Category: European Convention on Human Rights

Categories
Class action Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Extreme poverty Germany Just transition litigation Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to health Right to life

“Zukunftsklage” (Greenpeace and ors. v. Germany) – Neubauer II / Steinmetz III

Summary:
On 26 June 2024, it was announced that five German environmental organisations, together with a large number of individual plaintiffs, would be preparing a total of three new constitutional complaints against the Federal Government’s inadequate climate policy and the gutting of the Climate Protection Act (KSG) for the event that Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier were to sign pending amendments of the Act into law.

The five organisations — Germanwatch, Greenpeace, Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH), Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND) and Solarenergie-Förderverein Deutschland (SFV) — will each lead a complaint together with plaintiffs affected by climate change in different areas of their lives. Some of these plaintiffs were parties to the groundbreaking Neubauer case before the Federal Constitutional Court, including Luisa Neubauer, Sophie Backsen, Hannes Backsen, and Lüke Recktenwald.

The applicants argue that, even though the Neubauer case elevated climate action to the level of constitutional protection, insufficient action has taken place since then. Drawing on the intertemporal constitutional freedoms recognized in Neubauer, the interests of intergenerational justice, impacts on life and health, and the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in KlimaSeniorinnen, wherein it found a violation of the right to respect for private and family life in Art. 8 ECHR, the plaintiffs argue that the requisite climate action is being delayed further into the future, increasingly endangering the future enjoyment of rights. This particularly affects the transport sector, where “extreme cuts and measures” will be required to meet reductions targets.

The plaintiffs note that the German Council of Climate Experts has made it clear that Germany is unlikely to achieve its climate targets for 2030, and that according to data from the Federal Environment Agency, the target of net zero by 2045 will also be missed by a considerable margin given current plans. This is in part due to abolition of funding programs as a result of the Federal Constitutional Court’s ruling on the Climate and Transformation Fund in November 2023.

Focusing particularly on an amendment to the German Climate Protection Act (KSG), passed by the German Bundestag on 26 April 2024, the plaintiffs note that this move (i) abolishes binding sector targets; (ii) eliminates the requirement for corrective action to catch up on missed targets; and means that (iii) post-2030 compliance with emission targets will only be considered in detail from 2029 and only planned and implemented from 2030. Overall, these legislative changes show that the legislator has not understood the constitutional limits to the overall concept of climate protection.

Since the 2021 Neubauer judgment, the plaintiffs argue, the German CO2 budget has been unnecessarily used up, while feasible and proportionate measures have not been taken. For example, the introduction of a speed limit on German freeways and in cities would have saved considerable amounts of CO2 and thus protected opportunities for freedom. The plaintiffs also cite failure to plan for green mobility options in rural areas. While immediate action in the transport sector would make it possible to transition gradually, the current plans require an “emergency stop” that will severely limit the freedoms of especially poorer segments of the population.

This cannot be countered by the fact that regulations exist at EU level. The applicants argue that EU climate protection law as a whole, and for the transport sector in particular, does not guarantee the necessary protection of fundamental rights because it does not contain any binding interim targets after 2030 and does not specify a comprehensible budget up to 2050. And, the plaintiffs note, German legislators are currently not even complying with the requirements of EU law, as established by the German Council of Climate Experts, among others.

Relief sought:
In their announcement, the plaintiffs set out three motions for relief.

  1. The German Climate Protection Act (KSG) still allows too many emissions given that the German emissions budget is empty if measured by the 1.5°C target of the Paris Agreement and the European Court of Human Rights, and almost empty if measured against the 1.75°C threshold set by the Federal Constitutional Court in 2021. The law is not ambitious enough, the permitted quantity targets jeopardize human rights instead of securing them. This must be changed to comply with the state’s existing duty to protect.
  2. The recent amendment to the KSG is unconstitutional. By weakening the required measures to reach Germany’s goals, the amendment violates the intertemporal freedoms recognized in Neubauer. The amendment must be repealed and the old law must apply unchanged.
  3. The failure to take climate protection measures in the transport sector already violates intertemporal civil liberties, making disproportionate measures unavoidable later in time. People in rural areas are particularly affected by such restrictions on freedom, putting socially disadvantaged groups at a disadvantage.

Cases under the “Zukunftsklage” umbrella:

A first case under this umbrella was filed in July 2024. Known as “Steinmetz, et al. v. Germany III“, this case was brought by an NGO, Deutsche Umwelthilfe, and 11 individual plaintiffs aged between 14 and 27. They allege that current reforms are insufficient and that they violate the principle of intergenerational freedom developed in the Neubauer ruling. Drawing extensively on the European Court of Human Rights’ KlimaSeniorinnen judgment, they also argue that current mitigation plans in Germany infringe their rights to life and physical integrity, drawing on Article 8 ECHR.

