Case Law Database
Fridays for Future Estonia vs. Environmental Board
| Date of Application: | Wed, 01 May 2024 |
|---|---|
| Date of Decision: | Fri, 01 Aug 2025 |
| Decision Making Body: | Estonia Tallinn Administrative Court |
| Law Applied: | Convention on the Rights of the Child Estonia General Part of the Environmental Code Act European Convention on Human Rights Paris Agreement United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change |
| Keywords: | Case Categories:, Suits against governments Environmental assessment and permitting Utilities, Protecting biodiversity and ecosystems |
Fridays for Future Estonia vs. Environmental Board “'3-24-1888”
At Issue: Whether it is legal to allow a new fossil fuel plant to begin operations
Summary:
In May 2024, the Estonian Environmental Board issued an integrated permit to the new state-owned Enefit280-2 shale oil plant, allowing it to operate until the end of 2034. Following the Supreme Court ruling in Fridays for Future Estonia (MTÜ Loodusvõlu) vs. Eesti Energia regarding the construction permit issued to the same plant (https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/11477/), Fridays for Future Estonia filed another claim in June 2024 to stop the operation of the plant.
There are two claimants in the case: MTÜ Loodusvõlu, the legally registered NGO of Fridays for Future Estonia, and Elo-Lee Maran, a young activist in the movement. The claimants argue that the Environmental Board should have refused to issue an integrated permit to the plant, because operating the plant causes carbon emissions, thereby hindering the achievement of the targets set out in the Paris Agreement and the National Energy and Climate Plan. Estonia has a national emission reduction target set for 2035 and to meet this, the Board issued the permit with a deadline, allowing the plant to operate until the end of 2034. However, the plant would increase Estonia’s yearly greenhouse gas emissions by about 6%, therefore diminishing Estonia’s share of the global carbon budget. The plant’s emissions would also hinder the achievement of the emission reduction target set out in the National Energy and Climate Plan 2030 in 2019, whereby Estonia should reduce its emissions by 70% (or to about 10.5 million tons) by 2030 compared to 1990. Additionally, MTÜ Loodusvõlu claims that the Board should have assessed the cumulative environmental impact of mining oil shale and producing oil from it. Overlooking the cumulative impact on nearby affected Natura 2000 areas constitutes a violation of the EU habitats’ directive. Furthermore, Elo-Lee Maran argues that, by aggravating the climate crisis, the operation of the plant violates her right to a healthy environment, as stipulated in national as well as international law. She also argues that the Environmental Board overlooked its obligation, stemming from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to set her best interests first when deciding on the permit. The Board did not pay any attention to the fact that worsening the consequences of climate change and depleting the ever-smaller carbon budget, which would require Estonia to limit people’s basic freedoms intensely in the future to limit climate change, are not in the best interests of a child.
Promptly after filing the case, the Tallinn Administrative Court accepted the case and applied temporary interim protection, forbidding Enefit Power AS from beginning the operation of the plant until July 12th, 2024. On July 12th, the court refused a motion for further interim protection. The Court also ordered the Environmental Board to respond to the case by the beginning of August 2024.
In early 2025, the Tallinn Administrative Court dismissed the claim and allowed the oil plant to operate. The decision has not yet entered into force and the lawsuit continues.
Summary provided courtesy of the Sabin Centre
Court documents:
Unavailable
Related CRC articles
- 24. Right to health, healthcare, and a healthy environment (CRC Article 24)
Elo-Lee Maran argues that, by aggravating the climate crisis, the operation of the plant violates her right to a healthy environment, as stipulated in national as well as international law.
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)
Elo-Lee Maran argues that the Environmental Board overlooked its obligation, stemming from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to set her best interests first when deciding on the permit.
Involvement of children in hearings
- Not sure
Intergenerational rights
Future generations
Outcome of decision for the applicants
- Relief sought by applicants NOT granted
In early 2025, the Tallinn Administrative Court dismissed the claim and allowed the oil plant to operate. The decision has not yet entered into force and the lawsuit continues.
Did outcome of decision develop the law
- No
Involvement of NGO/law firm in application
MTÜ Loodusvõlu, the legally registered NGO of Fridays for Future Estonia
The youth are supported by legal experts Kärt Vaarmari and Triin Jäädmaa from the Estonian Environmental Law Center and Tambet Laasik, an attorney at law.
Kertu Birgit Anton
Kertu is a university student and a member of the board of MTÜ Loodusvõlu, the legally registered NGO of FFF Estonia. She is also the coordinator of the case.
Robert Pappel
Robert is a law student, an activist in FFF Estonia and one of the spokespeople of the case.
Available information on how children got involved in the litigation
Age range of litigants
- 13-17
Number of children or youth involved
1