See You In Court: Using The Law To Save Our Climate In Time

As the climate crisis intensifies, legal strategies have become pivotal in holding governments and corporations accountable. From grassroots lawsuits to international legal reforms, these approaches are reshaping environmental governance. This is what you need to know:

The Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands

In a groundbreaking case, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that the government must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% from 1990 levels by 2020, citing human rights obligations. On December 20, 2019, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands upheld the decision under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This was the first time a court mandated a government to act on climate change to protect citizens' rights.

KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland

In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a landmark ruling in favor of the KlimaSeniorinnen, a group of over 2,000 Swiss women aged 64 and above. They argued that Switzerland's inadequate climate policies violated their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly due to their vulnerability to heatwaves exacerbated by climate change.

The ECHR found that Switzerland had failed to meet its emission reduction targets and had "critical gaps" in its climate legislation. The court recognized that Article 8 of the Convention encompasses a right to effective protection by state authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on individuals' lives, health, well-being, and quality of life. This ruling sets a significant precedent, emphasizing that insufficient climate action can constitute a human rights violation.

California v. Big Oil

California's legal battle against major oil companies is ongoing, with the case proceeding through the state's judicial system. The lawsuit, filed in September 2023 by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, accuses ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, and the American Petroleum Institute of misleading the public about the dangers of fossil fuels, contributing to climate change impacts in the state.

While the lawsuit progresses, California's legislative efforts to hold oil companies financially accountable for climate-related damages have faced challenges. A proposed bill that would have allowed victims of natural disasters to sue fossil fuel companies was recently blocked in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Critics expressed concerns about potential economic impacts and the difficulty of proving direct liability for specific disasters. The outcome of California's lawsuit against major oil companies could set a precedent for future climate litigation, potentially influencing how similar cases are approached nationwide.

Greenpeace v. Eni

Greenpeace Italy and other plaintiffs sued the Italian energy company Eni, alleging that its activities contribute significantly to climate change. This case is notable as the first climate lawsuit in Italy against a privately owned company. On June 10, 2024, the applicants decided to petition the Civil Court of Rome to stay the proceedings as they filed an appeal for a regulation of jurisdiction. This legal instrument allows a party to request that the Court of Cassation (Supreme Court of Italy) determine the jurisdiction. The Civil Court of Rome granted the stay, suspending the trial and referring the matter of admissibility of the civil proceedings to the Court of Cassation. The Court of Cassation will now have the opportunity to rule on the procedural admissibility of climate change litigation cases in Italy.

The Aurora case (Anton Foley and others) v. the Swedish government

In Sweden, the Aurora case emerged as a significant legal challenge to the government's climate policies. Led by Greta Thunberg and over 600 young activists, the lawsuit claimed that Sweden's insufficient action to limit global warming to 1.5°C violated the European Convention on Human Rights.

In February 2025, Sweden's Supreme Court dismissed the case, stating that it could not compel the government to take specific actions without infringing on the separation of powers. However, the court acknowledged the possibility of future climate litigation if presented differently. The Aurora group has vowed to continue their legal efforts, emphasizing the need for governmental accountability in addressing the climate crisis and this week announced that they will file a new case according to the legal structure the Supreme Court stated.

Juliana v. United States

A group of young plaintiffs sued the U.S. government, alleging that its policies contribute to climate change and violate their constitutional rights to a stable climate system. While initially dismissed, the case has seen developments in state courts, particularly in Montana, where a ruling found that prohibiting the consideration of greenhouse gas emissions violated the state constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the case in March 2025.

Ecocide Law Alliance: Criminalizing Environmental Destruction

Beyond individual lawsuits, the Ecocide Law Alliance is advocating for the recognition of ecocide—severe and widespread environmental destruction—as an international crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This initiative aims to hold individuals, including corporate and government leaders, criminally responsible for actions causing significant environmental harm.

The term ecocide was formulated in 2021 by 12 lawyers from around the world and presented by Stop Ecocide International. The movement has garnered support from various sectors, including business leaders who see the establishment of ecocide law as a means to ensure sustainable practices and protect natural systems. By criminalizing ecocide, the alliance seeks to deter large-scale environmental damage and promote global environmental justice.

In February 2024, the EU Parliament voted to criminalize the most serious cases of ecosystem destruction, stating that countries will have two years to put the updated directive, which covers crimes “comparable to ecocide,” into national law.

The European Union with this decision became the first international body to criminalize the most serious cases of environmental damage. For individuals—such as CEOs and board members—consequences for committing environmental crimes can be prison sentences of up to eight years, rising to 10 if they cause the death of any person.

Conclusion

These legal approaches—ranging from grassroots lawsuits to international legal reforms—demonstrate the evolving landscape of climate justice. They highlight the potential of legal systems to address environmental challenges and hold powerful entities accountable. As climate litigation continues to grow, these cases and initiatives pave the way for more robust legal frameworks to combat the climate crisis.

Meanwhile there is an alarming increase in the number of activists getting arrested in many countries, such as the UK and Sweden. And big oil is fighting back. The latest and hardest blow struck Greenpeace, which in March this year was ordered to pay more than $660m for defaming the oil company Energy Transfer protests in North Dakota. Greenpeace has vowed to appeal, saying it could be forced into bankruptcy because of the case, ending over 50 years of activism.

The jury is still out there who will win the battle for our future. Let’s hope the legal system is strong enough to base its rulings on science.