Climate Litigation Updates (June 27, 2025)

Margaret Barry and Maria Antonia Tigre

June 27, 2025

The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law publishes summaries of developments in climate-related litigation twice each month. We also add these developments to our U.S. and Global climate litigation charts. If you know of any cases we have missed, please email us at [email protected]. Thanks to Sabin Center interns Mabel Ciepluch, Korina Leyl, and Victor Tong for their assistance in preparing this update.

HERE ARE THE ADDITIONS TO THE U.S. CLIMATE CASE CHART FOR UPDATE #199

FEATURED U.S. CASE

Supreme Court Held that Fuel Producers Had Standing to Challenge Preemption Waiver for California Vehicle Emissions Regulations

In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and ruled that fuel producers had standing to challenge the Clean Air Act preemption waiver granted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for California’s Advanced Clean Cars I program regulations. The regulations impose fleet-wide limits on greenhouse gas emissions and mandate that automakers’ vehicle fleets sold in California include a certain percentage of zero emission vehicles. EPA granted a preemption waiver for the regulations in 2013 that was withdrawn in 2019. The fuel producers challenged the Biden administration’s 2022 rescission of the 2019 waiver withdrawal. EPA and California argued that the fuel producers did not have standing to challenge the waiver because setting it aside and invalidating the California regulations would not result in automakers manufacturing more gasoline-powered vehicles and would therefore not redress the fuel producers’ alleged injury. The Court described the injury and causation elements of standing as “straightforward,” finding that the regulations “likely cause” decreased purchases of gasoline and other liquid fuels and therefore “likely cause” monetary injuries to the fuel producers. Regarding the disputed element of redressability, the Court found that setting aside the preemption waiver and invalidating the California regulations “would likely redress at least some of the fuel producers’ monetary injuries” by resulting in more revenue from additional liquid fuel sales. The Court reasoned that it was not necessary to determine whether the fuel producers had standing based on their possible status an “object” of the California regulations. Instead, the Court found that the fuel producers “readily demonstrated” standing by applying “commonsense economic principles” regarding the impacts of regulation on the automobile market supplemented with record evidence from the fuel producers, EPA, California, and vehicle manufacturers. The Court rejected EPA and California’s argument that the fuel producers should be required to produce additional evidence regarding the impact of invalidating California’s regulations and also found that the case “does not present the unusual scenario where invalidating a challenged government restriction on businesses in a competitive market is not likely to have any effect.” Noting that its decision did not concern the merits of the fuel producers’ case, the Court remanded to the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings.

Justice Sotomayor dissented, writing that the D.C. Circuit’s decision on the fuel producers’ standing was based on a factual misunderstanding that the entirety of the California regulations expired with vehicle model year 2025. She therefore would have vacated and remanded to the D.C. Circuit for reconsideration of the redressability analysis. Justice Jackson also dissented, writing that by agreeing to hear, and rendering a decision in, a case that was “largely moot already” and would soon be moot due to the Trump administration’s anticipated withdrawal of the waiver, the Court “gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens.” Justice Jackson said the Court’s “insistence on resolving the standing question in this case strains our usual case-selection standards, which are highly selective,” and that the Court’s ruling, while it amounted “to little more than error correction in the context of a dispute that all agree will be over soon in any event,” would “no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act.” Justice Jackson wrote that the Court’s standing analysis “also invites questions about inconsistent decisionmaking and whether this Court is holding business litigants to the same standards as everyone else.” Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA, No. 24-7 (U.S. June 20, 2025)

DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS

D.C. Circuit Found Shortcomings in Renewable Fuel Standards Rule’s Analysis of Climate Change and Endangered Species

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found that EPA’s analysis of the climate change effects of its 2023 rule setting Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) Program standards for 2023, 2024, and 2025 was arbitrary and capricious. The court said EPA failed to adequately explain why it relied on “an admittedly outdated study” from 2010 for its assessment of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with crop-based biofuels instead of using newer data that estimated higher emissions for corn-based ethanol. The court said the “substantial, unexplained discrepancy” in the high-end emissions estimates from the 2010 study and in the newer data was “particularly problematic” because corn-based ethanol “is by volume the largest category of renewable fuel produced in the United States” and “drives the largest aggregate portion of GHG emissions attributable to renewable fuels.” The court said that if EPA improperly relied on the lower emissions estimate, it would lack support for its conclusion that corn-based ethanol provides some GHG reduction compared to gasoline, and its determinations of renewable fuel volumes could have been skewed. The D.C. Circuit also found that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) did not adequately explain its conclusion that the standards would have “no effect” on endangered species or their critical habitat. The court rejected two other critiques of EPA’s climate change analysis: (1) its decision not to use a “model comparison exercise” to evaluate climate effects and (2) its decision not to include the “carbon opportunity cost” of renewable fuel production in its climate change analysis. The court found that EPA’s decision not to use the carbon opportunity cost analysis for which environmental groups advocated was “reasonable and reasonably explained” because that analysis relied on a “flawed assumption” that if land were not used to grow renewable fuel feedstocks it would lie fallow and regenerate native vegetation. The court’s majority also rejected the environmental groups’ contention that EPA’s weighing of statutory factors was arbitrary and capricious because it gave “short shrift” to harms to the environment, environmental justice, and communities. The court also rejected all arguments made by petroleum product refiners, a renewable fuel producer, and a trade association representing certain biodiesel stakeholders. The court concluded that remand without vacatur was the appropriate remedy because EPA and FWS might be able to adequately justify their conclusions regarding climate change and effects on endangered species and critical habitats on remand. A dissenting judge disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that EPA “adequately accounted” for relevant costs and benefits and would have set aside the standards because “EPA has shown no significant possibility that it will be able to rehabilitate the requirements on remand.” Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, No. 23-1177 (D.C. Cir. June 20, 2025)

Ninth Circuit Largely Rejected Environmental Groups’ Challenges to Willow Oil and Gas Project

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld federal agencies’ authorizations for the Willow Project, a major oil and gas project in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve (NPR-A). The Ninth Circuit concluded, however, that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) approval of the project was arbitrary and capricious because the agency did not explain its decision to select an alternative that did not facilitate “full field development” and that “stranded economically viable quantities of oil” despite its earlier decisions not to consider alternatives that did not allow for full field development. The Ninth Circuit rejected the other National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) argument made by environmental groups: that BLM failed to consider downstream greenhouse gas emissions from future oil development caused by the Willow project as indirect effects. The court found that by estimating emissions from potential future development in the cumulative effects section, BLM had complied with its NEPA obligations to consider indirect effects and cumulative impacts. Under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act (Reserves Act), the Ninth Circuit rejected an argument that BLM had unlawfully rejected alternatives that would have reduced effects on significant surface resources in the NPR-A. The Ninth Circuit also found that BLM reasonably explained its decision not to adopt certain mitigation measures—including offsetting emissions through reforestation, limiting the project’s lifespan, and requiring periodic NEPA reviews—to address downstream greenhouse gas emissions caused by the project that petitioners said would harm surface resources. Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Ninth Circuit found that Center for Biological Diversity had standing for its ESA claims but rejected them on the merits. The court found that BLM was not arbitrary or capricious when it declined to expand the scope of its consultation under Section 7 of the ESA to consider potential impacts on polar bears and other listed species due to sea ice reduction caused by project-specific greenhouse gas emissions. The court further found that the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by concurring with BLM’s ESA analysis. The Ninth Circuit also found that BLM satisfied the requirements of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). The court remanded without vacatur.

