[ ]

Tag: Damages

Posted on

City of New York v. Chevron Corp. 

Date: 2 April 2021 

Court: United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals 

Citation(s): City of N.Y. v. Chevron Corp., 993 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2021) 

Short summary  

New York City sued the five largest producers of fossil fuels for contributing to climate change under state tort law. The Second Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the suit, holding that state common law claims to redress greenhouse gas emissions are displaced by federal common law, which in turn is displaced by the Clean Air Act.  

Summary by: David Cremins

Link to Original Judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision  

This decision is binding on all courts in the Second District and persuasive in other Districts.  

Key facts 

New York City filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against the five largest investor-owned fossil fuel producers seeking costs the City had incurred and would continue to incur to protect itself and its residents from the impacts of climate change. The City alleged that the defendants “produced, marketed, and sold massive quantities of fossil fuels” despite knowing for many years that the use of fossil fuels caused emissions of greenhouse gas emissions that would accumulate and remain in the atmosphere for centuries, causing “grave harm.” The City laid alleged state common law tort claims of public and private nuisance and illegal trespass, seeking money damages and an injunction to abate past injuries.  

Previous instances  

The district court dismissed the lawsuit, holding that federal common law should govern the City’s claims because they were based on transboundary emissions. The court further concluded that the Clean Air Act displaced any federal common law claims (see American Electric Power v. Connecticut) with regards to domestic emissions and that foreign emissions should not be regulated by a domestic court, so as not to infringe on the political branches. The City appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals seeking reversal of the granted motion to dismiss.  

Summary of holding  

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of New York City’s lawsuit seeking climate change damages from oil companies, following the reasoning of the district court. First, the Second Circuit held that federal common law displaced the City’s state-law public nuisance, private nuisance, and trespass claims because the lawsuit would regulate cross-border greenhouse gas emissions, albeit “in an indirect and roundabout manner,” and because state law claims “would further risk upsetting the careful balance that has been struck between the prevention of global warming, a project that necessarily requires national standards and global participation, on the one hand, and energy production, economic growth, foreign policy, and national security, on the other.” The Second Circuit then held that the Clean Air Act, in turn, displaced federal common law claims related to domestic emissions. The Second Circuit cited American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011), as establishing “beyond cavil” that the Clean Air Act displaced federal common law nuisance suits to abate domestic transboundary greenhouse gas emissions. 

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Posted on

Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 14

Date of judgement: 20 April 2010

Court: International Court of Justice 

Citation(s): Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 14

Short summary 

The court introduced the concept of binding environmental impact assessments (EIAs) into international environmental laws and further elaborated upon the provisions of the International Law Commission’s draft, as well as the Trail Smelter decision. 

Summary by: Robert Los

Link to original judgement 

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision 

This decision handed down by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) bears immense weight.  

Key facts

In October 2003, the Uruguayan government granted permission to a Spanish Company, ENCE, to build a pulp mill in Fray Bentos on the River Uruguay. Botnia, a Finnish company, then also received environmental authorization to build a mill in February 2005. The River Uruguay forms a border between Argentina and Uruguay and its use is regulated by the Statute of the Uruguay River, a bilateral treaty entered into by the two countries in 1975 (the “Statute“).

Argentina brought a complaint before the ICJ on 4 May 2006, alleging that the Uruguayan government had violated the Statute. Argentina initially sought a provisional measures order from the ICJ to suspend construction of the pulp mills, but this was dismissed. 

Argentina’s principal claims were that: 

  • Uruguay had not complied with the notification and consultation procedure set out in the Statute by authorizing the construction of two pulp mills without the prior consent of Argentina; and 
  • The mills would have an environmental impact upon the river and surrounding areas, and in particular that they would breach Uruguay’s obligation under the Statute to preserve the aquatic environment of the river by failing to protect biodiversity and fisheries.

Argentina consequently sought compensation, an end to construction, and a guarantee of compliance with the Statute in the future.

