2. Procedures and Evidence

I Australia

Climate litigation in Australia is characterised by a wide array of claimants, ranging from NGOs and individual activists to shareholders and community groups, targeting a diverse set of defendants across various industries. The involvement of third-party intervenors and the strategic [5] nature of many claims indicate the interests of multiple actors in the Australian climate litigation landscape.

1.
Recent cases in Australia usually involve public interest lawyers and activist shareholders. For instance, in Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v Woodside Energy Ltd, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) launched proceedings challenging Woodside Energy's Scarborough Gas project due to the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on the Great Barrier Reef and in (Oakey Coal Action Alliance Inc v New Acland Coal Pty Ltd, Oakey Coal Action Alliance challenged the approval of a New Acland Coal Mine. Other examples of shareholder activism can also be seen in claims brought by the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility against both the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (ACCR v CBA) and Santos (ACCR v Santos). Other claimants also include youth groups, as seen in the Sharma case , and NGOs.

2.
Defendants: Cases are predominantly targeted towards corporations involved in fossil fuels, as well as government decisions relating to environmental approvals for such projects. Cases have evolved from focusing on government decision-making ('first generation' cases) to directly holding corporations accountable for their climate change impacts ('next generation' cases). This transition is evident in cases like Environment Victoria Inc v AGL Loy Yang Pty Ltd and ACCR v Santos. Additionally, litigation extends to other sectors, including financial institutions, superannuation funds such as McVeigh v Retail Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd, and companies in the transport, electricity, and forestry sectors.

3.
Third-party Intervenors: These include community groups and organisations that have sought to join proceedings, often to support broader environmental and social interests. For instance, Groundswell Gloucester Inc. and Bylong Valley Protection Alliance Incorporated have successfully joined legal proceedings concerning coal mining projects. Additionally, strategic complaints to regulators like the ACCC and ASIC have been employed as an intervention, where groups and individuals request investigations into potentially misleading and deceptive conduct by corporations. This active involvement of third parties, both in direct legal proceedings, suggests the likelihood of continued and diversified legal actions in the future.

[5] Litigation has been categorised into 'strategic' and 'non-strategic' cases. Strategic cases, often brought by NGOs, activist groups, and concerned individuals, aim to achieve broader outcomes such as advancing climate policies and driving behavioural changes in corporations and regulatory bodies. However, it is important to note that this distinction between strategic and non-strategic litigation is potentially limiting (see Australian National Report  for further details).

II Brazil

In Brazil's environmental and climate litigation cases, claimants typically include individuals, communities, and civil society organisations.

1.
Claimants in corporate climate litigations, the majority of actions are brought by civil society organisations (12 cases), IBAMA (Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis, 10 cases), and the Public Defender's Office (4 cases) up to February 2024 (Plataforma de Litigância Climática no Brasil, 2024). The Public Prosecution's Office (Federal and State) and civil society stand out as the most frequent institutions that have brought climate cases (JUMA, Boletim da Litigância Climática no Brasil - 2023). Notably, political parties are also gaining prominence as active participants in climate actions, especially in constitutional lawsuits. Government agencies include the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA). Companies are also parties in some climate cases. For example, in Flexpetro Distribuidora de Derivados de Petróleo Ltda. vs. ANP e União Federal, the plaintiff company seeks to challenge Brazilian law's carbon credit acquisition target.

2.
Defendants are often corporations in the energy, mining, and agricultural sectors, they typically include environmental agencies and companies. Entities such as companies, Federal Union, states, or municipalities (federal entities), individuals, public administration bodies, and legislative bodies may be involved. The most frequently sued defendants in climate cases are federal entities, companies, and public administration bodies. Companies are defendants in at least 25 cases (JUMA, Boletim da Litigância Climática no Brasil - 2023). They are often sued in environmental licensing lawsuits, typically those involved in fossil fuel production. Additionally, there are cases such as Clara Leonel Ramos et al. vs. State of São Paulo, João Doria, and Henrique Meirelles where the defendants are not explicitly a company, there is a challenge to the state policy "IncentivAuto" - Automotive Regime for New Investments, that provides financing concessions to automobile manufacturers for expanding their industrial plants, establishing new factories, or developing new products - potentially impacting greenhouse gas emissions.