One judge dissented from the majority’s remedy; he would have vacated the approval of the project because BLM failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the full field development standard that could be reconciled with the procedural and substantive requirements of NEPA, the Reserves Act, and ANILCA. He also raised questions regarding whether the regulations that allowed the federal agencies to forgo formal consultation under the ESA were consistent with the ESA’s text and purpose. In particular, he questioned the regulations’ but-for causation requirement for determining the scope of consultation. He wrote that “there is no telling whether scientific development in our time, or in generations to come, will allow for direct attribution between a project’s particular greenhouse gas emissions and its climate consequences,” but that “this dilemma should not allow an agency to cast aside their formal consultation obligations when presented with evidence that their actions will, albeit indirectly, adversely impact listed species.” Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, No. 23-3624 (9th Cir. June 13, 2025)

Fifth Circuit Rejected Pipeline Protestors’ Challenge to Louisiana Infrastructure Trespass Statute

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected constitutional challenges to Louisiana’s Infrastructure Trespass Statute, which criminalizes “unauthorized entry of a critical infrastructure.” The definition of “critical infrastructure” was amended in 2018 to include pipelines. The plaintiffs challenging the statute included individuals arrested in connection with protests of the Bayou Bridge Pipeline (“Arrested Plaintiffs”), “Landowner Plaintiffs” who opposed the pipeline and who allowed the protestors on their property, and individual and organizational “Advocacy Plaintiffs” who previously organized pipeline protests. The Fifth Circuit first affirmed the dismissal of the Louisiana Attorney General from the suit on sovereign immunity grounds and also affirmed the dismissal on standing grounds of the Advocacy Plaintiffs and Landowner Plaintiffs. In addition, the Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court’s determination that the Arrested Plaintiffs’ as-applied challenge to the Infrastructure Trespass Statute was moot because the statute of limitations for charges associated with the 2018 protests had expired. On the merits, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rejection of the plaintiffs’ claims that the Infrastructure Trespass Statute was unconstitutionally vague or that it constituted an impermissible content-based restriction or was overbroad under the First Amendment. One judge dissented from the majority’s conclusion that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague. White Hat v. Murrill, No. 24-30272 (5th Cir. June 20, 2025)

Washington Federal Court Issued Preliminary Injunction in States’ Case to Block Freeze on EV Infrastructure Funding

The federal district court for the Western District of Washington granted in part and denied in part 16 states’ motion for a preliminary injunction in their lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration’s actions to suspend or terminate funding under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act’s (IIJA’s) National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program for electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure. As threshold matters, the court found that the states’ claims were ripe and that the defendants’ action was reviewable final agency action under the Administrative Procedural Act. The court then found that the states were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that the defendants’ actions exceeded their authority under IIJA, that their action was likely arbitrary and capricious, not in accordance with law and performed without observance of required procedure, and in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. In addition, the court found that the states demonstrated harms to their EV infrastructure programs and administrative burdens that were not purely economic. The court also found that the balance of equities and public interest favored the states. The court granted the preliminary injunction motion as to all but three of the plaintiffs (Vermont, Minnesota, and the District of Columbia), finding that those plaintiffs had not established irreparable harm such as a delayed or canceled project. The court declined to impose a bond and stayed the injunction until July 1. Washington v. U.S. Department of Transportation, No. 2:25-cv-00848 (W.D. Wash. June 24, 2025)

Maryland Federal Court Vacated EPA’s Terminations of Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grants

The federal district court for the District of Maryland ruled that EPA’s terminations of environmental and climate justice block grants awarded under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grantmaking Program violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). As initial matters, the court concluded that it had jurisdiction under the APA to hear the claims and that the terminations of the grants were reviewable under the APA because the actions were not committed to agency discretion by law. On the merits, the court found that EPA acted in excess of its statutory authority because “the stated basis for terminating these grants”—a policy objection to “environmental justice” programs—was “entirely incompatible with the statutory mandate” to support environmental and climate justice. The court also found that the terminations were arbitrary and capricious due to the “lack of any reasoned decision-making, or reasoned explanation,” which was “compounded by the fact that the terminations reflect a reversal of EPA’s prior polices under which these grants” were awarded. The court did not reach the plaintiffs’ claims that the terminations violated the First Amendment and conflicted with federal grant regulations. As a remedy, the court vacated the terminations of the plaintiffs’ grants and remanded for further proceedings. Green & Healthy Homes Initiative, Inc. v. EPA, No. 1:25-cv-01096 (D. Md. June 17, 2025)

North Dakota Federal Court Granted Stipulated Preliminary Injunction Enjoining Resource Management Plan Amendments that Restricted Coal Development

In the State of North Dakota’s lawsuit challenging an amended Resource Management Plan (RMP) that restricted future coal development on federal lands in the state, the federal district court for the District of North Dakota granted the parties’ joint motion to adopt a stipulated preliminary injunction enjoining the amended RMP while the U.S. Bureau of Land Management reconsiders land management. The court also granted the parties’ request to stay proceedings in the case. North Dakota v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 1:25-cv-00042 (D.N.D. June 18, 2025)

Connecticut Federal Court Denied Stay in Climate Adaptation Case Regarding New Haven Terminal

In Conservation Law Foundation’s (CLF’s) citizen suit asserting that the owners and operators of a bulk fuel storage terminal in New Haven, Connecticut failed to prepare the facility for the impacts of climate change, the federal district court for the District of Connecticut denied the defendants’ motion to stay proceedings pending finalization of a new Connecticut general stormwater permit. The defendants argued that the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection’s (CT DEEP) 2024 draft permit introduced “Resilience Measures” as a “new” and “significant” climate consideration, thereby confirming that the prior permits never required the inclusion of climate risks in stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs). They claimed this regulatory development resolved the central dispute in CLF’s claims and warranted a pause in discovery to avoid unnecessary litigation costs.

The court rejected this reasoning, holding that the draft permit and its fact sheets did not indicate an overwhelming likelihood of success. The court highlighted that fact sheets are not the usual example of agency actions that are afforded deference. Moreover, the court emphasized that litigation costs alone do not constitute substantial prejudice sufficient to justify a stay, and that discovery was nearing completion with summary judgment briefing on the horizon. The court also found that Shell’s yearlong delay in seeking a stay—despite having access to the relevant draft language since early 2024—weighed against granting relief.

