Tallinn

Kastre

Tartumaa

Kehtna

Tapa

Keila

Tartu

Kihnu

Kiili

Toila

Kohila

Tori

Kohtla-Järve

Valgamaa

Kose

Tõrva

Kuusalu

Türi

Harjumaa

Viljandimaa

Hiiumaa

Valga

Loksa

Võrumaa

Lääneranna

Viimsi

Lääne-Harju

Viljandi

Luunja

Lääne-Nigula

Vinni

Lüganuse

Viru-Nigula

Maardu

Vormsi

Ida-Virumaa

Võru

Muhu

Mulgi

Väike-Maarja

Mustvee

Jõgevamaa

Märjamaa

Narva

Narva-Jõesuu

Järvamaa

Nõo

Otepää

Läänemaa

Paide

Peipsiääre

Lääne-Virumaa

Põhja-Sakala

Põltsamaa

Põlva

Pärnu

Põhja-Pärnumaa

Põlvamaa

Raasiku

Alutaguse

Rakvere

Anija

Elva

Rapla

Antsla

Haapsalu

Pärnumaa

Ruhnu

Haljala

Rõuge

Harku

Räpina

Häädemeeste

Raplamaa

Saarde

Jõelähtme

Saaremaa

Jõgeva

Saku

Järva

Saue

Jõhvi

Setomaa

Kadrina

Sillamäe

Kambja

Kanepi

Estonia

Reduce GHG emission compared to 1990 emissions levels is 70% by 2030.

No more than 11% emission increase by 2020 compared with a 2005 baseline

80% GHG emission reduction by 2050 compared with a 1990 baseline

Maintain energy consumption per GDP at 20.0TJ per PPP by 2010 against a 2003 baseline

Less than 90% oil and at least 8% renewable of electricity produced by 2015

25% renewables of final energy consumption by 2020, then 50% by 2030

Reduce GHG emissions from transport below 2,157,000 tons CO2e base level and fossil fuels in transport below 387.7 kg per inhabitant

MTÜ Loodusvõlu, the legally registered NGO of Fridays for Future Estonia, challenged an amendment to a permit which allowed companies to extract increased amounts of shale oil. The permit, originally issued in 2019, granted Enefit Industry AS and Osaühingu VKG Kaevandused permission to extract shale oil, a coal-like fossil fuel, at the Uus-Kiviõli sites until 2049. In October 2025, the Board amended the permits to increase the quantity of oil shale mined to a total of 15 million tonnes a year, or a 2.5-fold increase. 

MTÜ Loodusvõlu claimed that in making the amendment, the Board had failed to assess the indirect climate impact of increased mining, caused by increased downstream greenhouse gas emissions from the processing of oil shale. Additionally, they claimed that the Board also inadequately assessed the impacts of increased mining on nearby wetlands and wildlife, including species and sites protected under the EU Bird Directive and Habitat Directive.

The Tallinn Administrative Court accepted the case and designated the Environmental Board as the defendant. 

In May 2025, the Lüganuse Municipal Council decided to establish a special local government spatial plan for the construction of a bioproducts production complex (pulp mill) proposed by Viru Keemia Grupp AS.  The plant’s main activity would be the production of up to 500,000 tonnes softwood and hardwood pulp per year using advanced KRAFT technology, including the separation of up to 100,000 tonnes of lignin annually during the evaporation process, which would then be further processed into raw graphite. Environmental organizations in Estonia and internationally have raised concerns about the mill’s environmental impacts and published a report highlighting the associated risks (https://environmentalpaper.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Pulping-the-future-2025-07-12.pdf). 

In June 2025, Estonian Fund for Nature challenged the Lüganuse Municipal Council’s decision and asked the court to declare the special spatial plan invalid, arguing that the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) process and the balancing of interests contained several errors. The main issues raised include: 

1. The plant would increase logging pressure at a time when logging volumes are already extremely high and reductions are needed. In Estonia, the LULUCF sector has turned into a CO2 emitter instead of sequestrating due to too high logging volumes.

