Author: Corina Heri

Associate professor, HYDR/Faculty of Law and Criminology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB)

Categories
Canada Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Indigenous peoples' rights Participation rights Participation rights

Maltais et al. v. Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Nature and Attorney General of Canada

Summary:
On 15 June 2026, an application for judicial review was brought in Canadian Federal Court against the Canadian Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Nature and the Attorney General of Canada. The applicants are Marie Maltais, Sophia Mathur, Shirley Barnea, the NGO Environmental Defence Canada and the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, supported by Ecojustice. The second applicant in the case was also an applicant in the earlier case of Mathur et al. v. the Queen in Right of Ontario.

The application alleges that the Minister failed to amend Canada’s Emissions Reductions Plan (ERP) for 2030 in ways that bring it into compliance with legal obligations under the Canadian Net Zero Accountability Act (CNZEAA). The case thus primarily concerns compliance with the targets set out under a domestic climate law, but also involves a procedural rights element given that amendments to an ERP require public and Indigenous consultation under domestic law. This refers to the fact that the CNZEAA allows the Minister to amend the ERP, but in doing so must provide interested persons, Indigenous peoples and others to make submissions.

Application:
The full text of the application can be downloaded below.

Maltais_2026-06-15-Issued-Notice-of-Application-T-2843-26Download

Further information:
The applicants held a press conference concerning the application on 16 June 2026, which can be watched here.

A press release on the case is available here.

Suggested citation:
Federal Court of Canada, Maltais et al. v. Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Nature and Attorney General of Canada, file no. T-2843-26, filed 15 June 2026 (pending).

Last updated:
22 June 2026.

Categories
2024 Children and young people Children's rights/best interests Committee on the Rights of the Child Finland Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Just transition litigation Minority rights Non-discrimination Participation rights Participation rights Renewable energy Right to culture Right to health Standing/admissibility Uncategorized

M. E. V., S. E. V. and B. I. V. v. Finland

Summary:

On 13 September 2024, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) adopted views in the communication M. E. V., S. E. V. and B. I. V. v. Finland. The communication concerned the granting of a mineral exploration permit on the traditional territory of the Sámi people without previous impact assessment (EIA) or free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). The authors of the communication were three sisters, all minors (aged 13, 15 and 16) at the time of filing. They submitted that their rights under articles 8 (right to preservation of identity), 27 (adequate standard of living) and 30 (minority rights) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), interpreted in light of article 24 (right to health) and all read alone and in conjunction with article 2.1 (non-discrimination), were violated by Finland in permitting a mineral exploration project on their traditional territory without proper EIA and without obtaining the FPIC of their community. They requested interim measures to stop the exploration activity.

The communication concerned the “Lätäs 1” mineral exploration permit sought by a Finnish government agency in 2014, requesting permission to explore deposits of gold, copper and iron by drilling 100 to 300 meter deep holes into the bedrock in 20 locations in the authors’ traditional reindeer herding territory.

The authors argued that “in a situation where the sustainability and transmission to new generations of Sámi reindeer herding culture is already under threat”, given the cumulative impact of past interventions in their territory, as aggravated by climate change, any new intervention violated their right, as Indigenous children, individually and in community with each other and other Sámi, not be denied the right to enjoy their own culture under article 30 CRC.

The authors noted also that: “Finland’s CO2 emissions put it on place 57 among all countries in absolute terms, and 29 per capita, as responsible for climate change, is an argument of why the mineral exploration project object of the current communication violates the Convention in the current circumstances created by climate change. While the authors understand that mitigating climate change requires replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy, they fear that badly chosen forms of such transition may have serious impact on their culture if the transition entails mining (to get battery minerals for electric cars and solar panel systems) and windmill parks in the Sámi territory which already is subject to other great pressures”.

