch district court ordered Royal Dutch Shell to reduce its Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions by 45% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels. The ruling established that private corporations have an individual responsibility to respect human rights and a duty of care to align their emissions reductions with global climate goals, independent of state measures.
• The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are "air pollutants" under the Clean Air Act, meaning the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a duty to regulate them. The court found the EPA's refusal to issue emission standards for new motor vehicles was "arbitrary, capricious,… or otherwise not in accordance with law."
• In Pakistan, the Lahore High Court ruled that the government's failure to implement its National Climate Change Policy 2012 violated fundamental rights. The court extended the concept of "Environmental Justice" to "Climate Justice" and ordered the creation of a cross-ministerial Climate Change Commission to expedite adaptation measures.
• A Kenyan Tribunal invalidated the environmental impact assessment (EIA) license for a proposed 1050 MW coal power plant in Lamu due to inadequate public participation and a failure to consider the Climate Change Act 2016. The court emphasized that public participation is the "oxygen" of the EIA process.
• South African courts ruled that climate change impacts are "relevant factors" that must be considered before granting environmental authorizations for coal-fired power stations, even if not explicitly written in the statute. This led to the eventual cancellation of the Thabametsi power project after financing was withdrawn by several commercial and development banks.
• The Supreme Court of Argentina upheld the constitutionality of the Law of Glaciers, which prohibits harmful extractive activities in glacier and permafrost areas. The court weighed the right to a healthy environment and the right to water against the interests of mining companies, treating glaciers as "strategic reserves" for the global water supply.
• In Poland, a court annulled a resolution by the power company Enea to build the Ostrołęka C coal-fired power plant. The court accepted the argument from minority shareholder ClientEarth that the project posed an indefensible financial risk due to rising carbon prices and the decreasing cost of renewables, breaching the board's fiduciary duties.

APA

Sergienko, O. (n.d.). 10 Landmark Climate Change Cases. ClientEarth. https://www.clientearth.org/media/q0jak2fr/10-landmark-climate-change-cases_clientearth_compressed.pdf

Chicago

Sergienko, Olena. 10 Landmark Climate Change Cases. ClientEarth, n.d. https://www.clientearth.org/media/q0jak2fr/10-landmark-climate-change-cases_clientearth_compressed.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Sergienko |first1=Olena |title=10 Landmark Climate Change Cases |publisher=ClientEarth |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/q0jak2fr/10-landmark-climate-change-cases_clientearth_compressed.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{sergienkondlandmark, author = {Sergienko, Olena}, title = {{10 Landmark Climate Change Cases}}, institution = {ClientEarth}, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/q0jak2fr/10-landmark-climate-change-cases_clientearth_compressed.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }