Category: Children and young people

Categories
2023 Canada Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Non-discrimination Paris Agreement Public trust doctrine Right to life Standing/admissibility Vulnerability

Mathur et al. v. HM the Queen in Right of Ontario

Summary:
On 25 November 2019, seven Canadian young people and the NGO Ecojustice brought a case against the State of Ontario, arguing that it had failed to take adequate action to mitigate its greenhouse gas emissions and contesting the State’s “dangerously inadequate GHG reduction target” as set out under the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act of 2018. Under this legislation, Ontario aims to reduce GHG emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. To contest the adequacy of this target, and the previous repeal of the more ambitious Climate Change Act (with its target of 45% reductions by 2030), the applicants invoked sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom (the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right to equal protection under the law). Arguing that they have a serious and genuine interest in this case, which also impacts all Ontario youth and future generations, they noted that climate change will cause heat-related fatalities, harms to human health, increased fire activity and the spread of disease, increased flooding and other extreme weather events, harmful algal blooms and exposure to contaminants, harms to Indigenous peoples, and psychological harms and mental distress.

Claims made:
Noting the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and the leading role of developed countries under the Paris Agreement, the applicants argued that Ontario’s current emissions reductions target compromises their right to life, liberty and security of the person “in a serious and pervasive manner that does not accord with the principles of fundamental justice”. They furthermore submitted that the target violated the right to liberty of Ontario’s youth and future generations, because it impacted their ability to make choices about their futures. They invoked the principle of “societal preservation” and human dignity, and argued for the recognition of a right to a stable climate system. Concerning the right to equal protection under the law, they argued that youth and future generations are in a uniquely vulnerable situation given their age and exclusion from political participation and the fact that they will be disproportionately impacted by climate change.

Relief sought:
Among other things, the applicants sought the invalidation of the existing emissions reductions targets and the rules for setting such targets, a declaration that it violates unwritten constitutional principles about avoiding harm, a recognition of the right to a stable climate system, and an order that Ontario must set out a science based GHG reduction target consistent with its share of global emissions.

Decision on admissibility:
On 12 November 2020, the Superior Court of Justice for Ontario rejected a motion from the government to dismiss the case. The government had invoked the absence of a right to a stable climate from the Charter, the plaintiffs’ alleged lack standing to represent future generations, and the absence of sufficient evidence or a reasonable cause of action.

Hearing:
A hearing in this case was heard from 12-14 September 2022.

2023 Judgment:
On 14 April 2023, the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario delivered its judgment in the case. The Court found that, although the policies in question were justiciable given that the applicants had challenged specific state acts and legislation, the applicants had not established a violation of their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In her judgment, Justice Vermette noted that the issue of establishing Ontario’s “fair share” of the remaining carbon budget was not a justiciable issue, and “should be determined in another forum” (para. 109). Justice Vermette did consider it “indisputable that, as a result of climate change, the Applicants and Ontarians in general are experiencing an increased risk of death and an increased risk to the security of the person” (para. 120). However, she disagreed with the applicants’ characterization of the emissions reductions target as “authorizing, incentivizing, facilitating and creating the very level of dangerous GHG that will lead to the catastrophic consequences of climate change for Ontarians”, finding that “the target does not authorize or incentivize GHG” (para. 122).

While the target was not legally meaningless, and justiciable under the Charter, Justice Vermette found (contrary to the arguments of the applicants) that the question at issue was whether the Charter imposed positive obligations. Leaving this question open, albeit acknowledging that “the Applicants make a compelling case that climate change and the existential threat that it poses to human life and security of the person present special circumstances that could justify the imposition of positive obligations under section 7 of the Charter”, Justice Vermette found that any putative deprivation of Charter rights at stake was not contrary to “the principles of fundamental justice”, i.e. neither arbitrary nor grossly disproportionate. This test applies because the relevant right in the Charter, i.e. its Article 7, stipulates that “[e]veryone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

Concerning the equality claim under Article 15 of the Charter, Justice Vermette found that Ontario’s climate policy did not distinguish based on age, but made a temporal distinction, and that accordingly there was no violation of that provision either.

Proceedings on Appeal:
An appeal by the applicants was heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal — the highest court in the state of Ontario — in January 2024. On 17 October 2024, this court unanimously ruled that the case should be referred back to the previous instance, the Superior Court of Justice for Ontario, for a new hearing, finding that the case raised important issues and that the lower court judge’s analysis was flawed on key points. The Court of Appeal ordered a new hearing in the case before the Superior Court of Justice.

The Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously found that the previous instance had erred in framing this case as seeking to impose new positive obligations on the State of Ontario (para. 5). Instead, it found that through state law, specifically the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act of 2018, the government of Ontario had “voluntarily assumed a positive statutory obligation to combat climate change”. The ruling also invited the applicants to broaden the scope of their case by incorporating arguments made by amicus curiae and to adduce further evidence.

In doing so, the Court found that:

[6]          The interveners raised relevant, important issues that were not determined by the application judge, either because they were not raised before her or did not affect her analysis, or because she declined to address them since they were not pleaded in the notice of application. They included whether the Target breached the Charter rights of Indigenous peoples in Ontario and their s. 35 rights under the Constitution Act, 1982; the integration of the public trust doctrine; the application of international law, including international environmental law, in the interpretation of Charter rights; the application of the best interests of the child principle; and the recognition and impact of certain unwritten constitutional principles, including societal preservation and ecological sustainability.

Further reading:

  • The original application is available in full from Climate Case Chart, as is the admissibility order.
  • The 2023 judgment in the case is available here.
  • A comment on the judgment in this case, as well as its context, is available from Christie A. MacLeod, Annafaye Dunbar, and Rosemarie Sarrazin (Miller Thomson) here.
  • The 2024 ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal can be found here.