Views of the UNCRC:

The UNCRC, in its Views on the communication, engaged with the State’s objection that the climate aspects of the case had not been raised in the domestic proceedings, whereby the authors had argued that their climate-related claims were raised “only to substantiate their claims on articles 8, 27 and 30 of the Convention, and
not to present a separate claim based on climate change.” The UNCRC accordingly found that all available domestic remedies had been exhausted (para. 8.4).

Although the Committee ‘noted’ the authors’ claim concerning the difficulties of transmission of Sámi herding culture created by climate change and other threats, it did not further engage with these claims in the remainder of its Views, which ultimately found that:

9.24 (…) to ignore the right of Indigenous peoples to use and enjoy land rights and to refrain from taking appropriate measures to ensure respect in practice for their right to offer free, prior and informed consent whenever their rights may be affected by projects carried out in their traditional territories, constitutes a form of discrimination, as it results in nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by Indigenous peoples, on an equal footing, of their rights to their ancestral territories, natural resources and, as a result, their identity. The Committee moreover considers that the discrimination suffered by an Indigenous people also impacts their children, whose
preservation of cultural identity is crucial as they represent the continuity of their distinct people.

(…)

9.25 The Committee therefore concludes that the information before it reveals that the granting of the exploration permits without having ensured the effective participation of the authors in a consultation process based on a prior impact assessment of the exploration works on the consequences for Sámi reindeer herding, amounted to violations of the authors’ rights under articles 8, 27 and 30, read in conjunction with article 2.1 of the Convention.

Views:

CRC-C-97-D-172-2022_E_UVDownload

Commentary on the case:

Counsel for the applicants has written about this case that, based on this and other Indigenous rights cases, they “anticipate new cases by the Sámi and other Indigenous peoples concerning states’ positive obligation to undertake positive measures and to treat Indigenous peoples differently from the mainstream population, including when the preservation and transmission to new generations of their distinctive cultures and livelihoods so require in the challenging times of climate change.”

Suggested citation:

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, M. E. V., S. E. V. and B. I. V. v. Finland, CRC/C/97/D/172/2022, Views of 13 September 2024.

Categories
Climate activists and human rights defenders Human Rights Committee Right to assembly and association Right to freedom of expression The Netherlands

Keularts and van der Luer v. the Netherlands

Summary:
On 28 May 2026, it was announced that two climate protesters from the Netherlands had filed a Communication before the UN Human Rights Committee concerning the domestic authorities’ response to “the Climate Alarm 2021”, a climate protest that took place in 2021 in the Dutch municipality of Heerlen against the Dutch authorities’ climate policy. This initiative was supported by eleven NGOs including Milieudefensie, which was a claimant in the national legal procedure that preceded the Communication to the UNHRC and which explicitly supported the Communication. The proceedings concern the decision, by first the local mayor under the Public Manifestations Act (“WOM”), and then, on appeal, domestic courts, to apply 28 restrictions to this event in advance, including an obligation to provide names of those who would be speaking in advance of the event, to prohibit music and to hold the organizers liable for any damage.

Before the UNHRC, the Authors of this Communication argue that, drawing on Articles 19 and 21 and aligning with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, these restrictions violated their human rights to peaceful assembly and to freedom of expression. They argue that the restrictions were not justified by public health (the COVID-19 pandemic) and that it had a “seriously chilling effect” on freedom of expression and assembly.

The full text of the communication is available below.

Keularts and van der Luer v. the NetherlandsDownload

Suggested citation:
UN Human Rights Committee, Keularts and van der Luer v. the Netherlands, Communication of 28 May 2026 (pending).

Last updated:
9 June 2026.

Categories
Adaptation Climate-induced displacement Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Imminent risk Loss & damage Switzerland

Tétaz v. Canton of Valais

Summary:
On 27 May 2026, a case was brought against the Swiss canton of Valais concerning its liability for the Blatten landslide disaster, which took place one year previously, on 28 May 2025. On that date, the collapse of the Birch glacier destabilized the mountainside above the village, the Petit Nesthorn, causing a landslide of ice, mud, and debris that buried 90% of the village of Blatten in Valais’s Lötschental valley. Although the residents of the village were evacuated, the events resulted in one death. In addition, 130 houses as well as the local church were swept away and buried under debris 200 m thick.

