Case Law Database
Nuestros Derechos al Futuro y Medio Ambiente Sano et. al., v. Mexico
| Date of Application: | Wed, 24 Mar 2021 |
|---|---|
| Date of Decision: | Thu, 15 Dec 2022 |
| Decision Making Body: | District Court in Administrative Matters, Mexico |
| Law Applied: | Electricity Industry Law (Mexico) Escazu Agreement General Law of the Rights of Children and Adolescents (Mexico) General Law on Climate Change, Mexico Paris Agreement United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change |
| Keywords: | Electricity generation, Sustainable development, Americas, Public Interest, Standing |
| Full Case Details - Download Full Judgment (pdf) |
Nuestros Derechos al Futuro y Medio Ambiente Sano et. al., v. Mexico
Amparo No. 204/2021
At Issue: Whether the amendment of Mexico’s Electric Industry Law violates the constitutional right to a healthy environment by giving preference to electricity generated by coal and fuel oil-fired power plants over renewables.
Summary: On March 24, 2021, five civil associations (Nuestros Derechos al Futuro y Medio Ambiente Sano A.C.; Alianza Juvenil por la Sostenibilidad, A.C.; Naj Hub, A.C.; Consejo Interuniversitario Nacional de Estudiantes de Derecho, A.C.; and Ágora Ciudadanos Cambiando México, A.C.), with the support of the #JóvenesPorNuestroFuturo collective, made up of more than 20 youth groups, filed a lawsuit against the Mexican Congress and the President of Mexico challenging the 2021 amendments of the Electric Industry Law.
The amendments, in general: (i) eliminate the obligation to dispatch the cheapest energy first and give priority in the process to the Federal Electricity Commission’s (CFE) coal and fuel oil-fired power plants, and (ii) eliminate the purchase of basic electricity by the CFE through long-term auctions. Before the amendments, the energy purchased in the auctions and the energy dispatched first was primarily renewable energy.
The plaintiffs argue that the Mexican State is constitutionally obligated to mitigate and adapt to climate change, which necessarily implies designing and implementing an energy policy that favors the gradual substitution of fossil fuels for renewable energy. The obligation to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy in the generation of electricity is based on Article 25 of the Constitution, in connection with the 17th and 18th transitory articles of the Decree of Constitutional Energy Reforms of 2013.
The plaintiffs argue that the challenged amendments violate the constitutional right to a healthy environment found in Article 4. Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that the transition to renewables in the electricity sector guarantees the exercise of the right to a healthy environment and is a necessary condition for Mexico to comply with its international commitments under the Paris Agreement. In its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), Mexico committed to a 22% reduction of GHG emissions by 2030, and the transition to renewables formed a critical piece of this commitment. The plaintiffs requested the judge to declare the amendments unconstitutional and to force the responsible authorities to comply with their constitutional obligations regarding energy transition and climate change mitigation policies. After the 2013 Constitutional Energy Reform, the Energy Transition Law set generation targets: 25% clean energy generation by 2018, 30% by 2021, and 35% by 2024, with the objective of significant reduction of CO2 emissions to mitigate climate change.
On April 7, 2021, the District Court issued an injunction to suspend the effects of the contested amendments until the court reaches a final decision on the merits of the case. The judge reasoned that the amendments could undermine the Mexican government’s duty to transition towards renewable energy. This duty is mainly established in the 18th Transitory Article of the Decree of Constitutional Energy Reforms of 2013. The judge also noted that, in the Energy Reform of 2013, the legislators agreed that the use of clean energies will enable the Mexican State to work towards its international climate and environmental commitments (specifically, the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals). The Court reasoned that compliance with the international commitments could be hindered by the amendments, because of the limits they place on the generation of clean energies.
On April 7, 2021, the Mexican government and congress appealed the decision of the District Judge to admit the claim. On April 22, 2021, the Mexican congress appealed the injunction granted by the District Court.
On December 15, 2022, the plaintiffs won in the District Court. The District Court decided that the 2021 amendments to the Electric Industry Law violate the right to a healthy environment and the Paris Agreement by favoring the generation of electricity through fossil fuels. In its decision, the Court recognized four relevant issues: (1) that NGOs have legal standing to file amparo lawsuits (constitutional challenges) to defend the right to a healthy environment; (2) that the Mexican government has a duty to reduce the use of fossil fuels to produce electricity; (3) that the Mexican government has a duty to increase the proportion of clean energy in the electricity sector as part of its obligation to mitigate climate change; and (4) that the challenged amendments have a negative impact on Mexico’s clean energy obligations and its international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
On December 28, 2022, the Mexican government appealed the District Court decision to uphold the plaintiffs’ claims. The appeal is pending resolution by the appellate Collegiate Court.