3.
Amicus Curiae are significant third-party intervenors. The involvement of amicus is relevant when the interested party successfully demonstrates (i) the importance of the matter and (ii) the adequate representativeness of the entity seeking to intervene. While more commonly seen in constitutional actions, this mechanism can also be applied in class actions, such as environmental Public Civil Actions in Brazil (Article 138, Civil Procedure Code). There has been a notable presence of NGOs and associations as amici curiae in climate-related cases. The corporate industry and their associations can also intervene as amicus curiae. For instance, in the case Rede Sustentabilidade v.  CONAMA - National Council for the Environment (ADPF 814), the Brazilian Agriculture and Livestock Confederation, the Brazilian Chamber of Construction Industry, the AELO-Brazil - Association of Urban Development Companies of Brazil, and the National Industry Confederation intervened as amicus curiae.

III Canada

Canada's environmental and climate litigation focuses on government entities but a growing interest in corporate accountability. The involvement of various groups and the legal precedents are paving the way for a possible increase in climate litigation against corporations in the future.

1.
Claimants include youth, NGOs, municipal governments, attorneys general, and Indigenous peoples' groups. While most litigation has targeted governments, there is potential for future actions against corporations. For example, the British Columbia government successfully pursued a public nuisance claim against a logging company in the Canfor Case. Municipalities have also considered litigation against corporations for climate-related damages, as seen in the 'Sue Big Oil' campaign led by Westcoast Environmental Law. Youth-led mass tort actions against governments, like La Rose and Mathur, have raised constitutional challenges based on sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. Indigenous peoples' groups, such as the Wet'suwet'en nation's claim against the federal government, have also been active. NGOs such as Ecojustice play a significant role, as seen in their support for a complaint against the Royal Bank of Canada on misleading advertising claims.

2.
As for defendants, climate change and environmental claims have predominantly targeted government entities rather than corporations. However, cases involving corporations, often brought through judicial reviews or complaints to regulatory bodies, have been directed at automobile manufacturers, oil and gas companies, logging/forestry companies (Canfor Case), and mining companies. This trend indicates a potential for expansion in corporate climate litigation, especially considering the evolving nature of environmental accountability and public interest in climate justice.

3.
Third-party intervenors in Canadian climate litigation include a broad range of entities such as Indigenous peoples' groups, government bodies, NGOs, industry associations, and religious groups. For instance, in the Canfor case various industry associations and NGOs such as Sierra Club of Canada and the David Suzuki Foundation intervened.

IV China

In China, both private and public interest litigation play roles in addressing climate change issues. Companies are significant participants in private interest litigation, often involving contract disputes related to climate change, such as the case of Beijing Mingsheng Sunshine Technology Co., Ltd v. Yoshimunai Haiwei Oil Wind Power Co., Ltd. However, individual litigants are rare due to the lack of explicit recognition of "environmental rights" in Chinese law and regulations.

1.
Claimants in China are usually NGOs who have worked for 5 years continuously without legal violations. The People's Procuratorates can bring legal claims related to climate or environment if they are in the interest of the public. As such, in public interest litigation, 'legally designated institutions and relevant organisations,' such as NGOs, and the People's Procuratorates, have standing to file lawsuits. A key case demonstrating NGO involvement is The Friends of Nature Institute v. Gansu State Grid, notable as the "first climate change litigation in China". This case, although not successful, indicated the potential for NGOs to initiate future climate change litigation. Procuratorates have also become increasingly active in public interest litigation, particularly after the amendment of relevant laws in 2017, authorising them to file actions against both administrative organs and companies. The involvement of procuratorates in public interest litigation, especially in cases promoting carbon neutrality, signifies an evolving legal landscape for climate litigation in China. The Supreme People's Procuratorate's issuance of 10 typical cases in this area reflects an increasing recognition of the need for legal actions to address climate change.

2.
Defendants are usually companies or administrative organs that have violated the people's right to a healthy environment.

3.
China has not seen a surge in third-party intervenors in public interest litigation.

The main challenges to bringing such a claim are faced by NGOs. Procedural constraints such as the requirement of having five years of operation without legal violations. This requirement limits the participation of NGOs in climate litigation. Furthermore, a clear legal framework is absent for NGOs to initiate administrative public interest litigation against the government, contrasting with the greater resources and legal standing enjoyed by procuratorates.

