This Case Database aims to document all cases against parties for harm to the environment where some type of remedies has been awarded.
It is a living document and new cases will be added and existing cases amended as the information becomes available. Due to challenges in accessing court documents, some cases may have data gaps.
To submit a case for inclusion on this database, click here.
| Jurisdiction | Final Court | Case name | Case reference | Status | Type of resource(s) harmed | Case summary | Legal provisions/approach | At issue | Description of remedies sought | Description of remedies granted | File / link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cameroon | Court of First Instance, Yaoundé | Public Prosecutor's Office and MINFOF v. Bingono Ango | Decision No. 1935/CO | Decided | Wildlife | The offender was accused of illegal possession of 6 ivory tusks. Together with the criminal action initiated by the Public Prosecutor, the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife intervened as a civil party. | Data pending | Data pending | CRF 40 million (approximately US $66,000) as compensation for material and monetary loss, including the legal expenses of the case. | The Court considered that the claimed damages should be limited to the real harm caused and granted CRF 2 million (a bit over US $3,000) as compensation. | |
| Cameroon | Court of First Instance, Yaoundé | Public Prosecutor's Office and MINFOF v. Mfopou Félix Désiré | Decision No. 31/CO | Decided | Wildlife | The offender was caught red handed offering for a number of ivory products (18 necklaces) for sale at a hotel lobby. Together with the criminal action initiated by the Public Prosecutor, the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife intervened as a civil party seeking remedies for harm. | Data pending | Data pending | CRF 8 million (approximately US $13,000) as compensation for environmental harm (“dommage écologique”). | In its decision, judges considered that the claimed damages should be limited to the harm caused and granted CRF 2.160 million (approx. US $3,500) as compensation. The offender was given nine months to comply with the court’s decision, otherwise he would be incarcerated. The Court upheld the MINFOF claims related to biodiversity harm but also socio, cultural, procdural harm (enforcement and legal costs) and other types such as touristic harm. It also recognised the need to compensate the State for the economic impact that the case had (patrol fees, lawyers and others). | |
| Cameroon | Court of First Instance Douala-Bonanjo | Public Prosecutor and MINFOF vs Tidjani, Abba, Tizani and Abbo | Decision No. 3487/FD/COR | Decided | Wildlife | The defendant was accused of illegal possession of over 600 kg of pangolin scales. Alongside the criminal prosecution initiated by the Public Prosecutor, the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife again intervened as a civil party on the basis of Article 1382 of the Civil Code. | Data pending | Data pending | CRF 60 million (approximately US $98,000) in compensation for material harm, environmental harm and procedure-related harms, including the legal expenses of the case. | The Court granted the full amount requested. | |
| Philippines | Supreme Court | Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay 2008 | Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) et al. v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008, 574 SCRA 661 | Decided | Marine Environment | A group of “Concerned Residents of Manila Bay” filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Imus, against several government agencies for the cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay. They claimed that the water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen far below the allowable standards set by law due to the recklessness and accumulated passivity of authorities, resulting in clear danger to public health and in the depletion and contamination of the marine life of Manila Bay. | Data pending | Public authorities have an obligation to not only protect, but also restore the environment when it is harmed, including from sources of diffuse pollution, for both present and future generations. | Data pending | The Supreme Court of the Philippines issued, for the first time, a continuing mandamus through which the Authoritywas compelled to perform its duties in cleaning and preserving the polluted Manila Bay, and was obliged to submit quarterly progress reports to the Court for monitoring. Due to the special nature of this remedy, the Court was able to monitor the execution of its judgment until it is fully satisfied. To facilitate the cleanup, the Supreme Court created the Manila Bay Advisory Committee, headed by Associate Justice Velasco Jr, who wrote the judgment. Following this judgment, the Supreme Court of the Philippines adopted new Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases in 2010 to facilitate these types of cases. | Link |
| Thailand | Supreme Court | Klity Creek Case | A.743/2555 | Decided | Fresh Water | Lower Klity Creek is home to about 400 ethnic Karen people, most of whom are farmers of rice, cassava, and vegetables. Upstream of the creek, a lead-processing factory run by Lead Concentrate (Thailand) Co Ltd. had been discharging toxic water in the stream for over 20 years. Residents, suffering the symptoms of chronic lead poisoning, initiated litigation against the company and 7 of its representatives, as well as against the authorities for having failed to act against the company promptly. | Data pending | Data pending | Data pending | THB 36 million (approx. US $1 million) in compensation to the villagers affected by the pollution. It also ordered the defendants to clean-up and rehabilitate the creek, at their own expenses, until it was clean enough for human use. The Supreme Administrative Court also upheld the claim of 22 villagers against the Pollution Control Department for acting too late, and granted THB 171,159 (approx. US $5,000) in compensation to each of the claimants. | |