Additionally, the court denied as procedurally improper Shell’s omnibus motion to strike portions of CLF’s expert reports. The court also vacated a magistrate judge’s prior oral ruling denying Rule 37 discovery sanctions related to the defendants’ delayed disclosure of certain documents. The court said further record development was required to determine whether sanctions were warranted. Conservation Law Foundation v. Shell Oil Co., No. 3:21-cv-00933 (D. Conn. June 13, 2025)

New Jersey Federal Court Dismissed Challenges to Marine Mammal Protection Act Authorizations for Offshore Windfarms; Plaintiffs Withdrew Challenge to Atlantic Shores Wind Project Authorizations

The federal district court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment to federal defendants in a lawsuit challenging six Incidental Harassment Authorizations (IHAs) and a Letter of Authorization (LOA) issued pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act to developers of offshore wind facilities off the coast of New York and Jersey that authorized the take of marine mammals in conjunction with the development of the projects. The court ruled that claims related to two of the facilities—Atlantic Shores and Bluepoint Wind—were moot because their IHAs had expired and there was “no longer a reasonable expectation or demonstrated probability” that the Trump administration would issue future approvals. Although the court found that challenges to other expired IHAs were not moot, the court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge those IHAs as well as the unexpired LOA because they did not prove injury in fact. Alternatively, the court found that the plaintiffs’ claims failed on the merits because they did not show that take estimates of Right Whales and Humpback Whales were arbitrary and capricious. The court did not address the climate change-related allegations in the plaintiffs’ complaint. Save Long Beach Island v. U.S. Department of Commerce, No. 3:23-cv-01886 (D.N.J. June 11, 2025)

Plaintiffs challenging other federal authorizations for the Atlantic Shores project voluntarily dismissed their case without prejudice on June 16. They dismissed the case several days after the developer filed a petition with the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities seeking to terminate the project’s offshore renewable energy credits (ORECs) because the project had become “impracticable” on the existing terms in the OREC order. Save Long Beach Island v. U.S. Department of Commerce, No. 3:25-cv-00240 (D.N.J. June 16, 2025)

Federal Court Dismissed Challenge to Calumet Harbor Dredging Project

The federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a challenge to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ approval of the Calumet Harbor Dredged Material Facility after the agency withdrew its final decision on March 10, 2025. The project would have vertically expanded a dredged material disposal facility along Lake Michigan in Chicago. The plaintiffs’ allegations had included that the Corps did not fully evaluate and consider the impacts of climate change on the project.

The court held that without a “final agency action,” as required under 5 U.S.C. § 704, the plaintiffs could not proceed with their claims. Citing Driftless Area Land Conservancy v. Rural Utilities Service, 74 F.4th 489 (7th Cir. 2023), the court emphasized that judicial review under the APA requires a conclusive agency determination. Since the Corps’ withdrawal rendered the decision non-final, the court concluded that no justiciable APA claim remained. Although the court agreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that a withdrawal of an agency decision did not render the APA claim moot, the court emphasized the APA’s statutory requirement of a “final agency action,” which no longer existed.

Although plaintiffs agreed to a dismissal without prejudice, they sought to condition it on the Corps’ commitment to cap and permanently close the existing dredged materials site. The court denied that request, finding that such conditions functioned as a request for permanent injunctive relief—which could not be granted in the absence of a viable claim. Consequently, the court dismissed the case with prejudice, finding no remaining final agency action to adjudicate and noting that any future decision by the Corps would create a new case or controversy. Alliance of the Southeast v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 1:23-cv-01524 (N.D. Ill. June 5, 2025)

NEW CASES AND FILINGS

Class Action Challenged EPA’s Termination of Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant Program

Grantees under the Inflation Reduction Act’s Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant program filed a class action in federal district court in the District of Columbia challenging the termination of the program. The plaintiffs described themselves and proposed class members as “community-based nonprofit organizations, Tribes, local governments, and higher education institutions” that had each received one or more grants from the program. The complaint asserted that the termination violated separation of powers, the Presentment Clauses of the Constitution, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Appalachian Voices v. EPA, No. 1:25-cv-01982 (D.D.C., filed June 25, 2025)

Lawsuit Claimed that Environmental Review for Management Project in White Mountain National Forest Was Inadequate

A New England-focused environmental organization filed a lawsuit in federal district in New Hampshire challenging the U.S. Forest Service’s Sandwich Vegetation Management Project, which the organization alleged would allow 638 acres of commercial timber harvest in “predominantly mature and old forest” in the White Mountain National Forest, as well as prescribed burns on 306 acres, road reconstruction and alteration, and construction or reconstruction of log landings. The complaint alleged that the Forest Service failed to conduct the environmental review required by the National Environmental Policy Act, including by failing to quantify the project’s carbon emissions or the impact of logging on carbon storage and instead relying “on vague comparisons to national and global emissions.” The plaintiff contended that the Forest Service did not use best available science and that the agency dismissed comments that made “a substantial showing that carbon sequestration increases as forests age, and old forests store more carbon than young forests.” Other climate change-related allegations included contentions that the Forest Service ignored cumulative effects of similar actions in the White Mountain National Forest, including cumulative impacts to climate. The complaint also asserted that the Forest Service violated the National Forest Management Act. Standing Trees, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 1:25-cv-00237 (D.N.H., filed June 23, 2025)

Plaintiffs Sought to File Amended Complaint Challenging Colorado and Denver Building Performance Standards

Plaintiffs representing the real estate and hotel and lodging industries filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint in a lawsuit claiming that building performance standards adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission and the City and County of Denver are preempted by the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). The plaintiffs said their proposed amended complaint addressed standing issues identified by the federal district court for the District of Colorado when it dismissed the lawsuit in March 2025. The plaintiffs contended that their amended complaint demonstrated that the challenged standards “both concern and implicate the EPCA-preempted Covered Products in Plaintiffs’ members buildings.” Colorado Apartment Association v. Ryan, No. 1:24-cv-01093 (D. Colo. June 10, 2025)

HERE ARE RECENT ADDITIONS TO THE GLOBAL CLIMATE LITIGATION CHART

HIGHLIGHTED CASE

Netherlands: District Court of The Hague upholds the world’s first comprehensive fossil fuel advertising ban, rejecting a challenge on constitutional and EU Law grounds

On September 12, 2024, The Hague formally adopted an ordinance that prohibits advertisements for fossil fuel products and services in public and private spaces throughout The Hague. These products may include petrol, gas heating, diesel vehicles, air travel, cruise shipping, or other related items. The ordinance went into effect on January 1, 2025, serving as the first comprehensive legal ban of its kind globally.

On April 2, 2025, trade company ANVR and travel operators TUI, D-reizen, and Prijsvrij filed a complaint in the District Court of The Hague. The plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction to suspend the ordinance, alleging that the ban disproportionately restricted commercial freedom. The plaintiffs specifically alleged that the ban violates freedom of expression as protected under Article 7 of the Dutch Constitution. The plaintiffs further alleged that the ban violates EU regulations, specifically stating that the ban provides a higher level of consumer protection than the EU Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices legally provides. The plaintiffs also contended that the advertising ban violates the free movement of goods under Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), claiming that it would disadvantage foreign market participants.