V France

Environmental and climate litigation in France involves NGOs, municipal entities, and individual claimants, primarily targeting large corporations. The involvement of third-party intervenors, both successful and attempted, reflects the implications of these cases in the global drive of environmental and climate change litigation.

1.
The primary claimants in climate litigation are NGOs and municipal entities, with individual claimants also playing a significant role. These parties have standing under the French Code of Civil Procedure and the Civil Code (Art. 1248). Notable cases include Guyane Nature Environnement and France Nature Environnement v. France (Larivot power plant case) where NGOs challenged the Larivot power plant project. Several cases against TotalEnergies and BNP Paribas have been brought by NGOs like Notre Affaire à Tous, Oxfam France, and Les Amis de la Terre France. These actions often focus on corporate accountability for environmental damage and non-compliance with environmental standards.

2.
Defendants are primarily large corporations, particularly in the energy and financial sectors. Actions have been brought against companies like EDF, BNP Paribas, and TotalEnergies for various claims, including financing harmful industries, contributing to climate change, and ecological damage. For instance, the case of Notre affaire à tous and others v. TotalEnergie relates to its global operations and the environmental impact of its subsidiaries. These cases highlight the focus on holding major corporate actors accountable for their role in environmental degradation and climate change.

3.
Third-party intervenors in French climate litigation include governmental entities and international bodies. For example, in the Larivot power plant case, the Energy Regulation Commission intervened due to its statutory mission and the project's significance. In TotalEnergie case, the City of New York attempted to intervene, citing its interest in global climate mitigation efforts, though this intervention was rejected by the Judiciary Tribunal of Paris. These interventions indicate the broader impact extending beyond the immediate parties involved in France.

VI Germany

Climate litigation in Germany is characterised by individual claimants, often supported by NGOs, bringing claims against corporations, primarily in the energy and automotive sectors. The legal framework allows for a limited role of third-party intervenors, and there is a potential for more diverse actors, including the state, to be involved in future climate litigation.

1.
Claimants in climate litigation primarily consist of individual claimants and NGOs, although class actions are generally not permissible. Any natural or legal person with the capacity to sue, as per Section 50(1) of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), can initiate legal proceedings. However, natural persons (individuals) are more likely to file climate claims due to the necessity of demonstrating an infringement of their own rights, such as the right to health. Legal entities typically do not possess these subjective rights, making their direct participation less common. NGOs, such as ECCHR, Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte, and Greenpeace, often support individuals in bringing climate claims, both financially and legally, as seen in the case of Peruvian farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya v. RWE, supported by Germanwatch.

2.
As for defendants, climate litigation has predominantly targeted corporations in the energy and automotive industries, with lawsuits brought against companies like Wintershall Dea AG, Volkswagen AG, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz AG. These cases against BMW, Mercedes Benz and Wintershall Dea, among others, were not brought by Greenpeace or Deutsche Umwelthilfe, but by their federal managing directors as individual claimants (natural persons), albeit with support from the NGOs. These cases typically involve claims related to the production of fossil fuels or emissions from vehicles. In contrast, states and the government are usually defendants in administrative actions related to public law disputes before administrative courts.

3.
As for intervenors, the Section 72 ZPO, i.e. civil procedure, follows the two-party principle, allowing limited scope for third-party intervention. However, no third-party intervention in climate claims has been filed before German civil courts to date.

VII India

Environmental and climate litigation in India involves actors including individuals, NGOs, governmental authorities, and corporations. The legal framework allows a range of claimants to initiate action, targeting various actors that are responsible for environmental harm. The active role of the state, either as a defendant or as an intervenor, highlights its pivotal role in environmental management and the enforcement of environmental laws in India.

1.
Claimants include private individuals, NGOs, and concerned authorities, often filing cases in the form of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). For instance, in the landmark case of MC Mehta v Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case), an individual petitioner, supported by NGOs and environmental groups, took legal action against state authorities and corporations for environmental harm. In this case, M.C. Mehta challenged the pollution threatening the Taj Mahal, leading to a significant court decision that mandated industrial changes to protect the monument. The legal framework in India, particularly the principles established under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, Environmental Protection Act 1986, and the constitutional applicability of the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle, facilitate such litigation.

