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

This page is not available in Burmese and is being displayed in English

The content is also available in the following languages: English, français

Article

3 Dec 2021

Author:
European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), ProDESC & CCFD-Terre Solidaire

France: Civil court dismisses request from Mexican indigenous group to halt EDF’s construction of wind park, citing procedural grounds

"EDF in Mexico: Paris court misses opportunity to prevent human rights violations", 1 Dec 2021

The civil court in Paris (tribunal judiciaire) missed a historic chance to protect the rights of a Mexican indigenous group against France’s corporate interests: [On 29 November 2021] instead of ordering French energy giant Électricité de France (EDF) to immediately suspend the construction of a wind park in Oaxaca, Mexico, which violates human rights, the court dismissed the request partially on formal/procedural grounds. The recent ruling is part of pre-trial proceedings preceding the main trial. While this decision does not foreclose all options of the claimants in this procedure, the court’s decision makes the pursuit of justice more difficult.

Persons affected and human rights groups ProDESC and the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) filed a lawsuit demanding the suspension of EDF’s Gunaa Sicarú wind park project planned on the territory of indigenous community Unión Hidalgo. The community claims that it was not adequately consulted in the planning process – a clear violation of the community’s rights. In addition, EDF’s alleged interference in the consultation process has led to an escalation of violence in the community, especially against human rights and land rights defenders.

While the judges took the positive decision to recognize the competence of the civil court on this matter, they rejected the claimants’ request for precautionary measures because of a procedural formality, stating in a controversial move that the lawsuit filed in October 2020 did not refer to the correct vigilance plan of EDF, an annual document on risk analysis and mitigation measures regarding possible human rights violations. This decision could set a dangerous precedent for future cases on mandatory human rights due diligence of global companies – and fails to understand the function and context of human rights due diligence laws.

Timeline