Uruguay argued that its only obligations had been to inform Argentina, which it had done, albeit after its decision had been made. Furthermore, the technology used would avoid polluting the river, as state-of-the-art waste cleansing equipment – which had been adopted by both the United States and the European Union as the best available technology – was going to be used. This position was supported by an independent World Bank study. 

Summary of holding

The ICJ held that Uruguay breached its procedural obligations by not informing the Administrative Commission of the River Uruguay (“CARU”) of its plans to construct the mills before it issued its environmental authorisations. 

Although Uruguay did notify Argentina, this communication did not take place through CARU and only occurred after the Uruguayan government had issued its authorisations. The ICJ held that, as a result, Uruguay had “disregarded the whole of the cooperation mechanisms provided for in Article 7 to 12 of the…Statute“ (para. 149). In terms of remedy, the ICJ considered that its declaration of breach constituted appropriate satisfaction.

However, the ICJ did not uphold any of the environmental claims made by Argentina. In what is potentially the most important passage of its holding, it stated that the need for an environmental impact assessment (where there is a risk that the proposed activity may have a significantly adverse impact in a trans-boundary context) has gained so much acceptance amongst States that it may now be considered “a requirement under general international law“. (para. 204)

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Posted on

Chagos Islanders v. the United Kingdom 

Date: 11 December 2012 

Court: European Court of Human Rights 

Citation(s): Chagos Islanders v. the United Kingdom, ECHR, Application no. 35622/04 (11 December 2012) 

Short summary  

Former inhabitants of the Chagos Islands and their descendants brought an action to contest the U.K.’s bar on resettling the islands. The European Court of Human Rights affirmed previous judgments from U.K. courts barring the plaintiffs’ petitions for resettlement, in part due to the risks of climate change to the Islands. 

Summary by: Luke Hancox 

Link to Original Judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision  

The European Court of Human Rights is the sole body positioned to adjudge claims lodged under the European Convention on Human Rights. Its rulings are generally, though not universally, recognized as valid and enforceable by European parties to the Convention.  

Key facts 

Between the mid-1960s and mid-1970s, the United Kingdom enacted legislation to expel or bar the return of the inhabitants of the Chagos Islands. This was done to facilitate the construction of a United States military base on the island of Diego Garcia. This action was brought by those former inhabitants and their descendants (1,786 people). The applicants brought their action under Articles 6 & 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). 

The litigation of this case involves multiple cases in domestic U.K. courts over the past 50 years regarding the events surrounding the colonization and eventual expulsion of inhabitants of the Chagos Islands. 

On 8 November 1965, the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) Order in Council (SI 1965/120) established a new colony, including the Chagos Islands and other islands formerly part of the Colony of Mauritius and of the Seychelles. When agreeing to give the U.S. military access to the islands, the

U.K. treated the islands as having no permanent population in order to avoid obligations under the United Nations Charter. They claimed the population was overwhelmingly migrant workers who no longer had jobs because the plantation operated on the islands had been acquired by the U.K. government to transfer to the U.S. 

As a result of the above acquisition, the islands’ inhabitants were evacuated. The BIOT Commissioner passed an ordinance in 1971, making it unlawful and a criminal offense for anyone to enter or remain in the territory without a permit. The evacuation caused immeasurable damage to these communities by uprooting their lives and forcing resettlement elsewhere. The U.K. government paid 650,000 pounds sterling (GBP) to Mauritius to aid the resettlement effort.  

A 1975 case brought in the High Court of London led the U.K. government to settle all claims with the islanders. The settlement resulted in monthly payments of 2,976 GBP a month to 1,344 Chagossians between 1982 and 1984. In 2000, a case challenging the 1971 Order was brought in London. The court held that the islanders had no permanent right to the land or its use but that the Order was nevertheless invalid as outside the scope of authority of the BIOT Commissioner. This led to the bar on entry to the islands by the former inhabitants being lifted. However, none of these inhabitants went to live on the islands afterward. The U.K. government also began a study to determine the viability of resettlement of the islands after this case. 

