Antofagasta, Chile – In a significant blow to mining interests and a victory for environmental advocates, the Court of Appeals of Antofagasta has definitively rejected the Dominga mining project. The ruling, delivered on February 21, 2026, upholds the decision made by the Committee of Ministers in January 2025 and effectively closes the door on the controversial project, at least for the foreseeable future. This decision marks a pivotal moment in Chile’s ongoing debate surrounding resource extraction and environmental protection and underscores the complexities of balancing economic development with ecological concerns.
The Dominga project, proposed by Andes Iron, aimed to develop an iron ore and copper mine, along with a port facility, in the Coquimbo region of Chile. The project faced fierce opposition from environmental groups, local communities, and even some government officials, who raised concerns about its potential impact on water resources, biodiversity, and the region’s fragile ecosystem. The legal battle surrounding Dominga has been protracted and complex, involving multiple levels of the Chilean judicial system. The latest ruling stems from a challenge to the Committee of Ministers’ earlier rejection, a challenge that the Court of Appeals has now dismissed.
Court Annuls Tribunal Ambiental Ruling, Reinforces Committee of Ministers’ Authority
The core of the Court of Appeals’ decision centers on a ruling made by the First Environmental Tribunal in February 2025. The court determined that this earlier resolution did not align with existing legal frameworks. Specifically, the Court found that the Environmental Tribunal’s decision did not fall within the cases specifically outlined by law, effectively invalidating the attempt to force a revote by the Committee of Ministers. According to the official statement from the Poder Judicial de Chile, the court’s ruling is based on articles 174 and 175 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which govern the enforceability of judicial sentences.
This ruling effectively reinforces the authority of the Committee of Ministers, a body comprised of cabinet ministers, in environmental decision-making. The Committee had previously rejected the Dominga project unanimously in January 2025, a decision that Andes Iron subsequently appealed. The Court of Appeals’ decision now confirms that the Committee acted within its legal competencies when it initially rejected the project. The legal process has been lengthy, beginning with the initial environmental impact assessment and culminating in this latest, decisive ruling.
Government Officials Welcome the Decision
Chile’s Minister of the Environment, Maisa Rojas, publicly welcomed the Court of Appeals’ decision, stating that it “confirms what we have been stating.” As reported by BioBioChile, Rojas emphasized that the Committee of Ministers had fully complied with a December 2024 court ruling and acted within its jurisdiction when rejecting the project. She further stated that the ruling clarifies the respective competencies of each institution involved in environmental matters, ensuring a more streamlined and legally sound process for future projects.
“This implies that the Dominga project is rejected based on the decision of the Committee of Ministers of January 2025,” Rojas stated. “it confirms what we have been stating: the Committee of Ministers complied with the ruling of the first environmental tribunal of December 2024 and that, acting within the scope of its competencies, the institutions function.”
Legislators Weigh In, Concerns Raised About Legal Maneuvering
The decision has similarly drawn reactions from members of the Chilean legislature. Deputy Daniel Manouchehri, a vocal critic of the Dominga project, asserted that the Court of Appeals’ ruling is definitive and that a tribunal cannot overturn the decisions of the Committee of Ministers. He also leveled accusations against the First Environmental Tribunal, alleging that it attempted to circumvent the law in favor of Andes Iron. Manouchehri further claimed that lawyers linked to a network known as the “Trama Bielorrusa” (Belarusian Plot) had attempted to influence the proceedings in favor of the mining company. Emol reported that Manouchehri stated the lawyers had “position their claws in” to favor Dominga.
Deputy Daniella Cicardini, recently elected as a Senator for the Atacama Region, echoed Manouchehri’s concerns, describing the Court’s decision as a “hard blow” to the project and accusing proponents of attempting to push the project forward through questionable legal maneuvers. She also called for a thorough investigation into the alleged involvement of lawyers connected to the “Trama Bielorrusa” in the case. The “Trama Bielorrusa” refers to a political scandal involving alleged illicit lobbying and influence peddling.
The “Trama Bielorrusa” Allegations
The allegations surrounding the “Trama Bielorrusa” add another layer of complexity to the Dominga saga. While the specifics of the alleged involvement remain under investigation, the claims suggest a potential attempt to exert undue influence on the judicial process. The accusations center around lawyers allegedly connected to the network attempting to secure favorable rulings for Andes Iron. These claims have prompted calls for greater transparency and accountability in the environmental permitting process.
Implications for Future Mining Projects in Chile
The rejection of the Dominga project has significant implications for the future of mining in Chile, one of the world’s leading copper producers. The ruling underscores the increasing scrutiny faced by mining companies and the growing importance of environmental considerations in project approvals. It also highlights the potential for legal challenges and the need for companies to navigate a complex regulatory landscape. The case serves as a cautionary tale for other mining projects seeking approval in Chile, emphasizing the importance of adhering to environmental regulations and engaging with local communities.
The Dominga case also raises questions about the balance between economic development and environmental protection in Chile. While mining is a crucial sector of the Chilean economy, contributing significantly to export revenues and employment, it also poses significant environmental risks. The Court of Appeals’ decision suggests a growing willingness to prioritize environmental concerns, even at the expense of economic gains. This shift in priorities could have far-reaching consequences for the Chilean mining industry.
What Happens Next?
While the Court of Appeals’ decision appears to be final, Andes Iron could potentially appeal to the Supreme Court of Chile. However, given the unanimous nature of the Court of Appeals’ ruling, the likelihood of a successful appeal is considered low. As of February 22, 2026, there has been no official statement from Andes Iron regarding a potential appeal. The company has not responded to requests for comment. The focus now shifts to the potential for further investigation into the allegations surrounding the “Trama Bielorrusa” and the role of lawyers allegedly connected to the network.
The Chilean government is expected to continue to strengthen its environmental regulations and enforcement mechanisms in the wake of the Dominga decision. This could include increased monitoring of mining operations, stricter environmental impact assessments, and greater public participation in the permitting process. The long-term impact of the Dominga case on the Chilean mining industry remains to be seen, but the decision marks a turning point in the country’s approach to resource extraction and environmental protection.
Key Takeaways:
- The Court of Appeals of Antofagasta has definitively rejected the Dominga mining project.
- The ruling upholds the decision made by the Committee of Ministers in January 2025.
- The court found that a previous ruling by the First Environmental Tribunal was not legally sound.
- Allegations of improper influence by lawyers linked to the “Trama Bielorrusa” are under investigation.
- The decision has significant implications for the future of mining in Chile.
Do you have thoughts on this crucial environmental and legal decision? Share your comments below and help us continue the conversation. Please also share this article with your network to raise awareness about this critical issue.