One year after the disaster, legal collective “Avocat.e.s pour le Climat” brought a case on behalf of Jean-Marc Tétaz, a philosopher and theologian who lost his home and his life’s work, a library comprising 5000 sources, as well as ongoing research work and handwritten family memoirs, in the disaster. In a conciliation request filed with the municipal court of Sion, he claims the balance of damage not covered by liability insurance, including for the loss of his books, manuscripts, and work notes, as well as lost earnings from publishing projects that cannot be completed. The damage claim amounts to 211,900 Swiss Francs.

The case reportedly argues that the canton of Valais failed act to avoid the disaster or provide information to the public despite having been aware of the risks since 2022, when an “imminent danger” was identified, with a collapse deemed “very likely”, by scientists from the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, who modeled the potential consequences of a landslide at the Petit Nesthorn. According to the plaintiff in this case, the canton of Valais dismissed the scientists’ finding and failed to inform local residents of the dangers, which would have allowed him to relocate his library.

The plaintiff links the glacial instability and permafrost thaw that caused the Blatten disaster with climate change, citing scientific studies that identify climate change as having a role in the disaster. He argues that the cantonal government negligently ignored the risks given its lack of an ambitious climate policy.

More information on this case, and its legal foundations, will be added when it becomes available.

Suggested citation:
Municipal court of Sion, Tétaz v. Canton of Valais, conciliation request filed 27 May 2026.

Last updated:
30 May 2026.

Categories
Business responsibility / corporate cases Class action Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Fossil fuel extraction Imminent risk Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to life The Netherlands

Milieudefensie et al. v. Shell Plc (No. 2)

Summary:
On 21 April 2026, the Dutch NGO Milieudefensie delivered summons to oil and gas giant Shell Plc, in its second collective legal action against the company following the first Milieudefensie case (decided on appeal in 2024). This second case, under Section 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC), is brought on behalf of current and future generations of Dutch citizens after the corporate actor moved its seat from the Netherlands to the United Kingdom. Milieudefensie summoned Shell to appear at a hearing to be held at the District Court of Amsterdam on 29 July 2026.

In its 273-page summons, Milieudefensie covers issues of jurisdiction, the requirements for a collective suit under Section 3:305a DCC, the scientific evidence underpinning its case, the risk of reaching climate tipping points for Europe and for the Netherlands, international climate policy and the global 1.5-degree temperature target, the important role played by non-state actors and their corporate responsibilities to respect human rights, the inhibiting influence of the oil and gas industry, including Shell, on infrastructural carbon lock-ins, including through its historical undermining of climate science and strategies to delay climate action, as well as its lobbying against the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or CS3D) of 13 June 2024.

Milieudefensie sets out the framework for assessing Shell’s responsibility under Sections 3:296 and 6:162 DCC, fleshing this out by invoking the societal duty of care under domestic law, as well as the doctrine of hazardous negligence, human rights law (particularly Articles 2 and 8 ECHR, the rights to life and respect for private and family life), international customary law, international soft law, and legal principles including the precautionary principle, the climate law principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR), and the principle of intergenerational justice. In particular, the summons argues that

“[s]ince the Urgenda judgment, it has been widely recognised in court judgments that dangerous climate change leads to human rights violations. Not only the ECHR, but also the IACtHR and the ICJ have recently found this. Numerous (supreme) national courts have independently reached the same conclusion. Within Europe, for example, reference can be made to the case law of the [German] Bundesverfassungsgericht and the Court of Appeal in Brussels. Outside Europe, the situation is no different. For example, the Lahore High Court in Pakistan, the Supreme Court of Colombia, the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court, the District Court of Montana (United States) and the Supreme Court of India have all ruled that human rights can be relied on in order to be protected against the effects of climate change. In view of the above, there can be no misunderstanding that human rights (indirectly) have a horizontal effect when the unwritten duty-of-care standard is fleshed out. Nor can there be any debate about the fact that dangerous climate change leads to human rights violations and that human rights can be relied on for protection against dangerous climate change. The only question that remains is what assessment framework needs to be applied here. “

