In October last year, Estonia’s supreme court ordered the state energy company Enefit to halt the construction of a shale oil facility. This ruling was the result of a case brought forward by a group of young Estonian climate activists, who in 2020 decided to take the municipality of Narva-Jõesuu to court for issuing a construction permit for the shale oil facility. The group of young people argued that the construction permit was given without adequately assessing its climate impacts and the commitments made under the Paris Agreement, as well as the European Union’s objective to achieve climate neutrality by 2050.

The court ruled that the municipality had assessed the climate impact well enough but not the environmental impact, and revoked the permit. For the first time in Estonia, the Supreme Court stated that the mitigation of climate change is a constitutional obligation.

This is one amongst several recent climate cases in Europe, where especially young people are taking their states to court, for inefficient climate action. In this case, it was Fridays for Future Estonia who stood behind the claim, eventually winning the court case. We have had the chance to speak with some of the young activists behind this case, to learn more about how climate litigation works and why it can be such a powerful tool for climate advocacy:

Last year you won Estonia’s first ever climate court case! What motivated you to use the legal system for your climate action? 

We went to court because we ran out of other options and we were not willing to accept the government constructing a new fossil fuel plant amid the climate crisis. We had already presented public appeals, and organised peaceful weekly climate strikes, not to mention online advocacy. Suing the plant was our last option. As long as the rule of law holds, legal action is the only tactic that authorities and businesses can’t ignore.

How did you start the process? What do you need in order to file a climate court case?

First, it is essential to understand the stages of the oil plant’s completion, specifically the stage at which the operation of the plant can be impeded. The oil plant requires several permits, such as the construction permit and the integrated permit. Initially, we successfully contested the construction permit issued to the plant. This time, we are challenging the integrated permit which allows the plant to operate. Legal experts from the Estonian Environmental Law Center helped us find shortcomings in the permits and prepare arguments for both court cases. We submitted two complaints against the integrated permit: one as an environmental organisation under the name MTÜ Loodusvõlu, and another by a young activist in the movement, to protect her rights. Since this time the case also involved issues regarding human rights and children’s rights, we formed a team of multiple lawyers of various backgrounds to cover all necessary areas of legal expertise. The most crucial aspects of initiating a climate lawsuit are finding the right moment in the long chain of decisions to challenge legally, then finding lawyers who are willing to bring an innovative case, and securing funding to pay them.

This year you are filing new complaints to the court, why?

On May 27, 2024, the Environmental Board of Estonia issued an integrated permit to the aforementioned state-owned oil plant, allowing it to operate for the next 10 years. This is the same plant that we already successfully challenged in court once. By issuing the integrated permit, the Board rejected the arguments presented by us and other environmental organisations, urging them to refuse the permit. The plant will produce shale oil, a fossil fuel so polluting that it is not compliant with EU environmental regulations. That is why the oil is exported and used for fuelling long-distance ships, thereby contributing to the export of carbon emissions.

We based our complaints on the following arguments.

1. Firstly, by granting the oil plant an integrated permit, the Environmental Board did not sufficiently consider the plant’s climate impact. The plant will increase Estonia’s current greenhouse gas emissions by about 6% and will take approximately 20% of Estonia`s carbon budget, which, in turn, makes it harder to reach our climate goals. Additionally, the measures to mitigate the climate impact are inadequate and largely based on underdeveloped technologies, such as carbon capture.
2. Secondly, by granting the complex permit, the harmful effects of the oil shale mining required for the plant’s operation on the natural environment were not taken into account. Groundwater layers and wetlands, including Natura 2000 areas, which are already degraded due to mining, would be damaged.
3. Thirdly, there is no overriding public interest in operating the oil plant. It does not create a significant number of jobs, is not highly profitable, and does not ensure our energy security to the extent that we should collectively endure the environmental damage it causes. 
4. Fourthly, the oil plant exacerbates climate change, which has dangerous consequences for people’s health, including children’s. For many people suffering from chronic diseases, the impacts of climate change are more serious than usual. For example, heatwaves, which have already become more frequent due to climate change, hinder adequate sleep and increase the likelihood of dangerous epileptic seizures.

What is your goal with the new court case?

We hope to revoke the integrated permit for the plant to stop the shale oil plant once and for all. This way we can push Estonia towards a climate-neutral economy and industry. We are trying to show to all fossil fuel enterprises that hope to burn the last of Estonia’s oil shale for rapid profit, that it is not going to be easy for them.

What would be your advice to a group of young people wanting to start something similar? What is the first thing to start with? 

The first piece of advice would be to not be afraid. Turning to court, especially against a powerful actor like a large corporation or even the government can feel very intimidating. However, even the youngest and most vulnerable people have the right to a healthy environment, including a safe climate, that states and businesses must respect. The second piece of advice would be to build a team so that you are never quite alone. We have greatly benefitted from working together with legal experts, environmental NGOs, and volunteers, who have all helped us with different skills and support.

How can other young people or youth organisations support your new court case?

You can help us by sharing our messages––international pressure could be an impactful way of pressuring the government to stop the plant. Our main court battles lie still ahead. These may last for several years and are going to be costly. We would very much appreciate if you could donate to help us cover the costs of the case: https://fridaysforfuture.ee/en/what-can-you-do/#donate