| Pakistan | Lahore High Court | River Ravi Commission Case | W.P No. 9137/2012 Lahore High Court 2012 and W.P No. 9137/2012 Lahore High Court 2015 | Decided | Wildlife | A 2012 public interest litigation petition was made regarding the discharge of untreated municipal and industrial wastewater into the River Ravi. | Data pending | Data pending | Data pending | The Green Bench of the Lahore High Court in Pakistan ordered the establishment of the River Ravi Commission to manage the river’s restoration. The Commission, comprising experts and government and non-governmental representatives, was given the task of fnding local and low-tech solutions for controlling pollution in the River Ravi. The Commission developed a bioremediation project using wetlands to treat wastewater. The Lahore High Court held periodic hearings on the progress of the Commission’s work and, in 2015, ordered full-scale implementation of the bioremediation project. | |
| Indonesia | Palembang First Instance General Court | MoEF vs Waimusi Agroindah Ltd | Decision No. 234/Pdt.G/LH/2016/PN/Plg | Decided | Terrestrial Environment | The Indonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF) sued a palm oil company, PT Waimusi Agro Indah, for a fire in their plantation area in Ogan Komering illir regency, South Sumatra Province. The MoEF argued that the fire which occured in August-October 2015 burnt 580 hectares plantation area that include peatland. The company argued that the fire occured due to local people's farming activities and spreaded to their plantation, the El Nino and long dry season made it even harder to control the fire. The judge concluded that the burnt area is 400 ha based on witness testimony | The MoEF used Art. 88 Law No. 32 of 2009 on strict liability as the basis for liability rule. The environmental standard in Govt. Regulation No. 4 of 2001 is used to determine whether or not environmental harm has occurred. The calculation for remedies is based on MoEF Regulation No.7/2014 | • The use of strict liability in non hazardous substance case. The case extend the interpretation of "serious threath to the environment" to include fire to peatland • The challenge on MoEF legal standing on environmental harm occured in "private land". The defendant argue the plantation area is not public land and property • The challenge on component of damages calculation (e.g biodiversity, emission, etc) | • Monetary compensation for the ecological loss (material harm) that occurred in the amount of IDR 62,664,585,560 (apprx. US$4 million) • Monetary compensation to cover the costs of restoration (future action) in the amount of IDR 146,567,015,000 (approx. US $9.7 million) • Note that loss of biodiversity and restoration of biodiversity were considered in both ecological loss and restoration costs | • Monetary compensation for ecological loss in the amoutn of IDR 29,658,700,000 (approx. US$2 million). • The court rejected the biodiversity component in ecological loss on the reason that the MoEF failed to prove what kind of biodiversity wass impacted; the court demand a concrete and case specific explanation. • The court rejected the restoration cost demand on the reason that this cost has been included in the compensation for ecological loss. | |
| Indonesia | Indonesia Supreme Court | MoEF vs Kalista Alam Ltd | Decision No.1 PK/Pdt/2017 | Decided | Terrestrial Environment | The Indonesian Ministry of Environment (MoE) filed a civil suit against an palm oil company, PT. Kalista Alam, for a fire in their plantation area in Nagan Raya Regency, Aceh Province. The fire occured from April to July 2012, and the satellite data also showed hot spots in the area from February 2009 to November 2011. The burnt area are peatland with more than 3 m depth. The MoE team did not find sufficient fire control infrastructure and equipment in the area. The ministry accused there is an intention to drain the peatland through canals to make it easier to be burnt for land clearing. The defendant rejected this accusation as the fire also damage their interest on the land | • The MoE used the general Civil Code Art. 1365 and Art 87 Law No.32 of 2009 as legal base for liability • Strict liability is mentioned in the petition but is not used thoroughly in the petition. The petition focus on proving intention in accordance to fault-based liability rule (Civil Code Art 1365) - To prove unlawful act/fault, the plaintiff argued on articles that prohibit land clearing by using fire, which is stated in Art 69 Law No.32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management Law, Art 26 Law No.18 of 2004 on Plantation • The environmental standard in Govt. Regulation No. 4 of 2001 and Govt. Regulation No. 150 of 2000 are used to determine whether or not environmental harm has occurred, flora and fauna population and its diversity is one of the component in this environmental standard. | •The use of environmental threshold to determine whether environmental harm has occured • The challenge on validity of damage claim component based on calculation methodology and empirical condition of the land • The confusing use of strict liability at the same time with fault-based liability | The MoEF requested compensation for ecological loss (material harm) IDR 114,303,419,000 (approximately US $7.5 million) and restoration cost (future action) IDR 251,765,250,000 (approximately US $16.6 million). Biodiversity loss and restoration is a component in ecological loss and restoration cost. | The court granted all the MoEF claims: • Compensation for ecological loss (material harm) IDR 114,303,419,000 (approx. US $7.5 million). • Restoration cost (future action) IDR 251,765,250,000 (approx. US $16.6 million). | |