Suggested citation:
Superior Court of Justice for Ontario, Mathur v. Ontario, 2023 ONSC 2316, 14 April 2023.

Ontario Court of Appeal, Mathur v. Ontario, 2024 ONCA 762, 17 October 2024.

Last updated:
13 November 2024.

Categories
Adaptation Biodiversity Children and young people Climate activists and human rights defenders Climate-induced displacement Deforestation Emissions reductions/mitigation Evidence Gender / women-led Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Inter-American Human Rights System Loss & damage Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to life Right to property Rights of nature Vulnerability

Climate Advisory Opinion of the IACtHR (OC 32/2025)

Summary:
On 3 July 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued its long-awaited advisory opinion on climate change, at the request of the governments of Chile and Colombia.

Advisory opinion request:
On 9 January 2023, Colombia and Chile jointly filed a request for an advisory opinion on the climate emergency and human rights to the IACtHR. The two governments requested clarification of the scope of States’ obligations, both in their individual and collective dimensions, in responding to the climate emergency within the framework of international human rights law, taking into account the different effects that climate change has on people in different regions and on different population groups, nature and human survival. The governments asked the Court to answer a series of questions grouped into six thematic areas, namely on:

A. The scope of States’ obligations to protect and prevent, including regarding their obligations to mitigate, adapt, regulate and monitor, and their response to loss and damage;

B. States’ obligations to protect the right to life given the existing climate science, and taking into account the right of access to information and transparency of information, including under the Escazú Agreement;

C. States’ obligations with respect to the rights of children and new generations, given especially the vulnerability of children;

D. On the State’s obligations concerning consultative and judicial procedures, taking into account the limited remaining carbon budget;

E. The protective and preventative obligations concerning environmental and land rights defenders, as well as women, indigenous peoples and Afro-descendant communities; and

F. Shared and differentiated obligations and responsibilities in terms of the rights of States, the obligation of cooperation and given the impacts on human mobility (migration and forced displacement of people).

Extended summary of the request:
In their request to the IACtHR, the two governments submitted that they are already dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides and fires. These, they submitted, underscore the need for a response based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation and sustainability, as well as human rights. The two governments noted that climate change is already putting humans and future generations at risk, but that its effects are not being experienced uniformly across the international community. Instead, given their geography, climatic conditions, socioeconomic conditions and infrastructure, they are particularly being felt in the most vulnerable communities, including several countries in the Americas. They emphasized that these effects are not proportionate to these countries’ and communities’ contribution to climate change.

The governments, in their request, emphasized the relevance of the right to a healthy environment, as well as other interrelated substantive and procedural rights (affecting life, human survival and future generations). They reviewed the existing scientific evidence concerning the impacts and progression of climate change from the IPCC, and noted the vulnerability of the Andean region. The two governments referred to the 2017 Advisory Opinion of the IACtHR, which recognized the right to a healthy environment as an autonomous and individual right, and referred to the negative effects of climate change. However, they argued, there is a need to further clarify the human rights impacts of climate change, and corresponding obligations. In this regard, they raised the existence also of collective rights for the protection of nature under international human rights and environmental law, and cited the need to protect fundamental biomes like the Amazon and to understand States’ shared but differentiated responsibilities in a way that copes with loss and damage. The two governments invited the Court to set out clear standards against the background of litigation and related developments.

Consultation procedure:
In accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the IACtHR (Art. 73(3)), all interested parties (individuals and organizations) are invited to present a written opinion on the issues covered in the advisory opinion request. The President of the Court has established 18 August 2023 as the deadline for doing so. More information is available here.

Advisory opinion of 3 July 2025:
On 3 July 2025, following an oral hearing, the IACtHR issued its advisory opinion in these proceedings (in Spanish, with the text in English to follow). In a 234-page opinion, the Court addressed the questions raised by the governments of Chile and Colombia in their request.

The advisory opinion covers a wide range of relevant issues and obligations, and provides in-depth clarifications of the legal issues raised. It covers, in short:

  • The procedure, competence of the Court and admissibility of the request, as well as a number of other preliminary considerations, including about the (scientific and other) sources used by the Court and the scope of the opinion.
  • The facts of the climate emergency, including its causes, differential contributions of different actors, and its impacts on natural systems, humans, vulnerable territories and ecosystems, as well as the need for urgent action, the possibilities and need for mitigation, the need for adaptation, and the seriousness of climate impacts.
  • The complexity of required responses, including discussions of resilience and sustainable development as a vehicle for protection of both human rights and the environment.
  • The international legal framework around climate change, applicable norms and frameworks, including international investment law, human rights, international environmental law and climate change treaties. The Court also reviewed the case-law of other adjudicators in the context of climate change.
  • The obligations of States in the context of the climate emergency, including the scope of human rights obligations to respect rights, protect rights (including a reinforced due diligence obligation), and the obligation to take measures to ensure progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights. This includes discussion of various substantive rights, including particularly the right to a healthy environment but also the rights to life, physical integrity, health, private and family life, property and home, freedom of movement and residence, water and food, work and social security, culture and education. The advisory opinion also includes consideration of procedural rights and the link between these rights and democracy, the right to science and recognition of local knowledge, the right of access to information (and combatting disinformation), the right to political participation and access to justice as well as protection of environmental defenders and equality and non-discrimination norms. In this latter regard, the opinion considers the differential protection owed to children and youth, to Indigenous and tribal peoples, Afrodescendant communities, peasants and those involved in fisheries. It also considers the differential effect of climate change and the implications for fight against poverty.

Opinion of the Court:
Appended to the Court’s extensive consideration of the relevant issues and obligations is its concrete opinion, which reads as follows (translation from the original Spanish, to be replaced with the English-language translation by the Court once available):

THE COURT DECIDES
Unanimously, that:

It is competent to issue the present Advisory Opinion, in the terms of paragraphs 14 to 23.