Summary provided courtesy of the Sabin Centre.
Court filed documents:
Injunction granted by the court
Decision by the District Court (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)
- 6. Right to life, survival and development (CRC Article 6)
- 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)
“Del derecho a un medio ambiente sano”
“El interés superior de los ninos”
Application / complaint:
The petitioners rely on the principle that the best interest of the child must be considered primary in every matter affecting them article 2, second paragraph of the General Law of Children’s Rights. (par 44)
“The Escazú Agreement puts into practice Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration of 1992 focuses on providing greater guarantees and procedural rights of access to people on environmental issues. Article 1 determines that "rights of access" is understood as the right of access to environmental information, the right to public participation in decision-making processes in environmental matters and the right to access to justice in environmental matters.” (par 115).
Decision:
The District Court finds a violation of the right to a healthy environment (article 5 of the Mexican Constitution).
Involvement of children in hearings
- Written presentation
The application is brought in the name of the organisations.
The personal letters of children are attached to the court paper setting out their “thoughts and feelings”. Par 161 onward.
Intergenerational rights
Application / complaint:
“When environmental resources are as threatened as they are today, it is impossible to have the right to imagine the future, on the same terms as generations previous ones did. That is why we are a differentiated category with a particular grievance when it comes to the right to a healthy environment and the violation of regulatory restrictions to curb climate change in Mexico and in the world.” Par 55 (unofficial translation)
Decision:
“In the medium and long term, use the electricity industry as a tool for development industrial sector of the country, rationalize the consumption of fuels to help solve the problem of climate change, and lowering the cost of energy electric. This translates into the following:
Understand the principle of sustainability of the national development, included in Article 25 constitutional, as defined by the United Nations Organization for the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), i.e., as the Orientation of technological change and institutional in such a way as to guarantee permanent satisfaction of needs of present and future generations, but conserving land, water, resources plant genetics, and is environmentally not degrading, technically appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable.” (par 8.3.4(ii)(d)
Future generations
“de las generaciones presentes y futuras”
Application / complaint:
“We express our disagreement with the recent reform of the Industrial Law Electricity due to its negative consequences on the environment, the fight against climate change and the health of the population. By not prioritizing the use of clean energy to electricity generation, greenhouse gas emissions will increase significantly, contradicting the country's commitments to the Paris Agreement, as well as the General Law on Climate Change. Climate change caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, already has severe social, environmental and economic impacts and increased emissions will cause the aggravation of these consequences for future generations”. (par 226)
Decision:
“This state duty was recognized at the Summit of the Earth of 1992, and principles 2, 3 and 5 of the Declaration of Rio,107 it is clear that in exercising this right that the people have to determine freely and sovereignly the in the way it will achieve its economic development, it must do so in a way that responds equitably to the needs of the development and environmental (8.1.4.1. duty to sustainability), of present and future generations”. (par 8.3.1.1)
Outcome of decision for the applicants
- Relief sought by applicants granted
The District Court found in favour of the petitioners.
The government’s appeal of this decision is pending.
Did outcome of decision develop the law
- Yes
The right to a healthy environment is relied upon in the court’s decision.
The Court recognized four relevant issues: (1) that NGOs have legal standing to file amparo lawsuits (constitutional challenges) to defend the right to a healthy environment; (2) that the Mexican government has a duty to reduce the use of fossil fuels to produce electricity; (3) that the Mexican government has a duty to increase the proportion of clean energy in the electricity sector as part of its obligation to mitigate climate change; and (4) that the challenged amendments have a negative impact on Mexico’s clean energy obligations and its international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Involvement of NGO/law firm in application
Five civil associations:
Nuestros Derechos al Futuro y Medio Ambiente Sano A.C.
Alianza Juvenil por la Sostenibilidad A.C.
Consejo Interuniversitario Nacional de Estudiantes de Derecho, A.C.
Ágora Ciudadanos Cambiando México, A.C.
With the support of the #JóvenesPorNuestroFuturo collective, made up of more than 20 youth groups.
Age range of litigants
- 13-17
- 18-25