2.
Defendants vary widely and include state authorities, individual project owners, and corporations. Defendants are targeted for their actions or inactions that contribute to environmental degradation and climate change. For instance, in Rajiv Dutta v. Union of India, the petitioner filed a PIL concerning unchecked forest fires in Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh. The case highlighted the impact of these fires on the environment and climate. Such cases highlight the legal system's recognition of various contributors to environmental harm, from individual actors to large corporations and government entities. In the landmark case of M.K Ranjitsinh vs Union of India, the main defendant was the central government; however, the Supreme Court explicitly laid down corporate liabilities towards the environment arising from the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013.

3.
As for third-party intervenors, the State often plays a dual role in environmental litigation, either as a defendant or as a third-party intervenor. This is evident in cases like Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, where an NGO filed a PIL for environmental protection. The involvement of the State in such litigation highlights its responsibility and authority in environmental governance and policy implementation.

VIII Italy

Environmental and climate litigation in Italy involves actors, from individual citizens and NGOs to environmental associations and indigenous groups, targeting a wide range of industries. The trends show a significant emphasis on holding corporations and other entities accountable for their environmental impact.

1.
The primary claimants are environmental associations, private individuals, and groups of citizens. These plaintiffs include NGOs operating nationally and internationally, individuals residing in areas particularly affected by climate change, and concerned authorities. Notable cases include Greenpeace, Re:Common et al. vs ENI, where environmental associations and private individuals targeted ENI for its impact on climate change. Another significant case is the action brought by the Rete Legalità per il Clima, a network of experts in climate law, and the Survival International Italia v. Pasubio  on behalf of indigenous peoples. Class actions and cases initiated by individual claimants, such as the Ilva case, demonstrate the active participation of a variety of actors in holding corporations accountable for environmental damage.

2.
Defendants include state-controlled corporations like ENI, private companies in sectors like livestock farming, and financial institutions. Other defendants include livestock enterprises (Veronesi Holding and Cremonini S.p.A.), the leather tanning company Gruppo Pasubio, and automobile manufacturer Volkswagen AG in the 'Dieselgate' case. These cases reflect a broad spectrum of industries implicated in contributing to climate change.

3.
As for third-party intervenors, the Italian legal system does not typically recognise the role of Amicus Curiae, but it allows for third-party intervention in both civil and administrative proceedings. Third-party intervenors can support the arguments of any party if they have a direct interest in the litigation. Environmental associations recognised under Law No. 349/86 have special standing in environmental lawsuits and can appeal to administrative courts for the annulment of unlawful acts.

IX Japan

Environmental and climate litigation in Japan predominantly involves local individuals or groups affected by corporate activities, with significant support from environmental organisations. The potential for shareholder and consumer organisation involvement exists but faces legislative and evidentiary hurdles.

Typical claimants in climate litigation are individuals or groups of individuals mostly residing near the affected areas. Due to the absence of specific laws supporting the standing of environmental civil society organisations, these groups often lead or support climate cases indirectly. Shareholder-related lawsuits are rare, but potential avenues for them include suits for investment damages due to false or deceptive statements or shareholder representative actions under Article 847 of the Companies Act. Consumer organisations also can claim injunctive relief under Article 23 of the Consumer Contract Act) or monetary relief under Article 3 of the Act on Special Measures Concerning Civil Court Proceedings for the Collective Redress for Property Damage Incurred by Consumers , but they face significant challenges like proving damages, causation, and the appropriateness of remedies.

Defendants are corporations, mainly electricity power generators and retailers. Cases against banking institutions that indirectly contribute to climate change through their investment and financing activities indicate a potential expansion of defendants to include financial institutions.

There have been no third-party interveners in Japan's limited number of climate cases.

X Kenya

The legal framework in Kenya lays out a robust system enabling a wide array of actors that could engage in climate litigation. This inclusivity, combined with the lowered barriers for claimants and the potential accountability of corporations as laid out in the constitution, civil code, and domestic consumer, climate change, and company legislation, indicates a strong potential for an increase in climate-related claims. The significant aspect of environmental and climate claims is that the claimant is not required to show direct harm, loss, or injury. This should create scenarios where corporate entities could face increased litigation risks from a broad spectrum of claimants, especially regarding their environmental responsibilities and impacts.