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Posted on

Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp.

Date: 12 September 2012

Court: US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Citation: 696 F.3d 849

Short summary

The Village of Kivalina, a self-governing, federally recognized tribe of Inupiat Native Alaskans, together with the City of Kivalina, brought action against twenty-four oil, energy, and utility companies for federal common law nuisance, based on emission of greenhouse gases which contributed to global warming, causing the erosion of arctic sea ice and the displacement of the inhabitants. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), contending that Plaintiff’s claims were non-justiciable political questions and that Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal and the Supreme Court denied certiorari.

Summary by: Jane Kundl

Link to original judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision

Binding on the Ninth Circuit in the United States, persuasive authority for other circuits and state courts.

Key facts

Kivalina is a small city located on the tip of a six-mile barrier reef on the northwest coast of Alaska, approximately 70 miles north of the Arctic Circle. The Village of Kivalina is a federally-recognized tribe of Inupiat Native Alaskans who live in the municipality. Of 400 residents, 97 percent were indigenous Alaskans. Sea ice that forms a coastline in the fall, winter, and spring protected the land from storms and erosion. But as the sea ice became thinner, formed later, and broke up earlier, erosion and damage to property from sea storms has increased, threatening the entire city and requiring relocation of inhabitants.

Kivalina’s claim was based on greenhouse gas emissions leading to global warming which in turn caused the reduction in sea ice. They argued that the defendants, 24 oil, gas, and utility companies, (the “Energy Producers”) contributed substantially to global warming and thus were responsible for their injuries. They brought a claim under federal common law nuisance, alleging that the production of greenhouse gas emissions constitutes “a substantial and unreasonable interference with public rights, including the rights to use and enjoy public and private property in Kivalina.” (p. 854). State law claims of concert of action and conspiracy to mislead were brought as well. Because the federal law claim was dismissed, the merits of the state law claims were not addressed.

Previous instances

The lower court, the US District Court of Northern California, Oakland Division, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on two grounds:

  • First, that the issue of greenhouse gases causing global warming was an inherently non-justiciable political question, because the court would have to make determinations regarding energy and environmental policy without guidance from the political branches.
  • Second, that Kivalina lacked Article III standing as they presented no facts showing the injuries were “fairly traceable” to the actions of the Energy Producers. Plaintiffs could not establish the “substantial likelihood” or “seed” causation standards. The court also concluded that Kivalina’s injury was too geographically remote from the source of harm to infer causation.

Plaintiffs appealed and the Ninth Circuit court upheld the motion. Plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court which was denied.

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Posted on

Taskin and Ors. v. Turkey (2006) 42 EHRR 50

Date of judgement: 3 March 2005

Court: European Court of Human Rights

Citation(s): Application no. 46117/99, (2006) 42 EHRR 50

Short summary

The European Court of Human Rights held that environmental pollution could affect Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to private and family life). The Turkish Government had violated Art. 8, even if such pollution did not have serious health-related consequences.

Summary by: Makaela Fehlhaber

Link to original Judgement 

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision

Given the jurisdiction of the Court of Human Rights, the Taskin judgement is significant and bears considerable weight.

Key facts

The applicants were residents of Bergama. In 1992, the respondent had granted permits to operate a gold mine in Ovacik, a district within Bergama. The applicants contended that as a result of the granting of these permits, they had suffered and continued to suffer the effects of environmental damage – namely the inability to move freely and noise pollution – from the use of machinery and explosives. 

Previous instances

Subsequently, the applicants sought judicial review in the Administrative Court of the Ministry of Environment’s of the decision to issue the permits on the grounds of the risks posed to human health and safety. The application was dismissed by the Court in 1996, but the provincial governor of the area agreed to suspend mining operations for one month in the subsequent year in the interests of the public. 