2. It would exacerbate the biodiversity crisis and lead to further loss of forest habitats.

3. It would have a significant climate impact—the factory’s raw materials are associated with at least 2.5 million tonnes of GHG emissions per year. However, this has not been addressed in the SEA report, nor has it been taken into account in decision-making. The report instead gives the impression that the factory would have a solely positive climate impact due to carbon sequestration in wood products, which the complainant argues is in fact marginal. 

4. The plant would contribute additional pollution and nutrient inflow into the Baltic Sea, which is already in poor ecological condition.

On 9 September 2025, the Tartu Administrative Court in Estonia accepted the Estonian Fund for Nature’s complaint for further proceedings.

In May 2024, the Estonian Environmental Board issued an integrated permit to the new state-owned Enefit280-2 shale oil plant, allowing it to operate until the end of 2034. Following the Supreme Court ruling in Fridays for Future Estonia (MTÜ Loodusvõlu) vs. Eesti Energia regarding the construction permit issued to the same plant (https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/11477/), Fridays for Future Estonia filed another claim in June 2024 to stop the operation of the plant. 

There are two claimants in the case: MTÜ Loodusvõlu, the legally registered NGO of Fridays for Future Estonia, and Elo-Lee Maran, a young activist in the movement. The claimants argue that the Environmental Board should have refused to issue an integrated permit to the plant, because operating the plant causes carbon emissions, thereby hindering the achievement of the targets set out in the Paris Agreement and the National Energy and Climate Plan. Estonia has a national emission reduction target set for 2035 and to meet this, the Board issued the permit with a deadline, allowing the plant to operate until the end of 2034. However, the plant would increase Estonia’s yearly greenhouse gas emissions by about 6%, therefore diminishing Estonia’s share of the global carbon budget. The plant’s emissions would also hinder the achievement of the emission reduction target set out in the National Energy and Climate Plan 2030 in 2019, whereby Estonia should reduce its emissions by 70% (or to about 10.5 million tons) by 2030 compared to 1990. Additionally, MTÜ Loodusvõlu claims that the Board should have assessed the cumulative environmental impact of mining oil shale and producing oil from it. Overlooking the cumulative impact on nearby affected Natura 2000 areas constitutes a violation of the EU habitats’ directive. Furthermore, Elo-Lee Maran argues that, by aggravating the climate crisis, the operation of the plant violates her right to a healthy environment, as stipulated in national as well as international law. She also argues that the Environmental Board overlooked its obligation, stemming from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to set her best interests first when deciding on the permit. The Board did not pay any attention to the fact that worsening the consequences of climate change and depleting the ever-smaller carbon budget, which would require Estonia to limit people’s basic freedoms intensely in the future to limit climate change, are not in the best interests of a child. 

Promptly after filing the case, the Tallinn Administrative Court accepted the case and applied temporary interim protection, forbidding Enefit Power AS from beginning the operation of the plant until July 12th, 2024. On July 12th, the court refused a motion for further interim protection. The Court also ordered the Environmental Board to respond to the case by the beginning of August 2024.

In 2022, the Government of Estonia imposed a thematic maritime planning which broadly determines areas suitable for the development of wind parks and lays down the general principles and parameters for wind parks in those areas. Mihkel Undrest, a resident whose land on the coast is about 11 kilometres from where the closest wind turbines could be constructed, filed a complaint to the Tallinn Administrative Court and requested the annulment of the planning insofar as it restricts his right to enjoy his home and the right to property.

The Tallinn Administrative Court returned the complaint to the plaintiff owing to a lack of locus standi. The plaintiff appealed the decision to the Tallinn Circuit Court which rejected the appeal. 

The Supreme Court of Estonia considered the appeal and rejected it, but amended the arguments of the courts of lower instances. The Supreme Court ruled that a very broad planning such as the one in question can interfere with a person’s rights and therefore give locus standi, but the Court did not detect a breach of rights in this case. The Court also stated that for a person to claim that wind turbines breach their rights, the wind turbines must be in their immediate vicinity and that a distance of more than 10 kilometres does not amount to it. Additionally, the breach of rights must be greater than merely theoretical. 

Geography

Estonia

Recent cases