The hearing took place on April 12, 2025, and the District Court of The Hague issued its ruling on April 25, 2025. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims and upheld the ban, stating that the municipality lawfully exercised its powers under Dutch administrative law and that rights under EU law are not absolute and may be restricted for reasons of public interest. The court also stated that the measure is non-discriminatory and that public interest in combating climate change supersedes the economic interests of advertisers. ANVR, TUI, D-reizen, and Prijsvrij v. The Hague (Netherlands, The Hague District Court)

DECISIONS & SETTLEMENTS

Kenya: Court rules that an EIA and public participation are required procedural elements for carbon offset projects

In 2021, petitioners filed on behalf of residents of Merti, seeking to enforce their Indigenous and community rights to halt conservation agencies from establishing a carbon offset project that would cover 10% of the county’s land. Petitioners maintained that the project sidestepped key procedural elements, including conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and consulting with local elders and community leaders. After exhausting options to address these concerns outside of the court, the petitioners filed their claims with the Environment and Land Court at Isiolo.

In January 2025, the court sided with the petitioners and issued three injunctive reliefs. The court based its decision on procedural grounds under the Kenyan Constitution (Article 3(1)). First, the establishment of conservancies in Chari ward and Cherab violated procedural elements such as public participation. Second, the Bulesa Biliqo community conservancy was operating illegally and was therefore halted. Third, a permanent injunction was granted regarding the mapping, surveying, entering, and recruitment for conservation efforts in the respective locales. Osman Vs. Northern Rangelands Trust (Kenya, Environment and Land Court at Isiolo)

Austria: Court rules that a beer advertisement claiming carbon neutrality must factor in the carbon emissions from the malting process

In June 2023, the Association for Consumer Protection (VKI) filed a civil lawsuit against Brau Union Österreich for misleading advertising. The company advertised its Gösser beer brand as 100% CO2 neutral. After the investigation, VKI found that only the beer brewing process did not require fossil fuels. However, Brau Union omitted the energy-intensive malting process from its advertising campaign. Brau Union contested that malting was not part of the brewing process.

The Linz Regional Court confirmed VKI’s opinion, noting that Brau Union failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that malting was not part of the brewing process. Moreover, the court noted that Brau Union’s website stated malting as a stage of brewing. Brau Union has filed an appeal. Brau Union Österreich (Beer Malting Greenwashing) (Austria, Linz Regional Court)

Austria: Court rules Austrian Airlines misled consumers with carbon-neutral flight claims

In September 2023, the Association for Consumer Protection (VKI) filed a civil lawsuit against Austrian Airlines regarding misinformation in their advertising campaign. Austrian Airlines made a Twitter post advertising a carbon-neutral flight to Venice made possible by sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). The court findings found that the percentage of SAF used on the flight was significantly lower than the amount necessary to reduce emissions by 80%. Moreover, the SAF was added only if ticket holders paid an overcharge on their fees, which was not mentioned in the advertisement.

The regional Court of Korneuburg sided with VKI and determined that Austrian Airlines’ advertisements were misleading. Austrian Airlines (Greenwashing) (Austria, Regional Court of Korneuburg)

France: Court rules that limiting climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a valid public interest that can be asserted for denying a project application even if the project meets every technical requirement

In March 2014, EG Lorraine SAS applied for a hydrocarbon exploration permit that was formally rejected by the Minister of Ecological Transition and Finance due to conflicts with the 2015 Energy Transition Law and the Paris Agreement. In July 2020, the Strasbourg Administrative Court annulled the refused permit after EG Lorraine filed complaints regarding abuse of powers. The ministry appealed to the Nancy Administrative Court of Appeals. In December 2022, the Court of Appeals rejected the Minister’s appeal, noting that the government’s energy policy could not form the sole basis for rejecting permitting. Following this decision, the minister then appealed to the Council of State.

In July 2024, the Council of State sided with the ministry, reversing the ruling in the appeals decision. The court noted that although the respective laws never cited climate change as a direct reason to reject a permit, the administration can refuse an application on the grounds of public interest. The Council stated that there is no “automatic right to a permit.” In other words, even if an applicant meets every technical requirement, the government is not obligated to accept the application on grounds related to public concern. Thus, the Council of State established that limiting climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a valid public interest. EG Lorraine Permitting (France, Council of State)

Nigeria: Federal High Court of Lagos orders government to disclose gas flaring records in victory for transparency

In early 2021, the Human and Environmental Development Agenda Resource Center submitted a formal complaint to the Federal High Court of Lagos. The complaint challenged the failure of multiple Nigerian government institutions to respond to HEDA’s Freedom of Information (FOI) request. The request for FOI was regarding gas flaring in the country, as HEDA was seeking access to detailed records on gas flaring, involved parties, and penalties from the Federal Ministry of Environment, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, and other relevant agencies.

HEDA contended that the agencies’ failure to respond to the request violates the provisions of the FOI Act, 2011, which protects the right of members of the public to request and obtain information from public institutions within seven days. The actual request was submitted to promote transparency in Nigeria’s extractive industries, as gas flaring has been a long-standing environmental and public health risk in Nigeria. Even though environmental regulations and financial penalties for gas flaring are outlined in the Associated Gas Re-Injection Act, HEDA questioned the inconsistent enforcement of the law.

In terms of relief, HEDA’s complaint sought for the court to order the government to release a list of companies issued permits to flare gas, the volumes of gas flared by each company from 2016-2021, the penalties imposed on these companies, records of penalties paid, and any additional documentation related to enforcement actions or non-compliance. HEDA also grounded its claims in Nigeria’s obligations under international human rights and environmental treaties focused on climate change mitigation, such as the Paris Agreement.

In May of 2025, the Federal High Court ruled in favor of HEDA, ordering the government to release the requested documents. The court found that the release of the information was of public interest and that the Federal Government had no legal grounds for withholding the information. HEDA Resource Centre v. Nigerian Government (gas flaring) (Nigeria, Federal High Court of Lagos)

Germany: Court rules Adidas’ “climate neutral by 2050” claim unlawful, citing misleading advertising under the Act Against Unfair Competition

In 2024, NGO Deutsche Umwelthilfe filed a complaint with the Nuremberg-Fürth Regional Court against Adidas and its statement that it would be “climate neutral by 2050”. The plaintiff alleges that the company’s climate-related advertising constituted a misleading commercial practice under the Act Against Unfair Competition.

The plaintiff contends that Adidas failed to disclose whether the target would be achieved through direct emissions reductions or carbon offsets. The plaintiff alleges that this ambiguity misleads consumers, as the Act Against Unfair Competition prohibits deceptive and unsubstantiated advertising.