Milieudefensie argues that Shell bears a share of the responsibility to prevent dangerous climate change, discussing its level of knowledge and the foreseeability of harm by arguing that Shell has long known about the fact that fossil fuels cause climate change, with serious consequences for people and the environment, has known that it is making a substantial contribution to climate change and that it needs to take (precautionary) measures. It sets out Shell’s two-pillared obligations: first, a reduction obligation for Scope 1, 2 and 3 CO2 emissions, and second, an obligation not to develop new oil and gas fields.

Concerning the first pillar of obligations, Milieudefensie argues that “Shell must make an equitable contribution (a “fair share”) to preventing dangerous climate change and limiting global warming to 1.5°C by reducing its emissions.” In doing so, it invokes UN reports to argue that:

  • companies must demonstrate maximum ambition to achieve (net) zero CO2 emissions as quickly as possible, but by 2050 at the latest;
  • companies must set ambitious and credible interim targets for the short and medium term on the road to the above-mentioned goal of net zero CO2 emissions that represent a fair share of the global reduction target; and
  • the (interim) targets should cover all Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions and should aim for absolute CO2 emission reductions.  

It also submits that “Shell can be considered to be an influential Western company in several respects; it has both substantial emissions and large transition capabilities and a large historical responsibility. These are all relevant circumstances under the above-mentioned climate protocols (as evidenced by e.g. the reference to the CBDR principle and the need to take on a fair share of the global target) for asking Shell to take on an above-average responsibility and requiring it to reduce its emissions faster than the global average.”

As concerns the second pillar of obligations, Milieudefensie argues that Shell’s obligation not to pursue new fossil fuel projects is “based on the doctrine of hazardous negligence, human rights law, the legal principles discussed, soft law and other objective points of reference, is that Shell must cease the development and production of new oil and gas fields. After all, the carbon budget with a 50% probability of 1.5°C is already exceeded with the operation of the existing fossil-fuel infrastructure alone, and new oil and gas fields are therefore incompatible with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C by the end of this century. “

Milieudefensie concludes that Shell is breaching its societal duty of care under domestic law, and seeks the following provisionally enforceable remedies:

  • Emissions reductions, covering annual Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, as per the table below;
  • A prohibition of achieving these reductions through divestment, i.e. through transfer of shares or assets;
  • To prohibit Shell from making use of carbon credits for the purpose of achieving the emission reductions described;
  • To order Shell to achieve that the Shell Group ceases, continues to cease and does not start the production of new oil and gas from fields.

More information:
The full text of the summons (translated into English by Milieudefensie) is available below. For more information on the case, see here.

Summons Milieudefensie v. Shell (No. 2)Download

Suggested citation:
District Court of Amsterdam, Milieudefensie et al. v. Shell Plc (No. 2), summons issued 21 April 2026.

Categories
Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Farming Japan Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to life Right to property Right to pursue happiness

Call4 et al. v. Japan

Summary:
On 18 December 2025 and 4 April 2026, two lawsuits were filed in Japan against the Japanese government’s inaction on climate change. The first suit was filed with the Tokyo District Court on behalf of 452 plaintiffs from all over Japan, including victims of heatstroke, individuals who work in primary industries such as agriculture and fisheries, and children. The second suit, again with the Tokyo District Court, was filed on behalf of 454 additional plaintiffs.