AND IS OF THE OPINION
Unanimously, that:

  1. According to the best available science, the current situation constitutes a climate emergency due to the accelerated increase in global temperature, produced by diverse activities of anthropogenic origin, undertaken unequally by the States of the international community, which incrementally affect and seriously threaten humanity and, especially, the most vulnerable people. This climate emergency can only be adequately addressed through urgent and effective actions for mitigation, adaptation and progress towards sustainable development, articulated with a human rights perspective, and under the prism of resilience, in the terms of paragraphs 183 and 205 to 216.

    Unanimously, that:
  2. By virtue of the general obligation to respect rights, States have the obligations indicated in paragraphs 219 to 223.

    Unanimously, that:
  3. Under the general obligation to ensure rights, States have an obligation to act in accordance with a standard of enhanced due diligence to counteract the human causes of climate change and protect people under their jurisdiction from climate impacts, in particular those who are most vulnerable, in the terms of paragraphs 225 to 237.

    By six votes in favor and one against, that:
  4. By virtue of the general obligation to ensure the progressive development of economic, social, cultural and environmental rights, States must allocate the maximum available resources to protect persons and groups who, because they are in situations of vulnerability, are exposed to the most severe impacts of climate change, in the terms of paragraphs 238 to 243.
    Judge Patricia Pérez Goldberg dissents.

    Unanimously, that:
  5. By virtue of the general obligation to adopt domestic law provisions, States must integrate into their domestic legal framework the necessary regulations to ensure the respect, guarantee and progressive development of human rights in the context of the climate emergency, in the terms of paragraphs 244 to 246.

    Unanimously, that:
  6. By virtue of the obligation to cooperate, the States are obliged to cooperate in good faith to advance in the respect, guarantee and progressive development of human rights threatened or affected by the climate emergency, in the terms of paragraphs 247 to 265.

    By four votes in favor and three against, that:
  7. The recognition of Nature and its components as subjects of rights constitutes a normative development that makes it possible to reinforce the protection of the integrity and functionality of ecosystems in the long term, providing effective legal tools in the face of the triple planetary crisis and facilitating the prevention of existential damage before it becomes irreversible. This conception represents a contemporary manifestation of the principle of interdependence between human rights and the environment, and reflects a growing trend at the international level aimed at strengthening the protection of ecological systems against present and future threats, in accordance with paragraphs 279 to 286.
    Judge Nancy Hernández López, Judge Humberto Sierra Porto and Judge Patricia Pérez Goldberg dissenting.

    By four votes in favor and three against, that:
  8. By virtue of the principle of effectiveness, the imperative prohibition of anthropogenic conducts that may irreversibly affect the interdependence and vital balance of the common ecosystem that makes the life of the species possible constitutes a norm of jus cogens, in accordance with paragraphs 287 to 294.
    Judge Nancy Hernández López, Judge Humberto Sierra Porto and Judge Patricia Pérez Goldberg dissenting.

    By a vote of five in favor and two partially against, that:
  9. The right to a healthy climate, understood as a component of the right to a healthy environment, protects in its collective dimension the present and future humanity, as well as Nature, in the terms of paragraphs 298 to 316.
    Judge Nancy Hernández López and Judge Patricia Pérez Goldberg dissenting in part.

    By six votes in favor and one partially against, that:
  10. By virtue of the right to a healthy climate, States must protect the global climate system and prevent human rights violations derived from its alteration. Therefore, they must mitigate GHG emissions, which implies (i) adopting regulations on the matter that define a mitigation goal and a mitigation strategy based on human rights, as well as regulating the behavior of companies, in the terms of paragraphs 323 to 351; (ii) adopting mitigation supervision and control measures, in the terms of paragraphs 352 to 357, and (iii) determining the climate impact of projects and activities when appropriate, in the terms of paragraphs 358 to 363.
    Judge Patricia Pérez Goldberg dissenting in part.

    Unanimously, that:
  11. By virtue of the right to a healthy environment, States must (i) protect nature and its components from the impacts of climate change, and (ii) establish a strategy to move towards sustainable development, in the terms of paragraphs 364 to 376.

    By six votes in favor and one partially against, that:
  12. By virtue of the rights to life, personal integrity, health, private and family life, property and housing, freedom of residence and movement, water and food, work and social security, culture and education, as well as all other substantive rights threatened by climate impacts, States have an enforceability obligation, States have an immediately enforceable obligation to define and update, as ambitiously as possible, their national adaptation goal and plan, in the terms of paragraphs 384 to 391, as well as the duty to act with enhanced due diligence in compliance with the specific duties set forth in paragraphs 400 to 457.
    Judge Patricia Pérez Goldberg dissenting in part.

    Unanimously, that:
  13. By virtue of the democratic principle, the States must strengthen the democratic rule of law as an essential framework for the protection of human rights, the effectiveness of public action, and open and inclusive citizen participation, also ensuring the full exercise of procedural rights, in the terms of paragraphs 460 to 469.

    By six votes in favor and one partially against, that:
  14. By virtue of the human right to science and the recognition of local, traditional and indigenous knowledge, protected by Articles 26 of the Convention and 14.2 of the Protocol of San Salvador, all persons have the right to access the benefits of measures based on the best available science and on the recognition of local, traditional or indigenous knowledge, in the terms of paragraphs 471 to 487.
    Judge Patricia Pérez Goldberg dissenting in part.

    Unanimously, that:
  15. Under the right of access to information, States have obligations regarding (i) production of climate information, in the terms of paragraphs 501 to 518; (ii) disclosure of information relevant to the protection of human rights in the face of climate change, in the terms of paragraphs 519 to 523, and (iii) to adopt measures against disinformation, in the terms of paragraphs 524 to 527.