| Indonesia | Indonesia Supreme Court | MoEF vs PT Ricky Kurniawan Kertapersada Ltd | Decision No. 854 PK/Pdt/2022 | Decided | Terrestrial Environment | The MoEF sued a palm oil company, PT Ricky Kurniawan Kertapersada, for a fire in their plantation area in Muaro Jambi Regency, Jambi Province. The MoEF accused this fire is intentional based on findings of the hotspots pattern and on the field (trees logs that have been cut down are scattered in the ground, acting as fuels material; the land plots are separated by wide water canal but all of them were burnt, since fire jumps is not possible, is was inferred that there was fire starter for each of the plot). Furthermore, the burnt area from July to October 2015 were also the area which were planned to be cleared based on the company annual working plan. The defendant argued that the fire sources were from other plantation and they have done their best to control the fire | The MoEF used Art. 88 Law No. 32 of 2009 on strict liability and Art. 1365 civil code as the basis for liability rule (the move that was critized by legal expert because art 1365 is a fault-based liability rule). The environmental standard in Govt. Regulation No. 4 of 2001 and Govt. Regulation No. 150 of 2000 are used to determine whether or not environmental harm has occurred, flora and fauna population and its diversity is one of the component in this environmental standard. The court adjudicated the case based on strict liability rule. Art 56 on prohibition of land clearing by using fire in Law No.39 of 2014 on Plantation is also used to argue on the unlawful act | • The challenge on MoEF legal standing on environmental harm occured in "private land". The defendant argue the plantation area is not public land and property • The challenge on component of damages calculation (e.g emission,) • Challenge on the implementation of strict liability that should have been only applied to the case involving hazardous substance or waste • The use of force majeur as defense against strict liability | The MoEF requested compensation for ecological loss (material harm): • Ecological loss IDR 44,745,021,600 (approx. US $3 million) • Restoration cost/future action IDR 147,058,240,100 (approximately US $9.7 million) • Reputational harm IDR 1 trillion (approx. US $66 million). Biodiversity loss and restoration is a component in ecological loss and restoration cost. | The court granted monetary compensation for ecological loss in the amount of: • IDR 29,658,700,000 (approx. US$2 million) and restoration cost (future action) • IDR 147,058,240,100 (approximately US $9.7 million. The court rejected the claim on reputational harm | |
| Indonesia | PT Surya Panen Subur Case | Decision No. 690 PK/PDT/2018, PT. Surya Panen Subur | Decided | Terrestrial Environment | The MoEF sued a palm oil company, PT. Surya Panen Subur, for a fire in their plantation area. The MoEF used Art. 1365 civil code coupled with provisions that regulate company's obligation and restriction in Law No. 32 of 2009 (on environment) and Law No. 39 of 2014 (on plantation) as the base for liability rule. The environmental standard in Govt. Regulation No. 4 of 2001 is used to determine whether or not environmental harm has occurred, flora and fauna population and its diversity is one of the component in this environmental standard. | Data pending | Data pending | The MoEF requested compensation for ecological loss (material harm) IDR 138,864,142,800 (approx. US $9 million) and restoration cost (future action) IDR 302,154,300,000 (approx. US $20 million). Biodiversity loss and restoration is a component in ecological loss and restoration cost. | This case was rejected at first instance and appeal court, but the Supreme Court granted all the MoEF claims. • Compensation for ecological loss (material harm) IDR 138,864,142,800 (approx. US $9 million). • Restoration cost (future action) IDR 302,154,300,000 (approx. US $20 million). | ||
| Indonesia | PT Waringin Agro Jaya Case | Decision No. 805 PK/PDT/2019, PT. Waringin Agro Jaya | Decided | Terrestrial Environment | The MoEF sued a palm oil company, PT. Waringin Agro Jaya, for a fire in their plantation area. The MoEF used Art. 1365 of the Civil Code as the liability rule coupled with Law no. 32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection, Law No. 39 of 2014 on Plantation. The environmental standard in Govt. Regulation No. 4 of 2001 is used to determine whether or not environmental harm has occurred. | Data pending | Data pending | The MoEF requested compensation for ecological loss (material harm) IDR 173,468,991,700 (approx. US $11.4 million) and restoration cost (future action) IDR 584,940,622,300 (approx. US $38.5 million). Biodiversity loss and restoration is one of the component in ecological loss and restoration cost. | The court granted: • Ecological loss (material loss) compensation of IDR 173,468,991,700 (approx. US $11.4 million). • Restoration cost (future action) IDR 293,000,000,000 (approx, US $19.3 million) for restoration cost on the grounds that not all the burnt area is in severe condition, the soil is recovering (due to natural succession) and the area are still under the care of the company. | ||
| Indonesia | PT Palmina Utama Case | Decision No. 1228 K/PDT/2019, PT. Palmina Utama | Decided | Terrestrial Environment | The MoEF sued a palm oil, PT. Waringin Agro Jaya, company for a fire in their plantation area. The MoEF used Art. 88 Law No. 32 of 2009 on strict liability and Art. 1365 civil code as the basis for liability rule (the move that was critized by legal expert because art 1365 is a fault-based liability rule). The environmental standard in Govt. Regulation No. 4 of 2001 and Govt. Regulation No. 150 of 2000 are used to determine whether or not environmental harm has occurred, flora and fauna population and its diversity is one of the component in this environmental standard. | Data pending | Data pending | The MoEF requested compensation for ecological loss (material harm) IDR 55,482,375,900 (approx. US $3.7 million),restoration cost (future action) IDR 128,224,849,500 (approx. US $8.5 million). Biodiversity loss and restoration is a component in ecological loss and restoration cost. | The court granted: • Ecological loss compensation amount IDR 22,292,478,500 (approx. US $1.5 million) • Ecological loss in the form of loss of land productivity is rejected because the defendant's concession permit is still valid for years to come, so the loss of land productivity is already the burden of the defendant. • Restoration cost was rejected due to the same reason, since the permit is still valid, the company will take care of the soil and plants in the area so that they can keep producing palm oil. | ||