In April of 2025, the Court ruled in favor of Deutsche Umwelthilfe, concluding that Adidas’s advertising claim was unlawful under the Act Against Unfair Competition. The Court emphasized that climate-related advertising statements must be substantiated and clearly communicated. Deutsche Umwelthilfe v. Adidas (Germany, Regional Court of Nuremberg-Fürth)

Iceland: Paris Agreement Implementation and Compliance Committee notified Iceland and Holy See they had not made required submissions

In 2023, the Paris Agreement Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC)* notified Iceland that it had not submitted a mandatory biennial communication of information under Article 9, paragraph 5, of the Paris Agreement. Iceland resolved the issue quickly. Iceland NDC disclosure (Iceland, Paris Agreement Implementation and Compliance Committee)

In 2023, the PAICC also notified the Holy See that it had not communicated a nationally determined contribution as required by Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Paris Agreement. The Holy See resolved the issue quickly. The Holy See NDC (the Holy See, Paris Agreement Implementation and Compliance Committee)

* The PAICC was established to facilitate the implementation of and promote compliance with the Paris Agreement. It is an expert-based, facilitative body composed of twelve members and twelve alternate members, elected by the Conference of the Parties, which serves as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA), based on equitable geographical representation. The PAICC operates in a non-punitive and non-adversarial manner, focusing on assisting parties in meeting their commitments. The Committee can take various measures to support implementation and compliance, including helping countries engage with relevant bodies on finance, technology, and capacity-building or assisting in the development of action plans. Its rules of procedure were adopted in 2022.

Uganda: Court Adjourns Decade-Long Case until September 2025

In 2012, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of four Ugandan minors. They argue that article 237 of the Ugandan Constitution makes the government of Uganda a public trustee of the nation’s natural resources—including its atmosphere—and that articles 39 and 237 require the government to preserve those resources from degradation for both present and future generations. Citing multiple examples of damage and loss of life resulting from extreme weather events, the plaintiffs allege that the government has breached its constitutional duty. In addition to asking the court to declare that the government is violating its public trust duty by not addressing climate change and thereby failing to prevent present and future harms, the plaintiffs request several forms of injunctive relief, such as orders compelling the government account accurately for nationwide greenhouse gas emissions and developing a plan to mitigate those emissions.

After a preliminary hearing, the High Court ordered the parties to undertake a 90-day mediation process, but took no further action through October 2017. Between 2018 and 2022, an array of witness statements, document evaluations, and lengthy adjournments (due to the judge’s or parties’ absence) occurred.

In June of 2023, the court reinstated evidence and allowed for a new next-friend application by the plaintiff, which was granted in July of 2023 and resulted in an amendment to the pleadings.

In May of 2024, the court granted the second defendant leave to amend their pleadings, and the matter was adjourned until September 19, 2024. The matter was then again adjourned twice more, and all parties appeared in court on March 31, 2025. It was then adjourned until May 12, 2025. During this hearing, the first defendant prayed for adjournment of the case, as he requested time to prepare and file a Trial Bundle. The court granted this request, and the matter is now adjourned until September 15, 2025. Mbabazi and Others v. The Attorney General and National Environmental Management Authority (Uganda, High Court of Kampala)

Kenya: Court denied interim injunction in suit brought by residents of Kilifi and environmental rights defenders challenging development of 1,000 MW nuclear power plant in Kilifi county

In early 2022, Kenya’s Nuclear Power and Energy Agency (NuPEA) initiated preliminary steps toward the development of a 1,000 MW nuclear power facility in Kilifi County. The project was intended to advance Kenya’s energy development agenda, which is pursuant to the state’s Vision 2030 plan. NuPEA selected a 600-acre tract in Kilifi South for the plant, which is adjacent to the Indian Ocean. The facility is expected to rely entirely on imported uranium fuel and was estimated to cost approximately 3.8 billion USD.

Advocates Collins Sang and Cecilia Ndeti, acting on behalf of residents of Kilifi and environmental rights defenders, submitted a complaint in July of 2023 in the Environment and Land Court in Malindi. The plaintiffs alleged that NuPEA’s actions in their site selection and initiating preliminary activities were conducted in contravention of multiple provisions of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. The plaintiffs specifically allege a violation of Article 10 (national values and principles of governance, including public participation and sustainable development).

The plaintiffs contend that NuPEA failed to incorporate meaningful public participation during the site selection process and disclose critical documents, such as risk analysis and feasibility assessments. The plaintiffs also raised concerns around NuPEA’s failure to submit a finalized Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA). NuPEA has stated that the development of the power plant is necessary for reaching the state’s climate mitigation goals.

In a ruling issued in 2025, the court declined to grant an interim injunction suspending the project, determining that the plaintiffs’ petition did not qualify for immediate relief. The court did affirm that the dispute raises constitutional and environmental concerns, and referred the matter to Chief Justice Martha Koome to establish a multi-judge bench. Collins Sang and Cecilia Ndeti v. Nuclear Power and Energy Agency (Kenya, Environment and Land Court in Malindi)

Romania: Court of Appeal rejected Greenpeace Romania appeal regarding insufficient climate impact assessment of the urban zoning plan connected to the Neptun Deep Gas Project

In July of 2024, Greenpeace Romania filed a complaint against the urban zoning plan connected to the Neptun Deep Gas Project, which is facilitated by OMV Petrom and Romgaz. Greenpeace Romania submitted the complaint before the Bucharest Court of First Instance, contending that no climate impact assessment had been conducted for the project’s onshore works, thus failing to comply with environmental impact assessment regulations.

The court dismissed Greenpeace’s claim, declining to assess the legality of the environmental permit. Greenpeace Romania, noting that other Romanian courts have undertaken more extensive analyses of environmental permits, filed an appeal with the Bucharest Court of Appeal. The court issued a judgement early in 2025 rejecting the appeal, ordering Greenpeace to pay approximately 30,000 EUR each to OMV and Romgaz. Greenpeace retains the right to appeal further for a definitive ruling.

In the meantime, Romgaz, which is 70% government-owned, began a lawsuit to dissolve Greenpeace Romania. The complaint alleges that Greenpeace Romania is engaged in fraudulent business practices. Greenpeace Romania v. OMV Petrom and Romgaz (Romania, Bucharest Court of Appeal)

NEW CASES

United Kingdom: Claim for judicial review filed against the government granting approval for a new gas-fired electricity generating station, contending that the government subsidy for the project unlawfully underwrites the developer’s loans

Dr. Andrew Boswell, represented by Leigh Day, filed a complaint on February 16, 2024, against the first respondent, the Secretary for Energy Security and Net Zero, for granting the application of a development consent order to the second respondent, Net Zero Teesside Power Limited and Net Zero North Sea Storage Limited. The plaintiff challenged the issuing of the development consent order under section 114 of the Planning Act 2008 “for a new gas-fired electricity generating station at Teesside with Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage”. The plaintiff contends that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero committed a legal error when assessing the significance of the greenhouse gas emissions that would result from the power plant.