    Unanimously, that:
  16. Under the right to political participation, States must guarantee processes that ensure the meaningful participation of people under their jurisdiction in decision-making and policies related to climate change, as well as ensure prior consultation of indigenous and tribal peoples, where appropriate, in the terms of paragraphs 530 to 539.

    By four votes in favor and three partially against, that:
  17. By virtue of the right of access to justice, the States must ensure central aspects regarding (i) provision of sufficient means for the administration of justice in this context, (ii) application of the pro actione principle; (iii) celerity and reasonable time in judicial proceedings; (iv) adequate provisions regarding standing, (v) evidence and (vi) reparation, as well as (vii) application of inter-American standards; in the terms of paragraphs 542 to 560.
    Judge Nancy Hernández López, Judge Humberto Sierra Porto and Judge Patricia Pérez Goldberg dissenting in part.

    Unanimously, that:
  18. By virtue of the right to defend human rights, States have a special duty to protect environmental defenders that translates into specific obligations, among others, to protect them, investigate and, if necessary, punish attacks, threats or intimidations they suffer, and to counteract the “criminalization” of the defense of the environment, in the terms of paragraphs 566 to 567, and 575 to 587.

    Unanimously, that:
  19. States should adopt measures aimed at addressing the way in which the climate emergency exacerbates inequality and has a differentiated impact on people living in multidimensional poverty, in the terms of paragraphs 626 and 627.

    By four votes in favor and three partially against, that:
  20. States have specific obligations in situations of special vulnerability such as those faced by (i) children, and (ii) indigenous peoples, tribes, Afro-descendants, and peasant and fishing communities, (iii) people who suffer differentiated impacts in the context of climate disasters, in the terms of paragraphs 599 to 602, and 604; 606 to 613, and 614 to 618. Likewise, States must adopt measures to protect persons who do not belong to the traditionally protected categories but who are in a situation of vulnerability for dynamic or contextual reasons, in the terms of paragraphs 628 and 629.
    Judge Nancy Hernández López, Judge Humberto Sierra Porto and Judge Patricia Pérez Goldberg partially dissent.

Full text of the advisory opinion:

The English translation of the full text of the advisory opinion is available below.

seriea_32_en (1)Download

Further information:

  • A summary of the advisory opinion (in Spanish) is available here.
  • A discussion of the advisory opinion by Patricia Tarre Moser and Juan Auz on Estudia Derechos Humanos (in Spanish) is available here.
  • The text of the advisory opinion request is available here (in the official Spanish version as filed with the Court) and it has also been translated to English, French and Portuguese by the Court’s Secretariat.
  • For a comment on the request by Juan Auz and Thalia Viveros-Uehara, see ‘Another Advisory Opinion on the Climate Emergency? The Added Value of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’, EJIL:Talk! Blog, 2 March 2023, available here.
  • For a comment on the request from Maria Antonia Tigre, see ‘A Request for an Advisory Opinion at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Initial Reactions’, Climate Law Blog, 17 February 2023, available here.

Suggested citation:
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion on the Climate Emergency and Human Rights, OC 32/2025, 3 July 2025.

Last updated:
4 July 2025.

Categories
Austria Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation

Austrian Fridays for Future case

Summary:
On 21 February 2023, it was announced that a climate case had been brought by twelve children before the Austrian Constitutional Court (“Verfassungsgerichtshof”). They argued that the failure to take adequate climate protection measures is endangering their future. The claimants, aged between five and sixteen years old, invoked the rights of the child with are, in Austria, constitutionally protected. The argued that inadequate domestic climate legislation (the “Klimaschutzgesetz” of 2011) violates these rights. They alleged that, because this legislation had not led to emissions reductions, it also failed to protect children from the life-threatening effects of climate change, and accordingly violated the domestic Constitution. On 7 July 2023, the Court announced that it had rejected the case as inadmissible.

Extended summary:
The case was supported by Fridays For Future and the asssociation CLAW – Initiative für Klimarecht, as well as lawyer Michaela Krömer, who is also involved in the Müllner case. It invoked the Federal Constitutional Law on Children’s Rights, which guarantees — among other things — constitutional-level rights to protection and care, child welfare and participation, a prohibition of child labor and violence and a prohibition of discrimination against children living with disabilities.

The Austrian Constitutional Court’s consideration of the case began on Monday, 12 June 2023.

On 7 July 2023, the Court announced that it had rejected the case as inadmissible, finding that the applicants had not contested all of the relevant and interconnected parts of the contested legislation, the 2011 Klimaschutzgesetz. In other words, their complaint was too narrow, and repealing only the contested parts of the law

would not only fail to eliminate its alleged unconstitutionality, but would change the legislative intention behind the law and would make the Federal government responsible for all climate measures.

The Court issued two separate decisions in the case, one concerning the child applicants and one concerning the separate complaints of a lawyer concerning the impact of drastic emissions reductions on his freedom to make a living and his right to property and to respect for private life. These latter complaints, the Court found, had not been sufficiently substantiated.

Further reading:
The decisions in the case, as well as a summary from the Austrian Constitutional Court (all in German), can be found here.

More information:
More information on the case can be found at www.fridaysforfuture.at/klimaklage/presse.

For coverage from the Austrian media on the occasion of the hearings in June 2023, see here.

Suggested citation:
Austrian Constitutional Court, case G 123/2021-11, Decision of 27 June 2023.
Austrian Constitutional Court, case G 139/2021-11, Decision of 27 June 2023.

Last updated:
7 July 2023.