| Indonesia | PT Jatim Jaya Perkasa Case | Decision No. 728 PK/Pdt/2020, PT. Jatim Jaya Perkasa | Decided | Terrestrial Environment | The MoEF sued a palm oil, PT. Jatim Jaya Perkasa, company for a fire in their plantation area. The MoEF used Art. 1365 civil code coupled with provisions that regulate company's obligation and restriction in Law No. 32 of 2009 (on environment) and Law No. 39 of 2014 (on plantation) as the basis for liability rule. Strict liability is mentioned but is not used thoroughly in the petition. The environmental standard in Govt. Regulation No. 4 of 2001 is used to determine whether or not environmental harm has occurred, flora and fauna population and its diversity is one of the component in this environmental standard. | Data pending | Data pending | The MoEF requested compensation for ecological loss (material harm) IDR 119,888,500,000 (approx. US $8 million) and restoration cost (future action) IDR 371,137,000,000 (approx. US $24 million). Biodiversity loss and restoration is a component in ecological loss and restoration cost. | The court granted all of the MoEF claims: • Compensation for ecological loss (material harm) IDR 119,888,500,000 (approximately US $8 million). • Restoration cost (future action) IDR 371,137,000,000 (approximately US $24 million). | ||
| Indonesia | PT National Sago Prima Case | Decision No.808 PK/PDT/2020, PT. National Sago Prima | Decided | Terrestrial Environment | The MoEF sued a non-timber forest product company, PT. National Sago Prima, for a fire in their sagoo plantation area. The MoEF used Art. 1365 civil code coupled with provisions that regulate company's obligation and prohibition in Law No. 32 of 2009 (on environment) and Law No. 18 of 2004 (on plantation) as the basis for liability rule. Strict liability is mentioned but is not used thoroughly in the petition. The environmental standard in Govt. Regulation No. 4 of 2001 and Govt. Regulation No. 150 of 2000 are used to determine whether or not environmental harm has occurred, flora and fauna population and its diversity is one of the component in this environmental standard. | Data pending | Data pending | The MoEF requested compensation for ecological loss (material harm) IDR 319,168,422,500 (approx. US $21 million) and restoration cost (future action) IDR 753,745,500,000 (approx. US $50 million). Biodiversity loss and restoration is a component in ecological loss and restoration cost. | The court granted all of the MoEF claims: • Compensation for ecological loss (material harm) IDR 319,168,422,500 (approx. US $21 million). • Restoration cost (future action) IDR 753,745,500,000 (approx. US $50 million). | ||
| Indonesia | PT Kaswari Unggil Case | Decision No. 296/PDT/2020/PT.DKI, PT. Kaswari Unggul | Decided | Terrestrial Environment | The MoEF sued a palm oil company, PT. Kaswari Unggul, for a fire in their plantation area. The MoEF used Art. 1365 civil code and Art. 87 of Law No. 32 of 2009 on fault-based liability. The environmental standard in Govt. Regulation No. 4 of 2001 and Govt. Regulation No. 150 of 2000 are used to determine whether or not environmental harm has occurred, flora and fauna population and its diversity is one of the component in this environmental standard. | Data pending | Data pending | The MoEF requested compensation for ecological loss (material harm) IDR 15,758,610,630 (approx. US $1 million),restoration cost (future action) IDR 9,768,914,550 (approx. US $644,000) and cost for handling the case (ground check, expert, etc) IDR 83,092,000 (approx. US $5,482). Biodiversity loss and restoration is a component in ecological loss and restoration cost. | The court granted all of the MoEF claims: • Compensation for ecological loss (material harm) IDR 15,758,610,630 (approx. US $1 million). • Restoration cost (future action) IDR 9,768,914,550 (approx. US $644,000). • Cost for handling the case (ground check, expert, etc) IDR 83,092,000 (approx. US $5,482). In this case, the restoration cost needs to be paid to the state treasury. This is different from the PT Waringin Agro Jaya Case in which the MoEF demands and the Court Decision opens the possibility for the defendant to conduct restoration on their own instead of paying the restoration money to the government. | ||
| Indonesia | PT Arujuna Utama Sawit Case | Decision No. 3220-K/PDT/2020, PT Arjuna Utama Sawit | Decided | Terrestrial Environment | The MoEF sued a palm oil company for a fire in their plantation area. The MoEF sued a palm oil company for a fire in their plantation area. The MoEF used Art. 88 Law No. 32 of 2009 on strict liability and Art. 1365 civil code as the basis for liability rule (the move that was critized by legal expert because Art. 1365 is a fault-based liability rule). The environmental standard in Govt. Regulation No. 4 of 2001 is used to determine whether or not environmental harm has occurred. | Data pending | Data pending | The MoEF requested compensation for ecological loss (material harm) IDR 115,855,407,000 (approx. US $7.6 million) and restoration cost (future action) IDR 243,291,006,270 (approx. US $16 million). Biodiversity loss and restoration is a component in ecological loss and restoration cost. | The court granted: • Ecological loss (material harm) compensation amount IDR 115,855,407,000 (approx. US $7.6 million) • Restoration cost IDR 227,120,281,369 (approx. US $15 million) for the reason that the company has spent IDR 16,171,724,901 (approx. US$ 1 million) for the restoration effort. | ||
| Indonesia | PT Kalimantan Lestrari Mandiri Case | Decision No.1890 K/PDT/2021, PT. Kalimantan Lestari Mandiri | Decided | Terrestrial Environment | The MoEF sued a palm oil company, PT. Kalimantan Lestari Mandiri, for a fire in their plantation area. The MoEF used Art. 1365 civil code and Art. 87 of Law No. 32 of 2009 on fault-based liability. The environmental standard in Govt. Regulation No. 4 of 2001 and Govt. Regulation No. 150 of 2000 are used to determine whether or not environmental harm has occurred, flora and fauna population and its diversity is one of the component in this environmental standard. | Data pending | Data pending | The MoEF requested: • Compensation for ecological loss (material harm) IDR 89,342,807,400 (approx. US $6 million) • Restoration cost (future action) IDR 210,500,558,200 (approx. US $14 million). Biodiversity loss and restoration is a component in ecological loss and restoration cost. | The court granted all of the MoEF claims: • Compensation for ecological loss (material harm) IDR 89,342,807,400 (approx. US $6 million). • Restoration cost (future action) IDR 210,500,558,200 (approx. US $14 million). This is different from the PT Waringin Agro Jaya Case in which the MoEF demand and the Court Decision opens the possibility for the defendant to conduct restoration by their own instead of paying restoration money to the government. | ||
