Skip to main content
Home UNEP Judicial Portal

For judges by judges in support of environmental issues

Main navigation

  • Jurisprudence
    • Browse jurisprudence
    • Submit Jurisprudence
  • Judicial Network
  • Glossary
  • Resources
    • E-Learning
    • Training materials
    • Reports
    • Partners
    • Legislation

User account menu

  • Log in

Jurisprudence

Explore only content tagged with

Filters
Filters

Reset filters

Glossary terms

  • Environmental Issue
    • Biodiversity (1)
      • Wildlife (1)
  • Regulatory Tool
    • Protected Areas (2)

Country

  • South Africa (2)
  • Australia (5)
  • Austria (2)
  • Belgium (2)
  • Belize (1)
  • Brazil (2)
  • Canada (5)
  • Chile (1)
  • China (2)
  • Colombia (2)
  • Costa Rica (1)
  • Côte d'Ivoire (1)
  • European Union (4)
  • Finland (2)
  • Germany (1)
  • Hungary (1)
  • India (16)
  • Kenya (3)
  • Luxembourg (2)
  • Monaco (1)
  • Nepal (1)
  • New Zealand (1)
  • Pakistan (1)
  • Peru (1)
  • Philippines (3)
  • Portugal (1)
  • Samoa (1)
  • Sri Lanka (2)
  • Sweden (1)
  • Thailand (1)
  • Uganda (1)
  • United Kingdom (2)
  • United States of America (3)

Original language

  • English (1)

Language

  • English (2)

Date of text

  1. Home
  2. Browse jurisprudence
  3. Jurisprudence
2 results found
  • Sort by most recent

Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency and Another v Baberton Mines (Pty) Ltd and Others (216/2016) [2017] ZASCA 9; [2017] 2 All SA 376 (SCA); 2017 (5) SA 62 (SCA) (14 March 2017)

Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
South Africa
March 14, 2016
Tagging
Protected Areas, Wildlife
Sources
InforMEA

Residents’ Association of Hout Bay and Ano v Entilini Concession Pty Ltd and Others

Western Cape High Court
South Africa
June 6, 2012
Tagging
Protected Areas
Sources
InforMEA
Supported by the InforMEA project This website is supported by and contributing to the InforMEA Project which is funded by the European Union
This website was funded
by the European Union