The (in total) 906 plaintiffs in these twin cases summarize their claims as follows:

First, they challenge the legality of the government’s emissions reductions targets, given their inconsistency with the 1.5-degree warming target set out by the Paris Agreement. They challenge the reduction targets set out in the most recent Japanese NDC and the country’s 7th Global Warming Countermeasures Plan, both dated February 2025. Under these instruments, the government’s current targets aim for a 39% emissions reduction by 2030, a 52% reduction by 2035, and a 67% reduction by 2040 compared to 2019 levels, which the plaintiffs argue is incompatible with IPCC science, the 1.5-degree target, and Japan’s obligations as a highly developed nation.

Second, the plaintiffs argue that the government’s failure to enact effective legislation to achieve the 1.5-degree target is unconstitutional. They submit that “currently in Japan, there are no laws that set greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2030 or 2035, nor are there any legally binding emission standards.” They argue that “[t]he right to live peacefully in a stable climate without fear of harm to one’s life, health, or property is a human right that should be guaranteed by the Constitution”, as well as invoking the constitutionally guaranteed right to live peacefully.

In doing so, the plaintiffs draw on IPCC reports and explicitly refer to climate litigation in domestic and international jurisdictions, including the ICJ’s climate advisory opinion.

More information:
More information on the case, as well as case documents, are available here.

The applicants’ submissions in both cases (in Japanese) are available for download below.

Filing in the first caseDownload
Filing in the second caseDownload

Suggested citation:
Tokyo District Court, Call4 et al. v. Japan, filings of 18 December 2025 and 4 April 2026 (pending).

Categories
2026 Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Fossil fuel extraction Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Public trust doctrine Right to a healthy environment Right to culture Right to life Separation of powers United States of America

Kaarina Dunn et al. v. Public Service Comission of Wisconsin, et al.

Summary:
On 23 April 2026, a court in the US state of Wisconsin ruled in a youth climate case against the Wisconsin Public Service Commission and the Wisconsin State legislature. The case was filed by fifteen young people ranging in age from 8-17. The youth plaintiffs had challenged the constitutionality of statues governing the approval of fossil fuel-fired power plants because those statutes limit the ability of the first respondent, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, to consider air quality impacts of when issuing permits for such plants. In doing so, they had invoked their rights, under the Wisconsin state constitution, to liberty and to life, as well as the rights to a stable climate system and to access, enjoy and use navigable waters (both of which they considered inherent within the constitution). They also alleged a violation of Wisconsin’s public trust doctrine.

According to the Plaintiffs, climate change has rendered them unable to enjoy Wisconsin’s natural resources, like its rivers and lakes, as well as prevented them from engaging in recreational activities, like swimming and skiing. Some are deprived of their Indigenous cultural traditions, while others have experienced asthma and contracted Lyme disease.

The judge tasked with resolving this case, Judge Julie Genovese, ruled that “[w]hile the court is sympathetic to the youths and admires their willingness to access the courts in their quest to protect the planet, I conclude that the case must be dismissed because environmental policy is a nonjusticiable political question”. The judge discussed Wisconsin’s political question doctrine, which “dictates that courts will not decide questions that require the court to determine what the best or wisest public policy would be”, and “also embodies a practical component, recognizing that matters of economic and social policy are not reasonably “susceptible to judicial management or resolution.””

The judge concluded that:

“by substituting this court’s judgment for the legislature, the court
would be showing a lack of respect for the legislative and executive branches. Plaintiffs do not like these policy decisions. (…) Because Plaintiffs think it is technologically and economically feasible for Wisconsin to be carbon free by 2050, they conclude that by invalidating the statutes and thus their limitations, the PSC will decide to stop approving fossil fuel-fired plants, and Plaintiffs’ carbon free goal will be achieved. While the court may agree with Plaintiffs’ policy preferences, it would show a blatant lack of respect for our elected officials and the agency defendants to substitute my judgment for theirs, and strike the limitations imposed by the legislature and executed by the PSC. Accordingly, because the court concludes that the legislature’s policy decisions represent a nonjusticiable political question, this case must be dismissed.”