Complaint form in the Steinmetz III caseDownload

Last updated:
29 November 2024

Categories
Austria Belgium Bulgaria Children and young people Croatia Cyprus Czechia Denmark Emissions reductions/mitigation Estonia European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights Extraterritorial obligations Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Non-discrimination Norway Paris Agreement Poland Portugal Private and family life Prohibition of torture Right to life Romania Russian Federation Slovakia Slovenia Spain Standing/admissibility Sweden Switzerland The Netherlands The United Kingdom Turkey Ukraine Victim status

Duarte Agostinho et al. v. Austria et al. (“Portuguese Children’s Case”)

Summary:
This case was brought by a group of six young people, acting together as the ‘Youth for Climate Justice’, against 33 Council of Europe Member States. Theirs was the first climate case to come before the ECtHR. In their application, the six applicants, aged between 8 and 21 at the time, argued that the 33 respondent States failed to comply with their positive obligations under Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention, read in the light of the commitments made under the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. They claimed that their right to life (Art. 2 ECHR) was being threatened by the effects of climate change in their home State of Portugal, including through the harms caused by forest fires. Moreover, they claimed that their right to respect for their private and family life under Art. 8 ECHR was being threatened by heatwaves that forced them to spend more time indoors. They also noted their anxiety about their uncertain future, and the fact that, as young people, they stand to experience the worst effects of climate change. They accordingly alleged a violation of Article 14 ECHR (non-discrimination), given the particular impacts of climate change on their generation. According to the applicants, the absence of adequate measures to limit global emissions constitutes, in itself, a breach of the obligations incumbent on States.

This was the first climate application brought before the European Court of Human Rights, and it was brought with the support of the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN). The issues raised here were novel in the Strasbourg context. In addition, in communicating the case, the Court also proprio motu raised an issue under Article 3 ECHR, the prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment.

On 9 April 2024, the Court declared this case inadmissible on jurisdiction and non-exhaustion grounds.

Domestic proceedings:
None: this case was brought directly to the ECtHR. The applicants submitted that, given the complexity of the case and their limited financial means, as well as the limited prospects of success before domestic instances, requiring them to exhaust the domestic remedies in each of the 33 respondent States would impose an excessive and disproportionate burden on them.

Relinquishment:
On 29 June 2022, the 7-judge Chamber to which the case had originally been allocated relinquished jurisdiction over it in favour of the Court’s 17-judge Grand Chamber. Relinquishment is possible where a case either (a) raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention or its Protocols, or (b) might lead to a result inconsistent with the Court’s case-law (Rule 72, paras 1-2 of the Rules of Court).

During the course of the proceedings, the complaint against Ukraine was withdrawn by the applicants. The Russian Federation ceased to be a Council of Europe Member State during the course of the proceedings, but this was not an obstacle to considering the application as concerns anything taking place before the end of its membership (on 16 September 2022).

In February 2023, the Court announced that it would hold a public Grand Chamber hearing in this case, along with two other climate cases pending before it (Carême v. France and KlimaSeniorinnen and Others v. Switzerland). It announced that it would adjourn the remaining climate cases pending before it in the meantime. The oral stage in these three cases was staggered: Carême and KlimaSeniorinnen were heard on 29 March 2023, while the hearing in Duarte Agostinho was heard by the same composition of the Grand Chamber on 27 September 2023.

Grand Chamber hearing:
A hearing in this case was held on 27 September 2023. A webcast of the hearing is available here.

During the hearing, the respondent States pooled their submissions to a large extent, with additional arguments from the Netherlands, Portugal, and Turkiye. Third-party interveners also received leave to appear during the oral hearing, namely the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatovic, the EU’s European Commission, and the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI). The substance of the hearing focused largely on admissibility issues, namely victim status, the (non-)exhaustion of domestic remedies and the extraterritoriality of Convention obligations. The judges also asked a number of questions to the parties before retiring to consider the admissibility and merits of the case.

Admissibility:
From the blog post on the case by Ayyoub (Hazhar) Jamali available on our blog

After months of anticipation, the ECtHR delivered its judgment on 9 April 2024. The Court found the case inadmissible on two key grounds. Firstly, it ruled out jurisdiction regarding non-territorial states, narrowing the scope of accountability in this complex legal landscape to applicants’ home states. Secondly, it dismissed the application against Portugal due to a lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies.

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
The Court acknowledged its jurisdiction concerning Portugal but denied it concerning other non-territorial states. It recognized that under Article 1 of the Convention, jurisdiction primarily pertains to territorial boundaries, implying that individuals can only claim Convention violations against the territorial state where they reside. However, the Court reiterated that the Convention’s reach can extend beyond national borders in two main forms: when a state exercises effective control over an area (spatial concept of jurisdiction, or jurisdiction ratione loci), and when there is state agent authority or control over individuals (personal concept of jurisdiction, or jurisdiction ratione personae) (para 170). In the present case, as neither of these two criteria appeared applicable, the Court denied jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 1 ECHR.