Categories
Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Imminent risk Non-discrimination Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment Right to life South Korea

Do-Hyun Kim et al. v. South Korea

Summary:
On 13 March 2020, nineteen teenagers from across South Korea initiated proceedings against their government (the National Assembly of Korea and the President of Korea), arguing that insufficient emissions reductions efforts were violating their constitutional rights. They alleged that Korean climate legislation (originally Article 42(1)1 of the Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth, and later also Article 8(1) of the domestic Carbon Neutrality Act (the “Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth Act” of 2021) was not compatible with their constitutional rights, bringing their case against the National Assembly for enacting the law and the government for implementing an administrative plan based on that law. Their constitutional complaint was combined with three other mitigation cases and decided by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Korea on 29 August 2024.

The applicants in this case are part of the Korean Youth 4 Climate Action Group, which has led the Korean ‘School Strike for Climate’ movement. They argued that, by not taking action to prevent the threats posed by climate change, the government had violated the right of younger generations to life and the pursuit of happiness (Article 10 of the Constitution), which they argue also enshrines the right to resist against human extinction, along with the right to live in a healthy and pleasant environment (Article 35(1) of the Constitution). They also contested inter-generational inequalities under the constitutional prohibition of discrimination (Article 11 of the Constitution) and invoked the duty of the State to prevent environmental disasters (Article 34(e) of the Constitution). In doing so, the applicants invoked the fatal risk posed by climate change and the irrevocable damage to be suffered by younger generations. As a major emitter of greenhouse gas emissions, they argued, Korea has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of climate change by taking stronger emissions reductions action.

Relevant interim developments:
On 30 December 2022, the Korean National Human Rights Commission issued an official statement to the President of Korea regarding climate change and human rights. Citing IPCC reports, UN findings, other instances of climate litigation (such as Urgenda and Neubauer) and the existence of different vulnerabilities, it found that “[a]s the climate crisis has far-reaching impacts on multiple human rights, including the rights to life, food, health and housing, the government should regard protecting and promoting the rights of everyone in the midst of climate crisis as its fundamental obligation and reform related laws and systems to address the climate crisis from a human rights perspective.”

On 12 June 2023, it was announced that the National Human Rights Commission of Korea had decided to submit an opinion to South Korea’s Constitutional Court to oppose the country’s Carbon Neutrality Act (2021), which it considered to be unconstitutional and in violation of the constitutional rights of future generations because it sets out a greenhouse gas emissions reductions target that was too low. The Act sets out a 40% emissions reductions target by 2030 as compared to 2018 levels. This, the Commission found, did not respect the constitutional principle of equality, because it passed the burden of greenhouse gas emissions on to future generations.

Timeline of the case (by Youth 4 Climate Action Korea):

  • 13 March 2020: Youth 4 Climate Action files a constitutional petition
  • 25 March 2020: Notice of referral from the Constitutional Court
  • 28 September 2020: Submission of supplementary opinion on constitutional petition (1)
  • 29 October 2020: Defendants submit presidential opinion
  • 26 January 2021: Submission of supplementary opinion (2)
  • 15 April 2021: Submission of supplementary opinion (3)
  • 23 July 2021: Submission of supplementary opinion (4)
  • 23 September 2021: Submission of supplementary opinion (5) on constitutional petition
  • 13 March 2022: Additional constitutional petition filed against the Carbon Neutrality Basic Act
  • 8 June 2022: Additional constitutional petition filed against the Enforcement Decree of the Carbon Neutrality Basic Act
  • 31 May 2023: Submission of supplementary opinion (6)
  • 22 August 2023: National Human Rights Commission submits opinion to Constitutional Court on ‘Unconstitutionality of Carbon Neutrality Basic Act’
  • 28 December 2023: Defendant submits presidential opinion to Constitutional Court
  • 15 March 15, 2024: Brief submission
  • 29 March 2024: Defendant submits a witness statement (Ahn Young-hwan) to the Constitutional Court
  • 29 March 2024: Defendant submits a witness statement (Yoo Yeon-cheol) to the Constitutional Court
  • 1 April 2024: Submission of the reference opinion (Jo Cheon-ho)
  • 1 April 2024: Submission of the reference opinion (Park Deok-young)
  • 23 April 2024: First public hearing
  • 13 May 2024: Submission of supplementary brief
  • 14 May 2024: Ministry of Environment, Office for Government Policy Coordination submit opinion paper
  • 21 May 2024: Second public hearing, final statement by the plaintiff
  • 29 August 2024: Judgment of Constitutional Court

Consolidation with three other cases:
The South Korean Constitutional Court decided to consolidate its first four climate cases (Do-Hyun Kim et al. v. South Korea (the present case), Woodpecker et al. v. South Korea (Baby Climate Litigation), Climate Crisis Emergency Action v. South Korea (a.k.a. Byung-In Kim et al. v. South Korea) and Min-A Park v. South Korea. Public hearings in the cases were held on 23 April 2024 and 21 May 2024.

These cases all alleged that the government’s inadequate greenhouse gas reduction targets violated citizens’ fundamental rights, particularly those of future generations. Together, the four cases comprised over 250 plaintiffs, including civil society, youth and children. The Constitutional Court issued a joint ruling in these cases on 29 August 2024.

Judgment of the constitutional court:
On 29 August 2024, the South Korean constitutional court ruled. It found a violation of constitutional rights in this case and three related cases. In an unanimous ruling, hailed as “the first decision of its kind in Asia“, the court found that the government’s response to the climate crisis was inadequate and threatened constitutional rights, noting that the country lacked legally binding long-term emissions reductions targets for the post-2031 period, which violated the constitutional rights of future generations by shifting an excessive reductions burden to the future. The court gave government and legislature 18 months (until 28 February 2026) to introduce the relevant targets.