Full text of the judgment:
The full text of the judgment is available for download below.

Decision Wisconsin 2026Download

Submission on behalf of the state:
The submission made on behalf of the state government can be downloaded below.

Filing Legislature’s attorney Ryan WalshDownload
Categories
Deforestation Domestic court New Zealand Paris Agreement Participation rights Participation rights

ELI and Lawyers for Climate Action NZ v. Minister of Climate Change

Summary:
On 10 June 2025, a climate case was filed in the Wellington High Court in Aotearoa New Zealand by the organizations Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI). The case challenges decisions relating to the country’s first (2021-2025) and second emissions reduction plans (2026-2030), including the second plan’s offsetting-led approach, which prioritizes reforestation measures over emissions reductions.

Regarding the first emissions reductions plan, the plaintiffs challenge the ex post cancellation of various projects and actions set out in that plan by the current Government. They argue that domestic legislation, and particularly the Climate Change Response Act, “imposes guardrails on government’s ability to change and cancel climate policies on the fly.” They also challenge the absence of adequate public consultation concerning the changes.

Regarding the second emissions reductions plan, they allege that the Minister of Climate Change is under a legal duty to ensure that emissions budgets are met, which in turn requires the preparation and publication of emissions reductions plans setting out policies and strategies for meeting the emissions budget. The second emissions reduction plan has a wide uncertainty margin, and projects that New Zealand won’t achieve its 2035 target, meaning that according to the plaintiffs it is inadequate, unlawful and too limited in its modeling, as well as taking “an unrealistic and inadequate approach to risk management, relying on a ‘wait and see’ approach it calls ‘Adaptive Management'”. The plaintiffs further challenge the offsetting-led approach of the second emissions reductions plan, and more specifically the decision to prioritize reforestation measures over emissions reductions. They argue that this plan “proceeds on a fundamental error of fact – that forestry offsets and reductions are fungible, when that’s not the case”, and that it does not suffice to comply with the country’s obligations under the Paris Agreement. 

Suggested citation:
Wellington High Court, ELI and Lawyers for Climate Action NZ v. Minister of Climate Change, filed 10 June 2025 (pending).

Further information:
More information is available on ELI’s dedicated website.

The statement of claim is available for download below.

2025-06-10+ERP2+Statement+of+claimDownload

Last updated:
13 March 2026.

Categories
Domestic court Uncategorized

Constitutionality of Article 3(1) of the Climate Protection Act (Hungary), Decision No. II/3536/2021

Summary:

50 members of the parliament petitioned the Hungarian Constitutional Court to declare several provisions of the Climate Protection Act XLIV of 2020 as unconstitutional. They argued that the Act was not in conformity with the following provisions of the Fundamental Law of Hungary: Article P(1) containing the obligation of the state and everyone to protect, maintain land, and preserve for future generations, Hungary’s forests and the reserves of water; biodiversity; and cultural artefacts; Article Q(2) containing the obligation to ensure that Hungarian law is in conformity with international law; Article B(1) the obligation to conform to the requirements of rule of law, and the fundamental rights to life, physical health and well-being, legal protection for homes under Articles II, XX and XXI(1) respectively.  

In its plenary session on 13 May 2025, the Constitutional Court announced its decision on the case. It held that Section 3(1) of the Climate Protection Act, establishing a 40% emission reduction target to be achieved by 2030 (compared to 1990 levels), was unconstitutional and repealed with effect from 30 June 2026. In its reasoning, the Court invoked the principles of non-regression, precaution and prevention as bases for interpreting obligations under Articles P(1), XX(1) and XXI(1) of the Fundamental Law which required the state to continuously improve the level of protection in light of the latest developments in climate science and technology. It characterized the maintenance of the 40% target as a failure to update the state’s mitigation commitments in light of ‘events’ which had rendered it outdated. Further, it found that the Climate Protection Act only contained emissions reduction obligations, and did not address the creation of emissions sinks and adoption of adaptation measures, which are of equal importance in ensuring the effectiveness of the legal framework for protection against climate-related risks.