1.
The Climate Change Act in Kenya empowers a wide range of actors to initiate climate litigation. Notably, an aggrieved person can apply to the Environment and Land Court (ELC) without the need to demonstrate personal loss or injury. As further expanded by Article 22(1) and Article 258 of the Constitution, this inclusive approach includes individuals acting in their own interest, on behalf of others, as members of a group or class, in the public interest, or as associations representing their members. This expansive definition of locus standi broadens the pool of claimants (see Kenya's analysis in the sections on standing).

2.
Corporates operating in Kenya emerge as primary potential defendants in climate change actions. The Climate Change Act and proposed regulations set duties for corporations regarding mitigation and adaptation to climate change effects. The Act's provision that allows any person to invoke the jurisdiction of the ELC against corporations for acts or omissions that affect climate change widens the scope for holding them accountable.

3.
As for third-party intervenors, the Supreme Court Rules 2022 allow for amicus curiae based on expertise, independence, and public interest considerations. The principles for such interventions were outlined in cases like Attorney General v David Ndii and Francis Karioki Muruatetu v Republic. The doctrine of stare decisis ensures that lower courts adhere to Supreme Court decisions, maintaining consistency in legal interpretations.

XI Netherlands

While NGOs have been the most active in initiating cases, a wide range of potential claimants and defendants, and the involvement of third-party intervenors, the landscape suggests a strong potential for more climate-related claims.

1.
As claimants, NGOs have played a prominent role, often in conjunction with individual citizens. A landmark case is Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell, where seven NGOs and over 17,000 individuals filed a claim against Shell. However, the individual claimants were deemed inadmissible by The Hague District Court. The legal framework allows for various entities, including government actors, corporations, and shareholders, to bring climate-related claims. This was exemplified in the case where RWE and Uniper sought compensation from the Dutch government for the mandatory phase-out of coal-fired electricity production. The court acknowledged the infringement of the companies' rights but ruled it lawful. Another significant case involves FossielvrijNL v. KLM over alleged greenwashing in their advertising.

2.
Defendants include fossil fuel producers and airlines. Other defendants include ING Bank, which faced an OECD complaint procedure in the Milieudefensie et al vs. ING case. These cases demonstrate that corporations across various sectors are increasingly being held accountable for their environmental impact.

3.
As for third-party intervenors, Article 6:217 of the Dutch Civil Code allows third parties with a vested interest in a case to request intervention or joinder. The intervention is contingent upon the third party having a sufficient interest due to potential adverse consequences from the judgment. In the Shell case appeal, two NGOs, Clintel and Milieu en Mens, sought to intervene. Clintel's request was denied as the court found it did not have a sufficiently concrete claim or right of action, and its views on climate science were not aligned with the established facts of the case. Conversely, Milieu en Mens was permitted to join due to concerns about the potential impact of the case's adjudication on its constituency, specifically fearing a rise in fossil fuel prices.

XII Nigeria

In Nigeria there are a variety of claimants and coupled with the evolving nature of defendants and the potential for increased third-party interventions, suggests a significant potential for the growth of climate-related legal actions in Nigeria.

1.
Claimants: Climate actions against corporations are initiated by various actors, including directly affected individuals, NGOs, and public-spirited individuals. Individuals often represent their communities, as seen in the Gbemre case, where Mr. Jonah Gbemre sued Shell on behalf of the Iwherekan Community. NGOs, such as the Centre for Oil Pollution Watch in the COPW case, play a crucial role in protecting communities and generating public awareness about corporate pollution. Public-spirited individuals like Mr. Oronto Douglas also engage in climate litigation, as illustrated in his action against Shell for noncompliance with environmental laws. The Nigerian Supreme Court's decision in the COPW case, which liberalised standing rules, has enhanced the ability of such actors to pursue public interest litigation in environmental matters.

2.
Defendants: The primary defendants in Nigerian climate litigation are fossil fuel corporations, reflecting the oil and gas industry's significant ecological impact and contribution to climate change in Nigeria. Multinational and national oil and gas corporations, like Shell and NNPC Ltd, have been the primary targets. However, the limited number of climate cases may also be attributed to challenges in accessing justice, such as delays, high costs, and legal technicalities. Additionally, a broader spectrum of defendants is expected, fuelled by Nigeria's 2021 Climate Change Act, which imposes climate obligations on larger private entities.