In particular, the Court ruled that Article 8(1) of the South Korean Carbon Neutrality Basic Act was unconstitutional. Previously, the government had pledged a 40% reduction of its GHG emissions by 2030 compared to 2018 levels, but had failed to set any targets since. The Constitutional Court held that this “does not have the minimum character necessary as a protective measure corresponding to the dangerous situation of the climate crisis”, citing the “principle of non-underprotection”, which means that the State must take appropriate measures to effectively protect the constitutional rights of its citizens.

Simultaneously, the Court held that the government’s target for 2030 did not infringe constitutional rights.

Status of the case:
Decided. On 29 August 2024, the South Korean constitutional court found a violation of the constitutional rights of future generations in this case.

More information on the case:
For a press report on the case, see here.

On the National Human Rights Commission of Korea’s intervention, see this article in the Korea Herald.

The submissions in the case, including an unofficial English translation of the complaint prepared by the applicants’ counsel, are available via ClimateCaseChart.

For a summary of the constitutional court’s ruling, see here.

Full text of the judgment (Korean):

헌법재판소 – 최근주요결정Download

Suggested citation:

Constitutional Court of South Korea, Do-Hyun Kim and 18 others v. South Korea, judgment of 29 August 2024.

Last updated:
29 August 2024.

Categories
2022 Children and young people Deciding Body Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights Germany Keywords Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to life Rights at stake State concerned Uncategorized Year

Engels and Others v. Germany

Summary:

Following the Neubauer v. Germany case, nine teenagers and young adults brought an application to the European Court of Human Rights complaining that the new objectives of the German Climate Protection Act, as amended after the judgement of the the German Federal Constitutional Court and entered into force on 31 August 2021, are insufficient to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the level necessary for meeting the Paris Agreement temperature goals (well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels) and that this would violate Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Domestic proceedings:

On 24 June 2022 it was announced that the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht or BVerfG) had refused to hear a case following up on its groundbreaking Neubauer judgment of 24 March 2021. This follow-up litigation was brought by nine young people, who sought a further strengthening of German climate protection policy with the support of the NGO Deutsche Umwelthilfe. The applicants, who were aged 13 to 26 at the time of filing, were previously involved in the Neubauer case, where the BVerfG found that German climate policy posed a threat to the fundamental freedoms of future generations. In this follow-up case, they sought a judgment from the BVerfG demanding faster and more effective climate protection measures.

After the Neubauer judgment, the German government changed the German Federal Climate Change Act of 12 December 2019 (Bundes-Klimaschutzgesetz – KSG) governing national climate targets and the emissions allowed annually to provide for higher levels of mitigation action.In this case, the applicants argue that the new version of the KSG still does not guarantee that Germany will meet its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement, and that it therefore does not ensure the limitation of anthropogenic climate change to the Paris Agreement’s target of 1.5 degrees. The applicants argue that the revised KSG reduces emissions by only about 6.5 percent by 2030, and draw on IPCC reports showing that the 1.5-degree target could be exceeded in around ten years’ time.The legal argumentation brought forward here was similar to that in Neubauer. The applicants argued that their fundamental freedoms are under threat, and invoked Article 20a of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz).

Decision:
In an unreasoned decision, the BVerfG refused to accept this case for decision on 25 May 2022.

Application to the ECtHR:
Counsel in the case, together with the NGO Deutsche Umwelthilfe, announced that they would take this case the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg. A corresponding application was lodged before the Court in September 2022 and received application number 46906/22. The Court then adjourned the case pending the outcome of the three climate cases pending before its Grand Chamber (Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (no. 53600/20), Carême v. France (no. 7189/21) and Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others (no. 39371/20)).

Decision of the ECtHR:

In a three-judge Committee formation, in a decision dated 1 July 2025 and published on 28 August 2025, the ECtHR declared this case inadmissible. It did so by applying the victim status criteria set out in the Grand Chamber’s KlimaSeniorinnen judgment. The Committee held that:

  • Article 8 ECHR (the right to respect for private and family life, which also covers physical and psychological integrity) protects against the human rights impacts of climate change;
  • Article 2 ECHR (the right to life) requires there to be a “real and imminent” risk to life, meaning that it requires “an element of material and temporal proximity of the threat to the impugned harm”;
  • Victim status for individual applicants in climate cases is determined according to the high-threshold twin KlimaSeniorinnen criteria, which require (a) a high intensity of exposure and (b) a pressing need for protection.
  • In the key paragraph of its decision (para. 10), found that:

“[The applicants] referred to specific circumstances prevailing at their places of residence in Germany, but that the submissions were of a generalised nature. It is not apparent that they were exposed to the adverse effects of climate change, or were at risk of being exposed at any relevant point in the future, with a degree of intensity giving rise to a pressing need to ensure their individual protection. The applicants did not demonstrate that they had specific vulnerabilities nor that exceptional circumstances existed in relation to the adverse effects of climate change to which they were at risk of being exposed to in the future. It cannot be said that the applicants suffered from any critical medical condition whose possible aggravation linked to the adverse effects of climate change could not be alleviated by the adaptation measures available in Germany or by means of reasonable measures of personal adaptation (…). They did therefore not demonstrate that they were subjected to a high intensity of exposure to the adverse effects of climate change affecting them personally, nor that there had been a pressing need to ensure their individual protection from the harm which the effects of climate change may have on the enjoyment of their human rights (…). It follows that the applicants do not fulfil victim status-criteria under Article 34 of the Convention. Their complaint under Article 8 of the Convention is therefore incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.”

  • The Court then went on to find that the applicants’ Article 2 claim was inadmissible ratione materiae, because there was no “real and imminent risk” to the applicants’ lives.

More information:
The decision by the German Bundesverfassungsgericht has not yet been published. For reporting on the case, see LTO.

Part of the application made to the ECtHR has been made public by the NGO Deutsche Umwelthilfe, which is supporting the applicants, here (in German). This document contains the supplementary argumentation appended to the standardized application form.

