abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

Diese Seite ist nicht auf Deutsch verfügbar und wird angezeigt auf English

Klage

1 Jan 2020

Environmental Evaluation Service lawsuit (re Minera Los Pelambres copper mine, Chile)

Status: CLOSED

Date lawsuit was filed
1 Jan 2020
Datumsgenauigkeit
Jahr korrekt
Nicht zutreffend
Gemeinschaft, Verteidiger der Menschenrechte
Ort der Einreichung: Chile
Ort des Vorfalls: Chile
Art des Rechtsstreits: Inländisch

Unternehmen

Grupo Luksic Chile Nahrung & Getränke, Diversifiziert/Konglomerate, Finanzwesen & Banking, Bergbau, Häfen, Transportwesen: Allgemein, Energie
Mitsubishi Group Japan Nahrung & Getränke, Chemikalien: Allgemein, Elektronische Geräte, Finanzwesen & Banking, Bergbau, Technologie, Telekommunikation & Elektronik, Transportwesen: Allgemein
Mitsubishi Materials (part of Mitsubishi Group) Japan Metalle/Kunststoffe/Grundstoffe: Allgemein

Against other:

Government

Quellen

Snapshot: In 2020, the Caimanes Defense Committee, a group of residents from Caimanes, Chile, filed a lawsuit with the First Environmental Court against the Environmental Evaluation Service (SEA) against Antofacasta Minerals' Minera Los Pelambres copper mine. They alleged that they were not consulted during the Environmental Impact Assessment. The residents claimed that the project adversely affected their quality of life, posing a continuous threat to their right to live in an uncontaminated environment. They sought the invalidation of the SEA's approval of the Environmental Qualification Resolution (RCA) and challenged the rejection of their invalidation request. Additionally, they pointed out irregularities in the public participation process, asserting that the residents were not properly informed or given the opportunity to provide input on the project. The Court rejected the claim, citing the project complied with its obligations to public participation. The Committee filed an appeal against this decision. In 2021, the Committee withdrew its appeal after an agreement was reached between the parties. The case is closed.