| Indonesia | PT Afro Tumbuh Gemilamd Abadi Case | Decision N0 3475 K/Pdt/2021, PT Agro Tumbuh Gemilang Abadi | Decided | Terrestrial Environment | The MoEF sued a palm oil company, PT Agro Tumbuh Gemilang Abadi, for a fire in their plantation area. The MoEF used Art. 88 Law No. 32 of 2009 on strict liability as the liability rule. The environmental standard in Govt. Regulation No. 4 of 2001 is used to determine whether or not environmental harm has occurred. | Data pending | Data pending | The MoEF requested: • Compensation for ecological loss (material harm) IDR 160,180,335,500 (approx. US $10 million) • Restoration cost (future action) IDR 430,362,687,500 (approx. US $28 million). Biodiversity loss and restoration is a component in ecological loss and restoration cost. | The court granted all of the MoEF claims: • Compensation for ecological loss (material harm) IDR 160,180,335,500 (approx. US $10 million). • Restoration cost (future action) IDR 430,362,687,500 (approx. US $28 million). This is different from the PT Waringin Agro Jaya Case in which the MoEF demand and the Court Decision opens the possibility for the defendant to conduct restoration by their own instead of paying restoration money to the government. | ||
| China | Shanghai Maritime Court | The Third Branch of the Shanghai People's Procuratorate v. Jiang et al., for ecological damage civil public interest litigation case | (2021) Hu 72 Civil First No.529 | Decided | Wildlife & Ecological Function | Six people, including Jiang, illegally fished in the key waters of the Yangtze River basin and the aquatic germplasm resources protection zone, and transported the catch and sold it. The illegal catch of Yangtze River swordfish and anchovy (a non-protected species) totalled 1,470.9 kilograms, valued at RMB 101,673.70 (approx. US $14,968.08),constituting the offence of illegal fishing of aquatic products. | Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of the Yangtze River Article 39 Stipulates that natural reserves shall be legally established in environmentally sensitive zones in the Yangtze River basin. Environmental Protection Law of the People's Republic of China Article 29 stipulates strict protection of ecologically sensitive areas. Article 64 stipulates that when ecological damage is caused, tortious liability shall be born. Civil Code of the People's Republic of China Article 179 listed the main forms of civil liability. Article 187 stipulates that when assets are insufficient, civil liability shall be paid first when the person has to concurrently bear civil, administrative, and criminal liabilities as a result of the same act performed by him. Fisheries Law of the People's Republic of China Article 30 stipulates that fishing in banned fishing areas or within banned fishing periods is prohibited. Interpretations of the Supreme People's Court on Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Environment-related Civil Public Interest Lawsuits Article 18 stipulated the civil liability that the plaintiff can request the defendant damaged the ecology to bear, including cessation of infringement, removal of obstruction, elimination of danger, restoration of the ecological environment, compensation for losses and apology. Article 20 stipulated that when the ecology damage can not be restored, alternative restoration shall be allowed. Article 22 stipulates what expenses the court may approve when the plaintiff requests the defendant to bear. | In addition to the cost of restoring fishery resources, the court also supported the plaintiff's requirement of paying “additional loss of environmentally sensitive areas”, as the damage caused to the special ecological environment service function of such region is hard to restore | Claims were made for the direct loss of fishery resources caused by illegal fishing, valued at RMB 101,673.70 (approx. US $14,968.08),the cost of restoring fishery resources was RMB 305,021.10 (approx. US $4,4904.25),and the additional loss of environmentally sensitive areas was RMB 406,694.80 (approx. US $59,872.33),totalling RMB 813,389.6 (approx. US $1,197,44.66). The Shanghai People's Procuratorate initiated civil public interest litigation, requesting the six defendants to jointly and severally compensate for ecological and environmental damage and appraisal costs and to apologize to the community publicly. | It was found that the ecological damage caused by this illegal fishing case included direct loss of natural fishery resources, restoration costs of fishery resources, and additional loss of environmentally sensitive areas. The six defendants were ordered: • Joint and several damages of RMB 813,389.60 (approx. US $119,744.66) for ecological and environmental damage, • RMB 4,000 (approx. US $550) for appraisal costs. • Public apologies to the community. | |
| China | Shandong, Qingdao Intermediate People's Court | Shandong Province Qingdao People's Prosecutor's Office v. A Civil Public Interest Litigation for Ecological Damage by an Art Appreciation Centre in Laoshan District, Qingdao | (2021) Lu 02 Civil First No.69 | Decided | Wildlife | An art centre purchased three Bengal cobras, one pangolin and four brown bear paws between 2017 and 2018 without obtaining administrative permits, and made some of the wild animals into dishes for sale. The Bengal cobra is one of the "three haves" animals; the brown bear, which is a Class II wildlife under special state protection; the pangolin was upgraded as a Class I wildlife under special state protection in June 2020. In October 2020, The director of this art center, was sentenced to three years imprisonment, suspended for three years, and fined RMB 60,000 (approx. US $8,833.01) for illegally acquiring and selling precious and endangered wildlife. Later, the People's Prosecutor's Office of Qingdao, Shandong Province, filed a civil public interest lawsuit and assessed that an art centre's ecological damage caused a loss of RMB 83,000 (approx. US $12,219.00) in wildlife and RMB 907,500 (approx. US $133,599.30) in ecological environment service functions. This art centre repented during the trial and applied to bear part of the punitive liability in lieu of labour, which was granted. | List of wildlife under special state protection, Catalog of benchmark values for terrestrial wildlife and Methods for assessing the value of wild animals and their products were adopted to calculate the loss of wildlife resources; Interpretations of the Supreme People's Court on Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Environment-related Civil Public Interest Lawsuits Article 18 stipulated the civil liability that the plaintiff can request the defendant damaged the ecology to bear, including cessation of infringement, removal of obstruction, elimination of danger, restoration of the ecological environment, compensation for losses and apology; Civil Code of the People's Republic of China Article 1232 stipulates that when the violation results in serious consequences, punitive damages may be requested; Article 1235 lists the losses and expenses that can be requested from the tortfeasor who caused the ecological damage. | There are two positive attempts in this case: • The plaintiffs claimed punitive damages in addition to ecological loss damages, which was accepted by the court. • Due to the inability to pay the full amount of damages, the defendant's proposal to offset part of the damages by providing ecologically public labour service as a form of alternative restoration was also accepted by the court. | • Wildlife loss RMB 83,000 (approx. US $12,219.00) • Ecological environment service functions RMB 907,500 (approx. US $133,599.30) | The court ruled that the art center should compensate for: • Loss of wildlife, loss of ecological and environmental services and punitive damages totalling more than RMB 1.08 million (approx. US $158,994.21) of which the art center should bear RMB 24,924 (approx. US $3,669.23) out of the punitive damages of RMB 99,050 (approx. US $14,581.83) by designating two persons to provide 60 days of ecologically public labor service each, to be managed and guided by the local judicial bureau designated by the court as the assisting enforcement unit, to be completed at the latest by 28 January 2022. After the judgment was handed down, none of the parties appealed, and the first trial judgment has taken legal effect. | |
| France | Notre Affaire à Tous et al. v. French State | Notre Affaire à Tous et al. v. French State | To Be Updated | Terrestrial Environment | Several associations requested France to take all appropriate measures to repair the ecological damage and prevent further damage by restoring consistency between the rate of reduction in pesticide use and the trajectory set out in the Ecophyto plans, and by taking all appropriate measures to restore and protect groundwater against the impact of pesticides, and in particular against the risk of pollution. | Data pending | Data pending | Data pending | The Court ordered: • The Prime Minister and the relevant ministers to take all appropriate measures to repair the ecological damage by 30 June 2024. • Monetary compensation of €1 (approx. US $1) per plaintiff as moral harm. • Monetary compensation of €3,000 (approx US $3,000) per plaintiff for expenses related to undertaking the litigation | ||
| China | The High People's Court of JiangXi Province | Harm to Python Peak on Sanqing Mountain | (2020) Gan Civil Final No. 317 | Decided | Natural Heritage | Shangrao People's Procuratorate of Jiangxi Province sued three rock climbers who ascended “Python Rock” on Sanqingshan Mountain, drilling 26 holes into the granite to secure bolts and hooks. Mount Sanqingshan National Park is on UNESCO’s World Heritage List, and the Python Rock pillar, estimated to be over 300 million years old, holds significant scientific and cultural value. Experts explained that the damage caused may be irreparable. | Articles 24 &26 of Regulations on Scenic and Historic Areas and Regulations on the Management of Sanqingshan Scenic Spot in Jiangxi Province stipulate the obligations of residents and visitors in the scenic spots to protect the related natural heritage and the prohibited behaviours that may cause damage to it. Environmental Protection Law of the People's Republic of China Article 2 The legal definition of "environment" identified natural remains as one of its components. Therefore, the violation in this case should be regarded as causing damage to the ecological environment. Article 64 stipulates that when ecological damage is caused, tortious liability shall be born. Article 79 of Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and Articles 15 & 23 of Interpretations of the Supreme People's Court on Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Environment-related Civil Public Interest Lawsuits stipulate the approval of expert's opinions provided by person(s) with expertise to appear in court. These provisions proved the reasonableness and legality of the determination of the severity of the damage and the corresponding amount of compensation. Interpretations of the Supreme People's Court on Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Environment-related Civil Public Interest Lawsuits Article 18 stipulated the civil liability that the plaintiff can request the defendant damaged the ecology to bear, including cessation of infringement, removal of obstruction, elimination of danger, restoration of the ecological environment, compensation for losses and apology. | The court in this case, recognized the scientific research value, aesthetic value, ornamental value and recreational value of Python Peak, coupled with its rarity, uniqueness and vulnerability, which led to the decision of a hefty ecological restoration fee in this case. | 6 million RMB (approx. US $859,800) for ecological restoration. | • Issue a public apology through nationally recognised media. • Pay 6 million RMB (approx. US $859,800) for ecological restoration. • Court recognised the site's rarity, uniqueness, and vulnerability, and its significant value for scientific research, aesthetics, recreation, and public enjoyment as part of the world's natural heritage. | |