The Planning Act 2008 governs nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs), requiring the Secretary of State to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment and to consider National Policy Statements before issuing development consent. In this case, the relevant National Policy Statement is EN-1, which “addresses GHG emissions and the UK’s net-zero targets.”

The plaintiff provided four grounds for judicial review, as follows.

Ground 1 - The claimant alleged that the Secretary of State failed to provide legally adequate reasons for its conclusion that the development of the power plant would contribute to the transition to net zero. The claimant contended that the Secretary of State relied on the Institute of Environmental Management Assessment (IEMA) guidance to find that the project constituted greenhouse gas emissions with a significant adverse effect, deeming it incompatible with net-zero trajectories. On this point, the plaintiff alleged inconsistencies in the Secretary of State’s decision.

Ground 2 - The plaintiff argued that the Secretary for Energy Security and Net Zero erred in its interpretation of paragraph 5.2.2 of National Policy Statement EN-1, which states that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel-based infrastructure are significant. The plaintiff alleged that the Secretary of State misapplied the paragraph by also using it to shape the policy weight given to those emissions in the planning balance.

Ground 3 - The plaintiff alleged that the Secretary of State was unlawfully endorsing the use of the IEMA guidance while also assessing significance in different ways without providing adequate reasoning.

Ground 4 - The plaintiff challenged the Secretary of State’s need for the project.

On August 20, 2024, the High Court rejected all four grounds for challenge, dismissing the application for judicial review. Dr. Boswell appealed the decision on the first three grounds introduced at the High Court, which the Court of Appeal later dismissed on May 22, 2025. The Court of Appeal held that there was no legal inconsistency in accepting the IEMA guidance and determining that the development contributed to net zero goals, that paragraph 5.2.2 was lawfully interpreted, and that the Secretary of State could lawfully rely on IEMA guidance as long as their reasoning was clear.

Dr. Boswell has now submitted a new claim for judicial review along with Good Law Project, contending that the government subsidy for the project unlawfully underwrites the developer’s loans. R (Boswell) -v- SoS for Energy Security and Net Zero & Ors (UK, High Court of Justice, Court of Appeal civil division)

Italy: Complaints submitted against the European Commission for, among other things, Italy’s failure to address worsened public health and climate resilience and meeting EU climate objectives

On November 7, 2024, a coalition of European non-governmental organizations (NGOs) formally submitted coordinated complaints to the European Commission,* seeking the initiation of infringement proceedings against France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and Sweden for alleged violations of their legal obligations under European Union (EU) law concerning their National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs).

These complaints are supported by evidence demonstrating that the NECPs of the aforementioned Member States are insufficient and fail to comply with the EU’s binding climate and energy targets. The NGOs contend that these plans lack adequate and effective measures to transform the stated commitments into tangible outcomes and fail to incorporate meaningful public participation in the development of socially equitable policies. Despite the deadline for submitting NECPs having passed on June 30, 2024, only 14 Member States have complied. The coalition asserts that these delays and deficiencies undermine the EU’s overarching climate objectives and the principle of a just transition for its citizens.

On November 26, 2024, A Sud and WWF filed their complaint with the commission, noting that Italy’s Piano Nazionale Integrato Energia e Clima, or National Integrated Energy and Climate plan, failed to address worsened public health and climate resilience (PNIEC). They claim that the PNIEC would fail to meet EU climate objectives and violate EU law to support a genuine energy transition. A Sud and WWF request procedural updates to the plan, including a specific timeline for phasing out fossil fuels and incorporating public participation processes, such as involving civil society organizations and local communities in the updated draft. . A Sud and WWF Italy v. Italy (Italy, European Commission)

*Under EU law, the European Commission is mandated to ensure that Member States fulfill their legal obligations. Should the Commission determine that a Member State is in breach, it may initiate formal infringement proceedings to bring national legislation and practices into compliance with EU law. The Commission has 12 months to respond to these complaints

Sweden: Complaints submitted against the European Commission for, among other things, limited public participation in Sweden’s National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) and the plan’s short timelines for achieving energy efficiency goals

These complaints are supported by evidence demonstrating that the NECPs of the aforementioned Member States are insufficient and fail to comply with the EU’s binding climate and energy targets. The NGOs contend that these plans lack adequate and effective measures to transform the stated commitments into tangible outcomes and fail to incorporate meaningful public participation in the development of socially equitable policies. Despite the deadline for submitting NECPs having passed on June 30, 2024, only 14 Member States have complied with the requirement. The coalition asserts that these delays and deficiencies undermine the EU’s overarching climate objectives and the principle of a just transition for its citizens.

In the joint complaint, the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC) and Sweden’s Environmental Association of Law (SEAL) highlighted procedural concerns regarding Sweden’s National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP). They cited limited public participation in the process, and the plan includes short timelines for achieving energy efficiency goals and transitioning the energy mix to include more renewables. SEAL and SSNC v. Sweden (Sweden, European Commission)

Switzerland: Petition made to the government for government’s failure in defending farmers against drought and the impacts of climate change

In March 2024, nine Swiss farmers and five farming interest associations petitioned the Swiss Department of Environment, Transport, Energy, and Communication (DETEC) to increase government action to defend against rising droughts that harm their livelihoods. The following claims were made.

The government should be ordered to take every measure capable of reducing the impacts of climate change and chronic drought on Swiss territory.
The Swiss government violated Article 10 of the Swiss Constitution and Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) regarding the right to life.
A violation of Article 13 of the Swiss Constitution and Article 8 of the ECHR regarding the right to private life
A violation of Article 26 of the Swiss Constitution regarding the right to property
A violation of Article 27 of the Swiss Constitution regarding the right to economic liberty
A violation of the climate objectives and environmental protection requirements enshrined in domestic legislation to ensure respect for the Paris Agreement

The petitioners made these claims under the Swiss Federal Administrative Procedure Act, which states the government should refrain from alleged unlawful acts impacting “petitioners’ human and constitutional rights.”

In September 2024, DETEC rejected the petitioners on standing grounds, citing that they lacked a harm more intense than that experienced by other segments of the population.

In October 2024, the petitioners appealed the decision on three main grounds:

Ignoring the ECtHR’s ruling in KlimaSeniorinnen, which violates federal law and the binding force of judgments regarding the ECtHR
The emphasis on standing regarding the severe economic and health losses facing farmers
Violation of fair trial and access to justice entitlements

The current status of the case is pending before the Swiss Federal Administrative Tribunal. Uniterre et al. v. Swiss Department of the Environment (Swiss Farmers Case) (Switzerland, Federal Administrative Tribunal)

United Kingdom: Complaint filed to determine the lawfulness of environmental assessments for over 82 licenses for exploratory oil and gas drilling operations approved by the government

Between October 2023 and May 2024, over 82 licenses for exploratory oil and gas drilling operations were approved by the North Sea Transition Authority and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. Subsequently, the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning (OPRED) published Appropriate Assessments, justifying the licensing with minimal environmental damage. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and Natural England responded to the licensing agreement by highlighting the risks to Marine Protected Areas posed by accidental spills.

