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

Эта страница недоступна на Русский и отображается на English

Судебный иск

1 Янв 2020

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

Статус: CLOSED

Date lawsuit was filed
1 Янв 2020
Точность даты
Год правильный
Не применимо
Сообщество, Правозащитник
Место подачи иска: Чили
Место происшествия: Чили
Тип судебного разбирательства: Местный

Компании

Minera Los Pelambres (joint venture between Antofagasta and a Japanese consortium) Чили Горнодобывающая промышленность
Antofagasta Minerals (part of Luksic Group) Чили Горнодобывающая промышленность
Grupo Luksic Чили Продукты питания и напитки, Диверсифицированные/конгломераты, Финансы и банковское дело, Горнодобывающая промышленность, Порты, Транспорт: Вся категория, Энергия
Mitsubishi Group Япония Продукты питания и напитки, Химия: Вся категория, Электроприборы, Финансы и банковское дело, Горнодобывающая промышленность, Технологии, Транспорт: Вся категория
Mitsubishi Materials (part of Mitsubishi Group) Япония Металлы/пластмассы/основные материалы: Общее

Against other:

Government

Источники

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.