| Thailand | Supreme Court | Premchai Black Panther Case | Supreme Court No. 1203/2564 | Decided | Wildlife | The Public Prosecutor initiated criminal actions against 5 defendants after they had been arrested in Thungyai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary in February 2018 for hunting wildlife, including for the killing of a rare black panther. At that time, the 1992 Wildlife Protection Act was the applicable legislation, which had no mention of the DNP as a plaintiff, so the prosecutor based their claim for compensation on section 97 of the NEQA. In parallel to the criminal procedure, the DNP submitted a civil claim requesting monetary compensation (plus interest) from the defendants for the harm they had caused. | Data pending | Data pending | Data pending | The Supreme Court granted: • THB 2 million (approx. US $60,000) in compensation. | |
| China | Yaan, Baoxing County People’s Court, Sichuan Province | Criminal incidental civil public interest litigation case of illegal logging by ALuo and others | (2022) Chuan 1827 Criminal First No.5 | Decided | Forest Resource | 6 offenders illegally logged 4 red maple trees (Acer miyabei Maxim.) and 3 maple trees (Acer),with a total volume of 34.32 cubic metres of deforested trees in the Giant Panda National Park. They were sentenced to three years and six months' imprisonment and a fine of RMB 25,000 (approx. US $ 3430.30) to a single fine of RMB 8,000 (approx. US $1097.70) for committing the crime of logging. | Civil Code of the People's Republic of China Article 1235 stipulates the compensation can be sued when ecological damage is caused, including: losses caused by loss of service function from the time the ecological environment is damaged to the time the restoration is completed; losses caused by permanent damage to the function of the ecological environment. | The plaintiff (i.e., the prosecutors) did not initially request the subscription of carbon sinks; however, the judge insisted on it and successfully persuaded the offenders to voluntarily subscribe to 24,000 kg of carbon sinks, the quantity of which was determined by experts at the Carbon Sinks Exchange institution using a professional formula, taking into account the loss incurred and the prevailing market price. The judge explained that, in addition to planting 70 new trees, subscribing to carbon sinks was necessary because the carbon sequestration capacity of young forests is significantly lower than that of middle-aged forests. During the restoration period, the ability of forests to absorb carbon dioxide is weak, and the subscription of 24 tonnes of carbon sinks helps compensate for the loss of carbon sequestration capacity during this period (interim period). | • Replant 70 spruce in accordance with the programme of vegetation restoration, making sure a survival rate of no less than 90% in the first year and a preservation rate of no less than 85% in three years; • Compensate for the economic loss of RMB14,751 (approx. US $2024.01); • Make a public apology in the media at or above the municipal level. | • Replant 70 spruce in accordance with the programme of vegetation restoration, making sure a survival rate of no less than 90% in the first year and a preservation rate of no less than 85% in three years; • Compensate for the economic loss of RMB14,751 (approx. US $2024.01); • Make a public apology in the media at or above the municipal level. • Additionally, before the trial, they voluntarily subscribed 24,000kg of "carbon sinks" for the purpose of restoring the ecological environment they damaged. | |
| China | Yueyang, Xiangyin County People's Court, Hunan Province | Criminal incidental civil public interest litigation case of illegally hunting and killing precious and endangered wild animals: Xiangyin County Prosecutors vs. Hu and others | NOT AVAILABLE | Decided | Wildlife | Between late November 2016 and January 17, 2017, Hu and others engaged in six instances of illegal hunting within a nature reserve, targeting 52 Tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus),classified as Class II species under special state protection, destroying the natural ecological environment resources and causing a loss of wild animal resources worth RMB 69,472 (approx. US $ 9590.15). Experts provided the following opinions: 1. The swans hunted by the defendants represent not only the foundational genetic diversity of their population but also unique individual genetic traits. The loss of these animals causes irreversible harm to the genetic diversity of the species. 2. The ecological value of swans lies in the stable ecological relationships they maintain with their environment. The artificial reduction of the swan population directly disrupts the ecological balance of the affected area, posing significant risks to the local ecosystem. | Environmental Protection Law of the People's Republic of China Article 64 stipulates that when ecological damage is caused, tortious liability shall be born. Civil Code of the People's Republic of China Article 1235 stipulates the compensation can be sued when ecological damage is caused, including losses caused by loss of service function from the time the ecological environment is damaged to the time the restoration is completed; losses caused by permanent damage to the function of the ecological environment; Interpretations of the Supreme People's Court on Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Environment-related Civil Public Interest Lawsuits Article 18 stipulated the civil liability that the plaintiff can request the defendant damaged the ecology to bear, including cessation of infringement, removal of obstruction, elimination of danger, restoration of the ecological environment, compensation for losses and apology. Article 20 stipulated that when the ecology damage can not be restored, alternative restoration shall be allowed. Article 22 stipulates what expenses the court may approve when the plaintiff requests the defendant to bear. | The plaintiff continued to follow up on the execution of the judgment. Hu and others entrusted the Xiangyin County Forestry Bureau to perform alternative restoration on their behalf. The Xiangyin County Forestry Bureau formulated an ecological restoration plan for this nature reserve, set up an artificial