Decision of the ECtHR is displayed below in full.

ENGELS AND OTHERS v. GERMANYDownload

Suggested citation:
German Bundesverfassungsgericht, Judgment of the First Senate of 25 May 2022 – 1 BvR 188/22.

European Court of Human Rights, Engels v. Germany (no. 46906/22), Committee decision of 1 July 2025.

Last updated:

8 September 2025.

Categories
2021 Children and young people Domestic court Right to a healthy environment Right to life Right to property Separation of powers United States of America

Reynolds and Others v. Florida

Summary:
In this case, eight young people asserted that the “deliberate indifference” of the US state of Florida, its Governor Ron DeSantis, and other state agencies had violated their “fundamental rights of life, liberty and property, and the pursuit of happiness, which includes a stable climate system”. On 9 June 2020, the Circuit Court for Leon County dismissed their case, finding that it could not grant the relief requested in light of the separation of powers clause contained in the state’s constitution. The claims in question were considered nonjusticiable because they “are inherently political questions that must be resolved by the political branches of government.”. On appeal, on 18 May 2021, the First District Court of Appeal rejected the applicants’ appeal, affirming the lower court’s finding that the lawsuit raised nonjusticiable political questions.

Further information:
Both the Circuit Court’s judgment and the Court of Appeals’ affirmation of the first-instance judgment can be found at www.climatecasechart.com.

Categories
2021 Canada Children and young people Class action Domestic court Non-discrimination Right to a healthy environment Right to life

ENVironnement JEUnesse v. Canada

Summary:
In 2018, the environmental NGO ENvironnement JEUnesse applied for leave to bring a class action case against the Canadian government on behalf of citizens of Québec aged 35 and under. The NGO sought a declaration from that the Canadian government had violated its obligation to protect these citizens’ fundamental rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Québec Charter of Rights and Freedoms by setting insufficent greenhouse gas reduction targets and by failing to create an adequate plan to reach these targets. Specifically, they invoked their rights to life, to a healthy environment, and to equality. On 11 July 2019, the Superior Court of Quebec dismissed the motion to authorize the institution of a class action, finding that the proposed class, with its 35-year age limit, had been created arbitrarily. An appeal by ENVironnement JEUnesse was denied on 13 December 2021.

Remedies sought:
As well as a declaratory judgment, the NGO sought punitive damages and an order to cease interference with the plaintiffs’ rights.

Judgment:
In their judgment of 13 December 2021, the three judges of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and denied the certification of the proposed class. They referred to the role of the legislature in making the complex social and economic choices required here. They also considered that the remedies sought by the applicants were not specific enough to be implemented by a court. Lastly, the judges upeld the previous instance’s finding concerning the arbitary constitution of the class, with its 35-year age limit.

Further procedural steps:
The applicants announced that they would launch an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Further reading:
The judgment of the Court of Appeal (in French) can be found below.

The Judgment (in French)Download

The declaration of appeal can be found here.

Categories
Access to a remedy Austria Children and young people Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights France Gender / women-led Italy Non-discrimination Norway Paris Agreement Portugal Private and family life Right to life Switzerland Turkey

De Conto and Uricchio v. Italy and 32 other States

Summary:
In 2021, two further cases in the style of the Duarte Agostinho application were brought before the European Court of Human Rights, this time by two young people from Italy. The cases were brought against 33 Council of Europe Member States, and refer to storms, forest fires and heat waves experienced by the applicants, as well as associated physical and psychological distress. The applicants, two women aged 18 and 20 at the time of filing, invoked Articles 2, 8, 13 and 14. They made arguments about the positive obligations to protect against environmental harm under Articles 2 and 8 ECHR, discrimination against younger generations, and a lack of access to effective domestic remedies given the excessive burden of being required to bring domestic proceedings in 33 States.

The application forms in these cases have not been made publicly available, and the cases had not yet been communicated by the Court at the time of writing. It had been announced, however, that the cases have been adjourned pending the outcome of Grand Chamber proceedings in three other climate cases (see the following section). More information on the cases will be published as it becomes available.

Status of case:

Adjourned until the Grand Chamber has ruled in the climate change cases pending before it (see the ECtHR’s press release here).

Suggested citation:

ECtHR, De Conto v. Italy and 32 other States, application no. 14620/21, submitted on 3 March 2021.

ECtHR, Uricchio v. Italy and 32 other States, application no. 14615/21, submitted on 3 March 2021.

More information (via climatecasechart.com):

On the De Conto case.

On the Uricchio case.

Last updated:

15 March 2023.

Categories
2021 Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Fossil fuel extraction Imminent risk Indigenous peoples' rights Non-discrimination Right to life Right to property Sea-level rise United States of America

Aji P. and Others v. the State of Washington

Summary:
This case was brought by 13 young people aged between 8 and 18 who sued the US State of Washington, its Governor, and various other state agencies, arguing that the state had “injured and continue[d] to injure them by creating, operating, and maintaining a fossil fuel-based energy and transportation system that [the State] knew would result in greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, dangerous climate change, and resulting widespread harm.” In doing so, they invoked their “fundamental and inalienable constitutional rights to life, liberty, property, equal protection, and a healthful and pleasant environment, which includes a stable climate system that sustains human life and liberty.” They also invoked the impacts on indigenous peoples’ rights. The plaintiffs requested the judiciary to “[o]rder [the state] to develop and submit to the Court . . . an enforceable state climate recovery plan”.

A number of amici filed briefs in the case. For example, the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Quinault Indian Nation, and Suquamish Tribe argued that local tribes were already seeing impacts on their traditional lands and abutting marine waters. The Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (ELAW-US) noted the well-documented impacts of climate change on human and constitutional rights. The League of Women Voters of Washington argued that access to judicial action was particularly important for minors who did not enjoy access to the right to vote. And a group of environmental NGOs submitted that “the right to a healthful and pleasant environment underlies our continued ability to claim our explicitly-guaranteed rights to life and liberty.”