The Constitutional Court also found that the lack of mechanisms for ensuring accountability for the achievement of the target prescribed in Article 3(1) of the Climate Protection Act, to be a reason as to why the provision formally ran afoul of Article B(1) (rule of law) and in terms of content, led to a violation of Articles P(1), XX(1) and XXI(1) of the Fundamental Law.

The Court thus ordered the National Assembly to adopt a comprehensive regulation on Hungary’s climate mitigation commitment as well as adaptation measures tailored to Hungary’s circumstances by 30 June 2026.

Status:

The decision is final.

Suggested Citation:

Constitutional Court of Hungary, Constitutionality of Article 3(1) of the Climate Protection Act (Hungary), Decision No. II/3536/2021, 13 May 2025.

Links:

Unofficial version of the decision of the Hungarian Constitutional Court (in Hungarian) can be found here.

Last updated: 12 March 2026

Categories
European Court of Human Rights Uncategorized

Klimatická žaloba ČR et al. v. Czechia

Summary:

On 2 February 2026, the Czech NGO Klimatická žaloba ČR submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) alleging violations of Articles 8, 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by the Czech government in light of its climate mitigation policy.  The application follows up on domestic proceedings in the Klimatická žaloba ČR, z.s. and Others v. Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Industry and Trade, Ministry of Agriculture, and Ministry of Transport, Czech Republic case, which was dismissed by the Czech Constitutional Court in 2025, and draws on the ECtHR’s earlier KlimaSeniorinnen judgment.

The applicants argue that Czechia has failed to create a fair 1.5°C national carbon budget, has not adopted a net zero commitment, and has not established binding climate mitigation targets or measures or interim targets to that effect. They accordingly allege violations of Article 8 ECHR, the right to respect for private and family life, as well as the right to a fair trial (Article 6 ECHR) and the right to an effective remedy (Article 13 ECHR), alleging the absence of effective judicial review.

The contested domestic legal framework:

In their application, the applicants argue that the current legal framework, as enshrine din the 2017 Climate Protection Policy:

“[E]nvisages reducing emissions to approximately 102.3 Mt CO₂eq by 2030 (a 48% reduction compared to 1990) and even 39 Mt CO₂eq by 2050. An evaluation carried out by the Ministry of the Environment in 2021 concluded that these targets are insufficient and do not even correspond to the EU’s climate targets at that time.
The draft update to the Czech Republic’s Climate Protection Policy, submitted to the government on July 17, 2024, was not adopted. In its Resolution No. 960 of December 18, 2024, the government even revoked the Minister of the Environment’s mandate to submit this update. In October 2025, the update was approved only as a non-binding departmental strategy of the Ministry of the Environment. Even this departmental strategy does not contain a commitment to achieve climate neutrality, only an ambition to “move towards” climate neutrality, which is also conditional on favorable socio-economic developments. The departmental strategy does not contain a target for 2040 and sets a target of reducing emissions by only 55% by 2030, although the underlying modeling showed the possibility of a reduction of up to 68%. The Czech Republic does not have climate targets enshrined in law – the current Climate Protection Policy (2017) is only a government resolution without legal binding force. The Czech Republic does not have a framework climate law, has not set a binding national carbon budget, has not set interim emission reduction targets, nor has it set a target year for achieving climate neutrality.” (translation from the original Czech by ClimateRightsDatabase).

The application to the ECtHR, as shared by the applicants, is available for download below.

Cover_letter-mergedDownload

Suggested citation:
ECtHR, Klimatická žaloba ČR et al. v. Czechia, application submitted on 2 February 2026 (not yet communicated).

Last updated:
12 March 2026.