Case Law Database
Asociación Civil por la Justicia Ambiental v. Province of Entre Ríos, et al. (Delta del Paraná case)
| Date of Application: | Fri, 03 Jul 2020 |
|---|---|
| Decision Making Body: | Supreme Court of Argentina |
| Law Applied: | Constitution of Argentina Convention on the Rights of the Child Paris Agreement |
| Keywords: | Rights of nature, Future generations, Environmental management plan, Public participation |
| Full Case Details - Download Full Judgment (pdf) |
Asociación Civil Por La Justicia Ambiental y otros c/ Entre Ríos, Provincia de y otros 542/2020
At Issue: Whether different governmental entities are responsible for the burning of a wetland ecosystem and must take immediate action to protect the environment and citizens’ health.
Summary: In late Fall 2020, the uncontrolled burning of pastures in a Ramsar’s wetland ecosystem (Delta del Paraná) created a serious environmental conflict between different provinces of Argentina. This conflict gave place to several lawsuits seeking protection for the ecosystem, including injunctions and damages for environmental and health consequences of the fires. One of these claims introduced climate concerns.
On July 03, 2020, two NGOs and a group of children represented by their parents filed a constitutional collective claim (amparo colectivo ambiental) against three Argentinean Provinces and a Municipality. The plaintiffs allege that the government entities are failing in their duties regarding the protection and sound environmental management of the inter-jurisdictional ecosystem, which is key for mitigation and adaptation of climate change while also being at risk due to its negative impacts. The complaint asks the Supreme Court to (i) declare the ecosystem as an entity subject to rights, (ii) order the defendants to prepare and implement a coordinated environmental management and land use plan that recognizes the vulnerability of the ecosystem and its relevance for future generations, (iii) designate a ‘guardian’ for the entity, responsible for monitoring its conservation and sustainable use, as well as informing the Supreme Court about the enforcement of the judgment, and (iv) order that broad, early and effective public participation is guaranteed in any decision-making regarding the future management of the ecosystem. The complaint relies primarily on the Argentinian constitution, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement, General Environmental Law No. 25.675 and Environmental Law to Control Burning Activities No. 23.919. The complaint also references laws in other countries recognizing the rights of nature, rivers, and other non-human entities.
On 11 August 2020, the Supreme Court made a first decision in one related case (Equística Defensa del Medio Ambiente v. Provincia de Santa Fe y ots). In the decision, the Supreme Court referred to Law 27.520 (Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Law) as a principal Law for the case and ordered the creation of an Environmental Emergency Committee and the submission of relevant information about the environmental problem and its management.
On 28 December 2021, the Supreme Court decided to combine all the related cases and informed that it will hand down a single judgment for all.
Summary provided courtesy of the Sabin Centre
Court papers (only in Spanish):
Related CRC articles
- 3. Right to have child’s/children’s best interests taken as primary consideration in all matters affecting them (CRC Article 3)
- 12. Right to express views freely and have these taken into account (CRC Article 12)
- 24. Right to health, healthcare, and a healthy environment (CRC Article 24)
Complaint par 1.3 (unofficial translation):
“They initiate this action in accordance with the principle of intergenerational equity under the symbol of not having their generation suffer the disproportionate burden of global warming, as well as in the principles of solidarity, participation and the best interests of the child.”
Complaint Page 42 (unofficial translation).
“The well-known and renowned article 41 of our National Constitution clearly establishes that; “The authorities have the obligation to protect the right of all inhabitants to a healthy environment and to preserve the natural and cultural heritage and biological diversity.”
Cited CRC articles
- 3. Right to have child’s/children’s best interests taken as primary consideration in all matters affecting them (CRC Article 3)
- 6. Right to life, survival and development (CRC Article 6)
- 24. Right to health, healthcare, and a healthy environment (CRC Article 24)
- CRC Optional Protocols
Complaint page 42 refers to the Saachi case before the UNCRC in terms of the Optional Protocol.
Pg 42 (unofficial translation). The violation of the right to life (article 6), the right to health (article 24), the right to culture (article 30) and the best interests of the child (article 3) has exposed children to foreseeable and potentially fatal risks of climate change caused by the misuse of land in the Paraná Delta, which has brought smoke, polluted air, floods, storms, droughts, and diseases.
Involvement of children in hearings
- Written presentation
The children are parties to the case in their own names (represented by their parents).
Their representations are made by their lawyers.
Complaint page 4 (unofficial translation):
“Given the importance of this case, we request that the name of the title of this case be changed and that the names of the children themselves be included, who are coming to defend their own prerogatives and interests and not to represent a third party. For this reason, we understand that they are absolutely legitimized to act in their own cause, since they request the protection of their rights to enjoy a healthy environment, life and health. Therefore, this case merits that the appreciation of values in their relationship with reality allows legal norms to fulfill their purpose, beyond the formal rigor of traditional law. This new regulatory paradigm will emerge in line with the latest rulings from important Latin American courts such as the recent case issued by the Civil Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Colombia: STC4360-2018, which admitted active legitimation to boys and girls, without the need for representation by their guardians.”
Intergenerational rights
Complaint par 1.3 (unofficial translation):
“They initiate this action in accordance with the principle of intergenerational equity under the symbol of not having their generation suffer the disproportionate burden of global warming, as well as in the principles of solidarity, participation and the best interests of the child.”
Future generations
Complaint par 1.3 (unofficial translation):
“Those who will be the future generation that will face the effects of climate change in the period 2030 onwards are now presenting themselves in this action and do so according to strict procedural criteria, under the representation of their parents.
Page 42 (unofficial translation):
“The defendant States, with their complete and continuous omission, are causing, contributing to and accelerating the climate crisis, knowing that the deadly consequences will be seen in these plaintiff children and in future generations.”
Outcome of decision for the applicants
- Decision pending
Did outcome of decision develop the law
- Not sure
Involvement of NGO/law firm in application
The Asociación Foro Ecologista de Paraná
The Civil Association for Environmental Justice
Age range of litigants
- Other (Under 25)
Number of children or youth involved
5