On 8 February 2021, the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington held that it “firmly believe[d] that the right to a stable environment should be fundamental.” It also recognized “the extreme harm that greenhouse gas emissions inflict on the environment and its future stability.” However, it held that “it would be a violation of the separation of powers doctrine for the court to resolve the Youths’ claims.” It accordingly dismissed the claim.

On 6 October 2021, the Supreme Court of the State of Washington denied the petition for review in this case. González, C.J. (dissenting) noted that the plaintiffs “asked this court to recognize a fundamental right to a healthful and pleasant environment that may be inconsistent with our State’s maintenance of a fossil-fuel-based energy and transportation system that it knows will result in greenhouse gas emissions. These greenhouse gases hasten a rise in the earth’s temperature. This temperature change foreshadows the potential collapse of our environment. In its place is an unstable climate system, conceivably unable to sustain human life and continued enjoyment of ordered liberty under law. Today, we have an opportunity to consider whether these are the sorts of harms that are remediable under Washington’s law and constitution. We should have granted review to decide that question”.

Suggested citation:
Court of Appeals of the State of Washington (USA), Aji P. v. State, 16 Wash. App. 2d 177, 480 P.3d 438, 16 Wn. App. 2d 177 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).

Last updated:
5 July 2022

Categories
Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Non-discrimination Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment Right to life Right to property South Korea

Woodpecker et al. v. South Korea (‘Baby Climate Litigation’)

Summary:
In June 2022, a climate case was filed in South Korea by sixty-two babies and children under the age of 11, including a 20-week-old fetus nicknamed “Woodpecker”, who was born after the proceedings were launched. The claimants submitted that the State was violating the rights of future generations by failing to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. At the time of filing, this was the fourth climate case challenging the constitutionality of the Korean climate policy, as contained in the country’s 2021 Carbon Neutrality Act (2021). In this case, the claimants argue that the mitigation measures set out in this Act (envisioning a 40% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 as compared with 2018 levels) violates their constitutional rights to life, equality, property, and to live in a healthy and pleasant environment. To do so, they extensively discuss IPCC reports and successful domestic climate litigation in other jurisdictions (particularly the Urgenda and Neubauer judgments).

More specifically, the plaintiffs contested Article 3(1) of the 2022 Enforcement Decree of the 2021 domestic Carbon Neutrality Act, arguing that this provision was unconstitutional because it violated:

  • their right to life, pursuit of happiness and general freedom of action (Article 10 of the South Korean Constitution, ‘Guarantee of Human Dignity and Fundamental Rights’);
  • their right to equality (Article 11 of the Constitution);
  • their right to property (Article 23 of the Constitution);
  • thir right to live in a healthy and pleasant environment (Article 35 of the Constitution); and
  • the state’s obligation to prevent disasters and protect the people from the risk of environmental disasters (Article 34(6) and Article 35(2) of the Constitution).

According to the Guardian, this was the first climate case in which a foetus was listed as a claimant. Together, the four cases reportedly represent the first findings of their kind in Asia (i.e. the first time that a court has find that inadequate mitigation action violates fundamental rights).

Relevant developments:
On 12 June 2023, it was announced that the National Human Rights Commission of Korea had decided to submit an opinion to South Korea’s Constitutional Court to oppose the country’s Carbon Neutrality Act (2021), which it considered to be unconstitutional and in violation of the fundamental rights of future generations because it sets out a greenhouse gas emissions reductions target that was too low. The Act sets out a 40% emissions reductions target by 2030 as compared to 2018 levels. This, the Commission found, did not respect the constitutional principle of equality, because it passed the burden of greenhouse gas emissions on to future generations.

Consolidation with three other cases:
The South Korean Constitutional Court decided to consolidate its first four climate cases (Do-Hyun Kim et al. v. South Korea, Woodpecker et al. v. South Korea (Baby Climate Litigation) (the present case), Climate Crisis Emergency Action v. South Korea (a.k.a. Byung-In Kim et al. v. South Korea) and Min-A Park v. South Korea). Public hearings in the cases were held on 23 April 2024 and 21 May 2024.

These cases all alleged that the government’s inadequate greenhouse gas reduction targets violated citizens’ fundamental rights, particularly those of future generations. Together, the four cases comprised over 250 plaintiffs, including civil society, youth and children. The Constitutional Court issued a joint ruling in these cases on 29 August 2024.

Judgment of the constitutional court:
On 29 August 2024, the South Korean Constitutional Court found a violation of constitutional rights in this case and three related cases. In an unanimous ruling, hailed as “the first decision of its kind in Asia“, the court found that the government’s response to the climate crisis was inadequate and threatened constitutional rights, noting that the country lacked legally binding long-term emissions reductions targets for the post-2031 period, which violated the constitutional rights of future generations by shifting an excessive reductions burden to the future. The court gave government and legislature 18 months (until 28 February 2026) to introduce the relevant targets.

In particular, the Court ruled that Article 8(1) of the South Korean Carbon Neutrality Basic Act was unconstitutional. Previously, the government had pledged a 40% reduction of its GHG emissions by 2030 compared to 2018 levels, but had failed to set any targets since. The Constitutional Court held that this “does not have the minimum character necessary as a protective measure corresponding to the dangerous situation of the climate crisis”, citing the “principle of non-underprotection”, which means that the State must take appropriate measures to effectively protect the constitutional rights of its citizens.

Simultaneously, the Court held that the government’s target for 2030 did not infringe constitutional rights.

See also:
Do-Hyun Kim et al. v. South Korea.

Last updated:
29 August 2024.