In late May 2024, the Ocean Alliance Against Offshore Drilling (OCEANA) filed a complaint with the High Court of the United Kingdom to determine the lawfulness of the environmental assessments. The claims consist of the following:

- Failure to consider the impact of accidents, which is contrary to the requirements of the Habitats regime and contrary to the duty to take reasonable steps to obtain the relevant information to reach a rational decision.

- Failure to consider the ongoing impact of climate change on the relevant marine sites and environment.

- A flawed assumption that only 50% of the licensed drilling will take place.

- Failure to adequately assess the cumulative impacts of the licensed activity on the relevant sites.

- Failure to consider or pay due regard to the advice of the JNCC.

On March 26, 2025, the High Court held hearings with an expected decision by July 2025. R(Oceana) complaint against Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (United Kingdom, High Court)

France: Complaint against a multinational investment company for marketing itself as sustainable when holding fossil fuel investment

In October 2024, ClientEarth filed a complaint against BlackRock with the French Financial Markets Authority (AMF), also known as the Autorité des Marchés Financiers. ClientEarth targeted 18 actively managed retail investment funds that were marketed in France as sustainable. ClientEarth notes that these funds hold more than US$ $1 billion in fossil fuel investment. As a result, ClientEarth claims that BlackRock violates the EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) by holding inconsistent investments to gain an unfair competitive advantage. Second, ClientEarth claims that BlackRock failed the ‘do not cause significant harm’ test of the SFDR, which requires investment funds promoting environmental benefits to make additional sustainability disclosures on their websites and in pre-contractual and periodic reporting. All of which, ClientEarth claims, BlackRock failed to do.

In response, BlackRock announced changes to its funds previously titled sustainable or ESG. Fourteen of the funds dropped the “sustainable” title from their names, while the rest applied stricter fossil fuel exclusions. BlackRock claims these changes were in response to new disclosure polices by the European Securities and Markets Authority.

Despite these changes, ClientEarth will continue to keep its complaint with the AMF. The financial regulator has not indicated whether the case will move forward. ClientEarth Complaint to AMF (France, AMF)

United Kingdom: New complaint filed against an oil drilling company’s failure to conduct a proper Environmental Impact Assessment which considers downstream greenhouse gas emissions

In November 2023, the planning inspectorate of Lincolnshire granted a 15-year license to Egdon Resources to begin long-term oil drilling production at Lincolnshire Wolds and Biscathorpe.

In June 2024, local campaign group SOS Biscathorpe filed a complaint in the High Court against Egdon Resources, alleging that the company had failed to conduct a proper Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to consider downstream greenhouse gas emissions. Notably, the Finch v Surrey County Council case, which involved a similar claim regarding insufficient Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), required consideration of downstream emissions. The Finch case was decided during the ongoing appeals process, which motivated Egdon Resources and the planning inspectorate to consent to the grounds of challenge filed by the complainants.

The Oil permitting application is currently undergoing redetermination. Lincolnshire Oil Drilling Permission (UK, High Court)

France: New complaint filed against a prefectural permit of a hydrocarbon exploration well for deficiencies in analysis regarding the project’s effects on water resources, or climate change, on reasonable alternatives, and on biodiversity

On July 5, 2022, Bridge Energies submitted an application to the Prefect of Seine-et-Marne for a prefectural permit to drill two new hydrocarbon exploration wells in Nonville, France. The application was submitted within the perimeter of an existing, 25-year mining title granted in 2009. Bridge Energies request was supplemented on November 22, 2022, and granted via an official decree on January 30, 2024, by the Prefect. Eau de Paris, the public entity that manages Paris’s drinking water supply, filed a complaint on March 29, 2024, seeking the annulment of the prefectural order and the relief of 3000 EUR from the State and Bridge Energies. The plaintiff specifically seeks relief under Article L. 761-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice.

In its complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the authorization of the prefectural permit followed an impact study that “presents deficiencies regarding the project’s effects on water resources, or climate change, on reasonable alternatives, and on biodiversity.” The plaintiff contends that the project ignores Article L. 414-4 of the Environmental Code, as it fails to “assess impacts on Natura 2000 sites.” The plaintiff contends that the permit application fails to analyze compatibility with the “water-management master plan for the Seine basin and Norman coastal rivers”, causing a breach in Article 6 of Decree No. 2006-649 of June 2, 2006. The plaintiff argues that “the order suffers from a procedural defect”, considering the inquiry commissioner failed to issue “reasoned, impartial, and objective findings.” The plaintiff also alleges that the project violates Article L. 161-1 of the Mining Code because it poses significant risks for water resources and natural habitats and that the project “contravenes the local urban-planning code of the commune of Nonville.”

The case proceeded before the Tribunal Administratif de Melun, which issued its judgment on January 30, 2025. The court found that the prefectural authorization contained multiple legal defects, specifically in its inadequate evaluation of biodiversity and resource impacts and its insufficient pollution prevention measures. The court did not fully annul the permit, instead issuing a sursis à statuer (suspension of judgment). This suspension grants the State and Bridge Energies a ten-month period to mend the identified deficiencies. The court stated that it will issue a final decision at the end of this period. Eau de Paris v. Bridge Energies and the Prefect of Seine-et-Marne (France, Administrative Court of Milun)

United Kingdom: Civil society coalition files complaint alleging that a British company violated OECD guidelines in applying for a fracking permit in Slovenia.

A coalition of social and environmental groups filed a complaint alleging that a British company violated the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises in applying for a permit to expand a fracking operation in Slovenia.

The complaint was filed with the Slovenian National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines (NCP) by Focus Association for Sustainable Development and 16 other nongovernmental organizations and civil initiatives. The complainants assert that the UK-based company Ascent Resources plc (“Ascent Resources”) violated the OECD Guidelines in applying for a permit to expand a fracking operation at a natural gas field near Petišovci, Slovenia. The complaint also implicates Ascent Resources’s subsidiary in Slovenia, Ascent Resources d.o.o., and its contractor, Geonergo, d.o.o.

The complaint asserts that Ascent Resources ran afoul of the OECD Guidelines by: failing to take adequate steps to consider and address the potential environmental impacts of fracking, including fracking’s contribution to the threat of runaway climate change; failing to work with a view to achieving sustainable development and take due account of the need to protect the environment; engaging in improper political involvement by organizing a lobby campaign to pressure the Slovenian Ministry of the Environment to complete the permitting process for the fracking expansion without complication; failing to undertake required due diligence by not ensuring that its subsidiary and contractor considered all the environmental and health risks of fracking; incentivizing its subsidiary and contractor to cause adverse environmental and health impacts through fracking; and improperly avoided engagement with relevant stakeholders including local anti-fracking groups. The complaint also faults Geonergo, Ascent Resources’s contractor, for seeking an exemption from the need to undertake an environmental impact assessment. The complainants argue that the NCP should view Ascent Resources’s activities in the context of international climate treaties given that fracking contributes to global climate change.