restoration area of 100 acres in the buffer zone of the reserve and managed it for three years, planted 250 willows and 100 acres of aquatic plants, and printed and distributed 5,000 copies of ecological protection publicity materials. As observed by the management station, the population of Tundra swans in the reserve increased significantly by the end of 2018, from more than 300 before the incident to more than 4,400. This is a good case of how, when wildlife hunting results in irreversible harm to the affected animals, alternative restoration efforts can help recover the species' population by enhancing the habitat ecosystem. | • Order Hu and others to jointly compensate for the loss of national resources caused by infringement of RMB 69,472 (approx. US $ 9590.15); • Order Hu and others to adopt alternative methods to restore the ecological environment; • Order Hu and others to jointly bear the expert consultation fee of RMB 16,000 (approx. US $ 2208.69) | 1. Order Hu and others to jointly compensate for the loss of national resources caused by infringement of RMB 69,472 (approx. US $ 9590.15); 2. Order Hu and others to adopt alternative methods to restore the ecological environment; 3. Order Hu and others to jointly bear the expert consultation fee of RMB 16,000 (approx. US $ 2208.69) | |
| Costa Rica | International Court of Justice | Costa Rica v. Nicaragua | https://www.icj-cij.org/case/150 | Decided | Fresh Water | The Govenrment of Costa Rica brought a civil case against the Government of Nicaragua before the International Court of Justice for transboundary environmental harm caused to the San Juan River, which forms the national border because the two countries. Harm was the result of dredging activities within Cost Rica territory, along the river to construction a canal from the San Juan River to Laguna los Portillos. | Data pending | Data pending | Data pending | Monetary compensation for the impairment or loss of environmental goods and services in the period prior to recovery, and for the cost of undertaking actions to restore the damaged environment, in the amount of f US$378,890 | |
| Solomon Islands | Data pending | https://www.solomontimes.com/feature/landmark-case-impacting-logging-companies-and-redefining-residents-affected-in-solomon-islands/700 | NOT AVAILABLE | To Be Updated | To Be Updated | A company held a permit to undertake logging inside a forest of customary lands. However, the company breached terms of its license, notably logging inside of buffer zones, including along the Kologara River. A local resident brought a lawsuit on behalf of 3 villages in Hograno District that had been affected. In 2019, the Court ordered the company to compensate the affected communities ($240,000) and to pay for the cost of environmental restoration ($145,000) | Data pending | • Residents, even if they are not landowners, can raise enviornmental compliants for harm to their local areas • Courts order remedies for harm to the environment, beyond harm to private resources | Data pending | ||
| India | Court of Additional Sessions, Sonitpur, Tezpur | State vs Sri Lakhiram Tudu | Sessions Case No. 20 of 2016 C.R. Case No. 120 of 2011 | Decided | Forest Resource | 5 people, including Lakhiram Tudu, found with bicycles, and forest resource destruction tools and no permit in the Sonai Rupai Wildlife Sanctuary were arrested. The accused illegally entered the sanctuary and destroyed and damaged trees that for wildlife habitat. The accused was sentenced to 2 months imprisonment and to pay compensation of RS 10,000 (approx. US$115). The compensation was directed to be given to the Chief Wildlife Warden, Assam, Basistha, Guwahati for spending on the cause of widlife as per Section 33 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 by the judge | Data pending | • Criminal Law provision was used to provide compensation for harm caused to wildlife | Data pending | Rs 10,000 (approx. US$115) - to be paid to the Chief Widllife Warden to spend on wildlife | |
| India | Sonitpur District Court | State vs Sadir Ali | C.R. Case No. 174 of 2009 | Decided | Wildlife | Sadir Ali was found with deer meat in the Dekhlajli area od Sonitpur District of Assam. The accused was sentenced to 53 days imprisonment and to pay a compensation of Rs 10,000 (approx. US$115)to the government. | Section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, where the fine is paid as compensation to the government Section 39(1) of thr Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 establishes that wild animals, animal articles, trophies, and uncured trophies are propert of the government, and so the government is at a loss here. | • Criminal Law provision was used to provide compensation for harm caused to wildlife • Court acknowledged that even though it is not possible to fix the loss of the deer, the compensation money can be used for mass awareness of wildlife laws | Data pending | Rs 10,000 (approx. US$115) - to be paid to the Chief Widllife Warden to spend on wildlife | |
| Indonesia | First Instance Court, Padang Sidempuan Court | Walhi Vs Nuansa Alam Nusantara Ltd | No. 9/Pdt.G/LH/2021/PN Psp | Wildlife | Walhi -an Environmental NGO- sued a zoo run by PT. Nuansa Alam Nusantara on the allegation of illegal possesion of several protected animals including one Orangutan and Komodo Dragon. | Walhi demanded PT NAN to bear the cost of rehabilitation and reintroduction of one Orangutan with the amount of IDR 271,896,845 (approximately US $18,000),remedy for harm to Orangutan species survival in the form of additional population monitoring/patrolling action with the cost of IDR 60,000,000 (approximately US $4,000) and scientific monitoring which cost IDR 85,400,000 (approximately US $5,600),and remedies for the loss of intangible ecosystem services that the animals provide such as the cultural value, scientific value and future generation value, in the form of conservation exhibition to spread the awareness with the cost of IDR 295,000,000 (approximately US $19,400). | Walhi's legal standing was accepted but the lawsuit itself was rejected at the first and appeal instance on the grounds that there is no fault in the zoo possession of the animal. The case is currently waiting for the Supreme Court judgment. |