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

Esta página no está disponible en Español y está siendo mostrada en English

Demanda

1 Ene 2020

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

Estatus: CLOSED

Fecha de presentación de la demanda judicial
1 Ene 2020
Exactitud de fecha
Año correcto
No aplicable
Comunidad, Defensor de los Derechos Humanos
Lugar de presentación: Chile
Lugar del incidente: Chile
Tipo de litigio: Nacional

Empresas

Grupo Luksic Chile Alimentos y Bebidas, Misceláneos/Conglomerados, Finanzas y banca, Minería, Puertos, Transporte: General, Energía
Mitsubishi Group Japón Alimentos y Bebidas, Químicos: Generales, Aparatos eléctricos, Finanzas y banca, Minería, Tecnología, telecomunicación y electrónicos, Transporte: General
Mitsubishi Materials (part of Mitsubishi Group) Japón Metales/Plásticos/Materiales básicos: General

Against other:

Government

Fuentes

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.