Caselaw Database - All Cases

ESCR-Net Caselaw Database: A database on domestic, regional and international decisions regarding Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Manuela, a 33-year old woman and mother of two experiencing poverty in rural El Salvador, was charged with aggravated homicide after an obstetric emergency resulting in her pregnancy loss. When Manuela’s father took her to the hospital to address her medical emergency, medical personnel interrogated her for three hours upon arrival, delaying treatment.

On May 26, 2017, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Court) issued the historic judgment that the Kenyan government (the State) had violated seven articles of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Charter) by evicting the indigenous Ogiek people from their ancestral land in the Mau Forest. That decision ordered the government to take all appropriate measures to remedy the violations, and stipulated that the issue of reparations would be decided separately.

The United Kingdom’s Advertising Standards Authority concluded that the airline’s claims that customers choosing Ryanair over another carrier would have lowered personal carbon dioxide emissions were misleading and in violation of the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising. The ASA found consumers would find insufficient information in the advertisements to substantiate the company’s claims and further notes that well-known competitors were absent from the calculation used by Ryanair. 

Ashghar Leghari, a farmer and lawyer, sued the Pakistani government for inaction vis-a-vis climate change, claiming that this inaction, “delay, and lack of seriousness” violated the fundamental rights of life provided by the Constitution, since climate change posed a serious threat to water, food, and energy security in Pakistan. Further, Leghari argued the “effects of climate change can be addressed through mitigation and adaptation.” 

Luisa Neubauer along with other nine youth climate activists brought a case against the German federal government for its failure to enact adequate climate legislation in the country. The plaintiffs argued that the existing climate legislation– the 2019 German Federal Climate Change Act (Bundes-Klimaschutzgesetz– hereinafter KSG)– not only violated Germany’s responsibilities under the Paris Agreement, but also violated their fundamental rights enshrined in the German constitution (German Basic Law). 

In 2022, the Philippines Human Rights Commission (hereinafter “the Commission”) released the results of a seven-year investigation into the impacts of climate change on the Philippines and the duty on states and private actors to address “the increasing frequency and severity of natural disasters.” The investigation was prompted after Greenpeace Southeast Asia and others submitted a petition to the Commission, asking it to examine the impacts of climate change through the lens of human rights violations, the role of major fossil fuel companies, and the role of states in aiding those “carbon

Four political parties – Workers Party (PT), Socialism and Liberty Party (PSOL), Brazilian Socialist Party (PSB), and Sustainability Network (Rede)– sued the Brazilian government for violations of its constitutional and international obligations in regards to environmental protection. The Plaintiffs specifically alleged that the Jair Bolsonaro administration had failed to allocate and disburse funds from the Climate Fund in 2019. 

This case is a class action filed by Milieudefensie, Greenpeace NL, Fossielvrij NL, Waddenvereniging, Both ENDS, and Young Friends of the Earth NL which sued Defendant Royal Dutch Shell in the District Court of The Hague. Plaintiffs sought a ruling that RDS – parent company to Shell – must reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels, and to zero by 2050, in line with the Paris Agreement. 

The authors, Indigenous Peoples of the Torres Strait Islands, brought a petition against Australia for violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The petitioners argued that Australia’s insufficient climate action violated their human rights, under ICCPR Articles 6 (right to life), 17 (right to private, family and home life) 24(1) (right of the child to protective measures), and 27 (right to culture). 

This case involves a request for provisional measures with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (“Court”), filed by Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), the representatives of Jesús Tranquilino Vélez Loor, pursuant to Articles 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights and 27(3) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.