3.
Third-party Intervenors: Interventions, such as amicus curiae, play a crucial role in assisting courts in reaching just decisions. An example is the Supreme Court's reliance on submissions from knowledgeable lawyers in the COPW case to liberalise standing rules. Future claimants might include children born with health defects due to climate pollutants, as envisaged by Nigeria's Child's Rights Act. Furthermore, the involvement of independent scientific bodies as third-party intervenors, akin to the approach in Shell v Farah & Ors, could become more prevalent to provide unbiased scientific evidence in cases with conflicting expert testimonies.

XIII Norway

The involvement of environmental organisations, individual citizens, and local groups are primary actors, along with the possibility of suing both public authorities and private corporations. The allowance for third-party interventions is provided under the Dispute Act and, as Amicus Curiae indicates, a broader range of climate-related claims and actions.

1.
Claimants: There are two primary types of actors: environmental organisations and individuals. Notable cases include Greenpeace Nordic Ass'n v. Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, where environmental groups Greenpeace Nordic and Nature and Youth challenged the legitimacy of petroleum licenses issued by the Ministry. Another significant case is Statnett SF et al. v. Sør-Fosen sijte et al., where citizen groups contested the permits issued for the establishment of wind farms. These cases demonstrate the active role of environmental organisations and citizen groups in challenging governmental and corporate decisions related to environmental issues.

2.
Climate-related actions in Norway have been brought against both public authorities and corporations. The case of People v Arctic Oil illustrates actions directed at public authorities, specifically targeting the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy. In contrast, the Fosen case demonstrates litigation aimed directly at corporations, reflecting the requirements set by Norwegian environmental legislation on commercial companies for sustainable business practices. This dual approach to litigation, where both government authorities and private developers can be sued, is influenced by the environmental assessment process mandated for commercial activities.

3.
In the case of People v Arctic Oil, the Norwegian Grandparents Climate Campaign Association intervened as a third party. In the Fosen case, the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy supported the corporate claims. These interventions are governed by the Dispute Act, specifically Section 15-7 and Section 15-8, which allow for written interventions as "amicus curiae." The concept of "real need" for locus standi in civil court cases, as described in Section 1.3, emphasises the necessity for a genuine connection to the claim, ensuring that interventions are relevant and substantiated.

XIV Philippines

The liberal rules on standing allow for a wide range of actors to engage in legal action, from individual citizens to NGOs (see section on standing). This landscape is indicative of the potential for an increase in climate-related claims, leveraging innovative legal strategies and an inclusive approach to standing.

1.
The claimants in the cases include NGOs, individual citizens, groups and marine mammals represented by legal guardians. Notable cases like the Segovia, GLACC, Antonio Oposa, and Resident Marine Mammals illustrate this diversity, as well as the National Inquiry on Climate Change (NICC) involving carbon majors by the National Commission on Human Rights. For instance, in Oposa, minors represented by parents and an environmental NGO sued for environmental protection, asserting rights on behalf of future generations. The case of Resident Marine Mammals is particularly interesting as it includes non-human entities (marine mammals) as claimants, showing the innovative approaches being taken in environmental litigation.

2.
The defendants in these cases are primarily governmental entities and corporations. The Philippine government and its officers are frequently sued for failing to implement climate change laws, as seen in the case of Oposa and Segovia. Although the NICC report was drafted by the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, it targeted carbon majors (multinational corporations, including oil and gas producers) for their role in climate change. The involvement of foreign corporations, as in the case against JAPEX and SOS in Resident Marine Mammals, highlights the broadening of the potential of transnational cases.

3.
Due to the liberal laws on standing, any person with a legal interest in the dispute or who asserts a public right, like the right to a balanced and healthful ecology, may be an intervenor. The State and its agencies may intervene when the actions affect certain agreements or contracts with corporations, as illustrated in the case of Resident Marine Mammals.

XV Poland

The climate litigation landscape in Poland is characterised by the involvement of actors like individuals, NGOs, and environmental organisations, with lawsuits primarily targeted at the energy and automotive sectors. The involvement of ecological organisations as third-party intervenors or representatives is subject to certain legal conditions.

1.
Claimants in climate litigation are individuals, NGOs, and groups of affected litigants. Under Article 64 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure, any natural or legal person with full legal capacity can initiate civil law proceedings. Notably, environmental organisations such as Greenpeace and ClientEarth have initiated corporate climate cases based on the Environmental Protection Law Act (EPLA), as they can act on behalf of individuals or independently when lawsuits are based on the EPLA. These organisations are also active in administrative proceedings as public interest litigants.