The complainants request that the Slovenian NCP bring their concerns to Ascent Resources and facilitate a dialogue aimed at ending the company’s fracking activities in Slovenia. They also call on the UK NCP to support the Slovenian NCP in handling the complaint. Should a mediated solution prove unattainable, the complainants ask that the NCP inform the Slovenian authorities of the alleged breaches of the OECD Guidelines and urge that the allegations be considered in the permitting process. Adfree Cities and the New Weather Institute v. WPP plc (OECD Complaint, United Kingdom, 2025) (United Kingdom, OECD)

Nigeria: HEDA Resource Centre files complaint challenging the transfer of an oil exploration license from Shell to Renaissance African Energy Company

The Incorporated Trustees of HEDA Resource Centre filed a complaint in March of 2025 against Shell Petroleum Development Company Limited, Renaissance African Energy Company Limited, the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and four others with the Federal High Court of Lagos. The complaint challenges the transfer of an oil exploration license from Shell to Renaissance African Energy Company, as HEDA contends that the “transfer and divestment” of the oil exploration license “may have contravened provisions of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA), 2021, and related regulations.”

The plaintiff contends that the license transfer failed to meet statutory revisions, specifically including conducting and disclosing an Environmental Evaluation Study as regulated under the Upstream Petroleum Environmental Regulation 2022. The plaintiff contends that the approval of this transaction “could set a dangerous precedent” in terms of climate change and environmental sustainability.

HEDA contends that by sections “10 (f), 95 (11) and (15), 235, 237, and 238 of the PIA, 2021, Regulations 4.2.5, 5.2.4, 5.2.5 and 5.4 of the Guidelines for Obtaining Minister’s Consent to Assignment of Interest in Oil and Gas Assets, 2021, Regulations 7 and 8 of the Upstream Petroleum Environmental Regulation, 2022, Regulations 8(1) and (2), 9(1) and (2) of the Upstream Petroleum Environmental Remediation Regulations, 2024 Regulation 13(1) – (3) of the Gas Flaring, Venting and Methane Emissions (Prevention of Waste and Pollution) Regulations, 2023”, the transfer of the license is unlawful.

The court heard the case on May 26, 2025, and proceedings have since begun. HEDA Resource Centre v. Shell Petroleum Development Company, Renaissance African Energy Company, and the Nigerian Government (Nigeria, Federal High Court of Lagos)

Ireland: Friends of the Irish Environment file for judicial review of Shannon LNG power plant

In May of 2025, Friends of the Irish Environment (FIE) filed for judicial review of the proposed 600 megawatt Shannon LNG power plant before the High Court of Ireland. The plaintiff alleges that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) produced by the developer contains “critical failures.” These insufficiencies center around inaccurate climate impact assessments, as the FIE contends that the EIS significantly underestimates the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, upstream and downstream emissions, and methane leakage associated with the project.

The complaint specifically alleges that the project does not comply with EU taxonomy criteria for sustainable activities, specifically with lifecycle emissions thresholds pursuant to the EU’s sustainable finance regulations. Based on the flawed EIS, FIE claims that permitting the project breaches obligations under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act of 2021 and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive. Proceedings occurred in late May of 2025, and a judgment from the High Court is now pending.

Meanwhile, in 2025, Shannon LNG reactivated and submitted a broader application for the entire Shannon Technology and Energy Park, with a decision expected in September of 2025. Friends of the Irish Environment v. Shannon LNG (Ireland, High Court of Ireland)

New Zealand: Coastal Ratepayers Union files for judicial review of the Kāpiti Coast District Council’s public-facing information regarding coastal properties, alleging an exaggeration of climate risks

In February 2025, the Coastal Ratepayers Union (CRU) filed for a judicial review at the Wellington High Court regarding the Kāpiti Coast District Council’s (KCDC) public-facing information on coastal properties. The CRU alleged that the KCDC’s information on coastal properties, specifically hazard maps and Land Information Memorandums (LIMS), exaggerates climate risks such as sea level rise, floods, and erosion. Subsequently, the CRU requested that the council incorporate information from a report it had commissioned independently by retired Waikato University lecturer Willem de Lange into its report.

The CRU contended that Lange’s report provided an alternative assessment of the risks of coastal hazards, which should also be made available to property owners. The KCDC has since agreed to include the CRU’s commissioned report, marking a shift in climate risk warning material. Coastal Ratepayers Union v. Kāpiti Coast District Council (New Zealand, Wellington High Court)

South Africa: NGOs challenge exemptions from complying with Minimum Emission Standards granted to eight coal-fired power stations

In November 2024, NGOs Earthlife Africa and groundWork filed an application for judicial review of exemptions granted by the South African Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and the National Air Quality Office (NAQO) with the Pretoria High Court. The application targets the exemptions, granted to the state-owned electricity utility Eskom, from complying with Minimum Emission Standards (MES) at eight of its coal-fired power stations. These exemptions allow Eskom to emit pollutants above the legal limit.

The plaintiff alleges that the granting of the exemptions was unlawful, as Eskom failed to submit the required, comprehensive decommissioning plans. Without these plans, the Minister and NAQO are unable to evaluate the risks associated with granted noncompliance.

The MES fall under South Africa’s National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, which aims to mitigate harmful emissions and pollutants that impact public health and climate change mitigation efforts.

A ruling is pending from the Pretoria High Court. Earthlife Africa and groundWork v. The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment of the Republic of South Africa (South Africa, High Court of Pretoria)

Portugal: Environmental groups seek injunction to halt Faro marina construction over outdated impact assessment

In December 2024, BlueZ C Institute, Civis Cidadania, and PROBAAL filed a precautionary injunction against the Algarve Regional Coordination and Development Commission (CCDR Algarve) and the counterparty Municipality of Faro. The request for a precautionary injunction was filed at the Administrative and Fiscal Court of Loulé, attempting to halt the construction of a new recreational marina in Faro after preparatory land reclamation work on the area was announced in the beginning of December.

The proposed marina would accommodate up to 277 vessels of twelve meters or less, planned to occupy the outer side of Faro’s existing dock in the Ria Formosa Natural Park protected area. The plaintiffs allege that the project’s Environmental Impact Assessment, which was conducted nearly twenty years ago, no longer reflects the ecological knowledge of the protected land. The plaintiffs contend that this project would be an ecological disaster, destroying the lagoon ecosystem and mangroves that sequester CO2 and help mitigate climate change.

The plaintiffs call for an immediate suspension of current and future construction activities until the court issues a decision. The proceedings are currently ongoing. BlueZ C Institute, Civis Cidadania and PROBAAL v. Algarve Regional Coordination and Development Commission (Portugal, Administrative and Fiscal Court of Loulé)

Climate Litigation Updates (June 27, 2025)

Climate Litigation Updates (June 27, 2025)

Climate Litigation Updates (June 13, 2025)

Climate Litigation Updates (May 30, 2025)

Climate Litigation Updates (May 15, 2025)

Climate Litigation Updates (May 2, 2025)