{"id":34677,"date":"2023-07-14T12:36:13","date_gmt":"2023-07-14T20:36:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/?page_id=34677"},"modified":"2025-12-22T15:21:42","modified_gmt":"2025-12-22T23:21:42","slug":"resources","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/resources","title":{"rendered":"Ressources"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/span>
\n

Resources for Advocates<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

Legal & Scientific Resources<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Resource Topic<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Resource Type<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Resource Category<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Region & Country<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n

<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Filter<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

Sort By<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
Sentencia 07294-1998, Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Costa Rica (13 de Octubre del 1998)<\/a><\/div>
1970<\/span>\n\n
\n Central America<\/span>\n\n Costa Rica<\/span>\n <\/div>\n\n \n\n
\n Constitutions<\/span>\n\n Right to Healthy Environment<\/span>\n <\/div>\n\n \n
\n Forests<\/span>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n
\n Protected Areas<\/span>\n\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>
The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Costa Rica considered a request to declare Article 71 of the Forestry Law unconstitutional.<\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Tata Housing Development Auth. v. Aalok Jagga, Civ. App. Nos. 8398-8399 of 2019 (5 November 2019)<\/a><\/div>
1970<\/span>\n\n
\n South Asia<\/span>\n\n India<\/span>\n <\/div>\n\n \n\n
\n Biodiversity<\/span>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n
\n Protected Areas<\/span>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n
\n Public Trust Doctrine<\/span>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n
\n Wildlife<\/span>\n\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>
In Tata Housing Development Auth. v. Aalok Jagga, the Supreme Court of India halted a large-scale residential housing development proposed within a buffer zone of a wildlife sanctuary in the state of Punjab.<\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Clorox Australia Pty Limited [2025] FCA 357 (April 14, 2025)<\/a><\/div>
1970<\/span>\n\n
\n Pacific<\/span>\n\n Australia<\/span>\n <\/div>\n\n \n\n
\n Plastic<\/span>\n\n Cases<\/span>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) alleged violations of provisions of the Australian Consumer Law when Clorox represented that kitchen tidy bags and garbage bags were made of 50% recycled plastic waste collected from the ocean or sea.<\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Decision 28\/1994. on environmental protection, Constitutional Court of Hungary (May 1994)<\/a><\/div>
1970<\/span>\n\n
\n Central and Eastern Europe<\/span>\n\n Hungary<\/span>\n <\/div>\n\n \n\n
\n Protected Areas<\/span>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n
\n Right to ...<\/span>\n\n Healthy Environment<\/span>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>
Case 28\/1994 (V.20) in the Constitutional Court of Hungary addressed reductions in protection of land. <\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
ASEAN Declaration on the Right to a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment<\/a><\/div>
\n\n
\n Southeast Asia<\/span>\n\n Brunei Darussalam<\/span>\n Cambodia<\/span>\n Indonesia<\/span>\n Laos<\/span>\n Malaysia<\/span>\n Myanmar<\/span>\n Philippines<\/span>\n Singapore<\/span>\n Thailand<\/span>\n Viet Nam<\/span>\n <\/div>\n\n \n\n
\n Access to Information<\/span>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n
\n Access to Justice<\/span>\n\n ASEAN Declaration<\/span>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>
<\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Greenpeace Netherlands v. Netherlands, C\/09\/659832 \/ HA ZA 24-53 (28 January 2026)<\/a><\/div>
\n\n
\n Caribbean<\/span>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n
\n Western Europe<\/span>\n\n Netherlands<\/span>\n <\/div>\n\n \n\n
\n Climate Change<\/span>\n\n Adaptation<\/span>\n Advisory opinions<\/span>\n Litigation<\/span>\n Mitigation<\/span>\n Pivotal Cases<\/span>\n United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change<\/span>\n <\/div>\n\n \n
\n Human Rights<\/span>\n\n European Court of Human Rights<\/span>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>
<\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, Advisory Opinion, 2025 I.C.J. (July 23)<\/a><\/div>
1970<\/span>\n\n\n
\n Climate Change<\/span>\n\n Advisory opinions<\/span>\n Pivotal Cases<\/span>\n United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change<\/span>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>
<\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
The Norwegian State v. Greenpeace Nordic, Nature and Youth Norway, Case E-18\/24 (21 May 2025) (Advisory Opinion of the European Free Trade Association Court)<\/a><\/div>
\n\n
\n Western Europe<\/span>\n\n Norway<\/span>\n <\/div>\n\n \n\n
\n Access to Information<\/span>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n
\n Climate Change<\/span>\n\n Advisory opinions<\/span>\n Greenhouse gases<\/span>\n Litigation<\/span>\n <\/div>\n\n \n
\n Environmental Impact Assessment<\/span>\n\n Impacts<\/span>\n <\/div>\n\n \n
\n Oil & Gas<\/span>\n\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>
<\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Brazil, Public Civil Action before the 9\u00aa Vara Federal de Porto Alegre. Amigos da Terra, Preservar and Associa\u00e7\u00e3o Ga\u00facha de Prote\u00e7\u00e3o ao Ambiente Natural vs. Federal Government, State Government of Rio Grande do Sul, Companhia Riograndense de Minera\u00e7\u00e3o (CRM), Eletrosul et al. (2025)<\/a><\/div>
\n\n
\n South America<\/span>\n\n Brazil<\/span>\n <\/div>\n\n \n\n
\n Access to Information<\/span>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n
\n Climate Change<\/span>\n\n Advisory opinions<\/span>\n Greenhouse gases<\/span>\n Litigation<\/span>\n Pivotal Cases<\/span>\n United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change<\/span>\n <\/div>\n\n \n
\n Energy<\/span>\n\n Coal and gas power plants<\/span>\n Just energy transition<\/span>\n <\/div>\n\n \n
\n Environmental Impact Assessment<\/span>\n\n Public participation<\/span>\n <\/div>\n\n \n
\n Mining<\/span>\n\n Coal mining<\/span>\n <\/div>\n\n \n
\n Public Participation<\/span>\n\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>
<\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Colombia, Santurb\u00e1n P\u00e1ramo Case: Popular Action before the Administrative Court of Santander (2025)<\/a><\/div>
\n\n
\n South America<\/span>\n\n Colombia<\/span>\n <\/div>\n\n \n\n
\n Climate Change<\/span>\n\n Advisory opinions<\/span>\n <\/div>\n\n \n
\n Dams<\/span>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n
\n Mining<\/span>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n
\n Oil & Gas<\/span>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n
\n Rights of Nature<\/span>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n
\n Wetlands<\/span>\n\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>
<\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n