2.
As for defendants, civil law claims in Poland have been primarily directed at companies in the energy sector, such as ENEA and PGE, and the automotive industry, like Volkswagen. In addition to these, state and local authorities have been defendants in cases related to air pollution and climate change inaction.

3.
In the case of third-party intervenors, the role of ecological organisations in Polish environmental claims is significant. As per Articles 8, 61, 62, and 323 § 2 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure and the EPLA, these organisations can bring lawsuits, join individual claims, or submit opinions to the court. Their participation, while not exactly classified as secondary intervenors, is crucial in representing public interest and environmental protection. However, the EPLA limits who can bring claims for environmental harm, allowing only those directly affected or likely to suffer damage to sue.

XVI United Kingdom

Climate litigation in the UK is characterised by claimants, including individuals, NGOs, and consumers, targeting an equally diverse set of defendants from various sectors. The involvement of third-party intervenors and other interested entities reflects a complex web of interests and influences shaping the field of climate litigation.

1.
Claimants include individuals, groups of individuals, NGOs, and sometimes, proposed developers. Notable NGOs like Friends of the Earth, ClientEarth, and the Good Law Project often spearhead these actions. Corporate and consumer law challenges are commonly initiated by consumers, shareholders, affected beneficiaries, and NGOs. For instance, public law challenges often involve NGOs or individuals acting in conjunction with an NGO, indicating a collaborative approach to addressing environmental issues.

2.
Claimants have targeted corporations for their direct or indirect roles in contributing to climate change, such as energy companies (e.g., Shell), high emitters like automobile manufacturers (e.g., Volkswagen), banks, and vendors of various goods and services. The litigation targets range from direct emitters of greenhouse gases to entities whose operations or products contribute to climate change. There are also instances where corporations themselves, such as utility companies, public bodies, and professionals, are targeted for failing to adequately consider the impacts of climate change in their operations, planning, and reporting.

3.
Third-party intervenors include corporate defendants in judicial review proceedings and entities like the Office for Environmental Protection. Other 'affected parties' who may not be direct parties or intervenors in litigation but have a vested interest in its outcome, such as developers, supply chain entities, and relevant regulators like the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), also influence the climate litigation landscape in the UK. Additionally, the climate litigation ecosystem also involves a network of practitioners, NGOs, charities, academics, asset managers, insurers, banks, regulators, and shareholders who share knowledge and support. This network plays a crucial role in shaping climate litigation strategies and outcomes.

XVII United States

Climate litigation in the United States has an evolving landscape of claimants with a growing emphasis on holding a diverse array of corporate actors accountable for their contributions to climate change.

1.
Claimants in the "first wave" (see US report) saw actions primarily by states, NGOs, communities, and individual plaintiffs. Notable cases include AEP v. Connecticut, where states and private land trusts filed claims against power plants, and the Murphy Oil case, involving private Mississippi Gulf Coast residents affected by Hurricane Katrina. The "second wave" was dominated by local governments, states, and NGOs, with cases like New York City and Oakland against fossil fuel companies such as the City of New York v. BP p.l.c. and the City of Oakland v. BP p.l.c., and consumer protection claims by NGOs against vendors of products contributing to climate change. The "third wave" has introduced a broader diversity of claimants, including more NGOs, shareholders, employees, pension fund holders, and environmental justice communities.

2.
Defendants in the "first wave", major electric power companies, and automobile manufacturers like General Motors were targeted. The "second wave" focused primarily on fossil fuel producers, while the third wave has seen various defendants, including utility companies, renewable energy utilities, and plastics companies, reflecting an expanding scope of corporate responsibility in climate change. Cases such as State v. American Petroleum Institute and actions against Walmart and Coca-Cola exemplify this trend.

3.
Third-party intervenors include NGOs and state governments in cases like New York v ExxonMobil and Plaquemines Parish v Chevron. Corporate actors could become involved in climate litigation, extending to industries like automotive, transportation, agriculture, and financial institutions, especially those operating near environmental justice communities. Additionally, corporate actors who support or oppose ESG reporting, as seen in Hope of Kentucky, LLC v. Cameron, are emerging as potential intervenors, highlighting the growing complexity of climate litigation in the U.S.