In 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court overturned the Administrative Court’s decision, finding that the mining activities did not serve the public interests towards health and safety measures. This was later upheld by the Administrative Court. However, irrespective of these decisions and subsequent orders, the mine reopened in an experimental capacity in 2001. 

Ten Turkish nationals lodged an application (no. 46117/99) against the Republic of Turkey to the European Commission of Human Rights in 1998 under Art. 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention). The applicants contended that the actions of the respondent violated Art. 2 (right to life) and Art. 8 (right to private and family life) of the Convention. Under Art. 8, the applicants alleged that the use of cyanidation operating processes violated their right to private and family life as its uses posed a significant risk (para. 104). The applicants further stated that their judicial rights had not been upheld in accordance with Art. 6 (right to a fair trial) and Art. 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. Accordingly, they sought compensation for infringement of these rights, and for failure to enforce a judgement. 

The respondents contended that the arguments submitted in respect of Art. 8 were based on hypothetical risks that may or may not materialise. Accordingly, this could not be categorised as a serious and imminent risk (para. 107) as there needed to be a direct effect (para. 108) upon the lives of the applicants. Furthermore, the respondents submitted that Art. 8 was inapplicable as it had previously been determined that the risks of mining did not present any danger for the health of the local population (para. 9), as the government had conducted an Environmental Impact Assessment. The respondent further submitted that Art. 6 of the Convention did not apply for the same reasons (para. 128). 

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Posted on

THE TRAIL SMELTER ARBITRATION CASE (UNITED STATES VS CANADA)

Date of judgement: 16 April 1938 and 11 March 1941

Citation(s): UN REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS, Trail Smelter case (USA v. Canada), 16. April 1938 and 11. March 1941, Volume III pp. 1905-1982

Short summary 

This arbitration case between the United States (U.S.) and Canada is the foundational decision for the development of the prohibition of significant transboundary environmental damage in international environmental law. 

Summary by: Robert Los

Link to original judgement 

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision 

The decision(s) of the Arbitrational Tribunal continue to bear immense weight in the realm of international law.  

Key facts

A zinc and lead smelter operating since 1896 in the Canadian town of Trail in British Columbia, located 16 km from the U.S. border, became the subject of dispute in this case. 

Between 1925 and 1927, two smokestacks were added to the plant. This caused an increase in pollutant emissions, specifically a doubling of sulfur dioxide. This reached U.S. soil in the form of “acid rain” and caused crop failures and damage in the Columbia River Valley (Washington State). Between 1927 and 1935, the U.S. government protested to the Canadian government regarding this damage to the Columbia River Valley. 

In 1928, both governments commissioned the International Joint Commission by the United States and Canada to conduct arbitration proceedings. The Commission submitted its final report in 1931, which proposed that the Canadian government pay damages of $350,000 USD for the damage caused, and that emissions from the Trail plant be limited. 

Canada paid the damages. However, no improvements were seen with regard to pollutant emissions, and the conflict began again. For this reason, in 1935 the Convention for Settlement of Difficulties Arising from Operation of Smelter at Trail, B.C., was signed, and the parties agreed to have the following questions settled by arbitration:

1. Whether the Trail plant caused any damage to the State of Washington since 1932, and if so what indemnity should be paid?

2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether said damage should be stopped in the future, and if so, to what extent?

3. If the damage should be stopped, what measures should the Trail Smelter adopt? (Possibly subject to conditions or stipulations).

4. What indemnity or compensation, if any, should Canada pay following the answers to questions 2 and 3?

Summary of holding

In its first decision in 1938 regarding the first question, the Arbitration Tribunal determined that Canada had to pay damages to the U.S. government for the years 1932 to 1937. However, this compensation payment only applied to the damage caused to the soil of the Columbia River Valley. The pollution of the air was not considered to be damage, but rather only a transport medium for the exhaust gases. The U.S. also tried to prove damage to forestry, agriculture, and livestock, but the tribunal rejected this for lack of convincing evidence. 

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Proudly powered by WordPress