Furthermore, the Court rejected the applicant’s argument that there are ‘exceptional circumstances’ and ‘special features’ for establishing the respondent states’ extraterritorial jurisdiction over the applicants within the specific context of climate change. It emphasized that determining whether the ECHR applies extraterritorially requires examining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, indicating that the state concerned is exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction over the applicants. This primarily involves exploring the nature of the link between the applicants and the respondent state.

The Court acknowledged that states have ultimate control over public and private activities within their territories that produce greenhouse gas emissions. It noted their international-law commitments, particularly those outlined in the Paris Agreement, which states have incorporated into their domestic laws and policy documents, as well as their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) under the Paris Agreement (para 192). Furthermore, the Court recognized the complex and multi-layered causal relationship between activities within a state’s territory that produce greenhouse gas emissions and their adverse impacts on the rights and well-being of individuals residing outside its borders (para 193). It emphasised that while climate change is a global phenomenon, each state bears responsibility for addressing it. However, the Court concluded that these considerations alone cannot justify creating a novel ground for extraterritorial jurisdiction through judicial interpretation or expanding existing ones (para 195). It emphasised that the ECHR protection system is primarily based on principles of territorial jurisdiction and subsidiarity.

The Court further denied the applicants’ claim that bringing a case against Portugal alone would be ineffective and that they had no other means of holding the respondent states accountable for the impact of climate change on their Convention rights. It distinguished between jurisdiction and responsibility, which constitutes a separate matter to be examined in relation to the merit of the complaint (para 202).

The Court further rejected the applicants’ claim concerning the reach of the Convention outside of national boundaries by their reliance on a test of ‘control over the applicants’ Convention interests’. It reasoned that, according to its established case-law, extraterritorial jurisdiction as conceived under Article 1 ECHR requires control over the person him- or herself rather than the person’s interests as such (para 204-206). It highlighted that, except for specific cases under Article 2 concerning intentional deprivation of life by state agents, there is no precedent for a criterion like ‘control over Convention interests’ as a basis for extraterritorial jurisdiction (paragraph 205). Consequently, the Court argued that adopting such an extension would represent a significant departure from established principles under Article 1.

The Court stated that otherwise, and given the multilateral dimension of climate change, almost anyone adversely affected by climate change anywhere in the world could be brought within the jurisdiction of any Contracting Party for the purposes of Article 1 ECHR in relation to that Party’s actions or omissions to tackle climate change. It also rejected the suggestion that such an extension of jurisdiction could be limited to the Convention’s legal space. It reasoned that, given the nature of climate change, including its causes and effects, an extension of extraterritorial jurisdiction by reference to that criterion would be artificial and difficult to justify (para 206).

Moreover, the Court acknowledged the significance of developments in international law, particularly with regards to the interpretations provided by bodies such as the Inter-American Court and the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC). It recognised the relevance of these interpretations in shaping the understanding of jurisdiction within the context of human rights treaties. However, the Court noted that these bodies had adopted distinct notions of jurisdiction, which had not been recognised in its own case-law. While the Court considered the insights provided by these international instruments and bodies, it concluded that they did not provide sufficient grounds for extending the extraterritorial jurisdiction of respondent states under the Convention, particularly as proposed by the applicants (para 209-210). Therefore, while remaining attentive to legal developments and global responses to issues such as climate change, the Court found no basis within the Convention for expanding extraterritorial jurisdiction as advocated by the applicants.

In conclusion, the Court found no grounds in the Convention for extending the respondent states’ extraterritorial jurisdiction through judicial interpretation.

Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies
Regarding Portugal, the applicants’ home state, there was no extraterritoriality issue. Here the Court examined whether effective remedies existed within the Portuguese legal system that the applicants were required to use under the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule. Despite the applicants’ argument that broad constitutional provisions alone could not provide effective and certain remedies, the Court disagreed, highlighting various remedies available in Portugal. These included, for example, constitutional recognition of the right to a healthy environment, actio popularis claims for environmental protection, etc (para 217-223). The Court emphasised the importance of affording domestic courts the opportunity to address issues before having recourse to international remedies. Consequently, the complaint against Portugal was found inadmissible. The Court also rejected the suggestion that it should rule on the issue of climate change before domestic courts had the opportunity to do so, reaffirming the principle of subsidiarity and the role of domestic jurisdictions in adjudicating such matters (para 228).

Victim Status
The Court found it challenging to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for victim status as set out on the same day in the KlimaSeniorinnen judgment against Switzerland. The lack of clarity is attributed, in part, to the applicants’ failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The Court found that, in any event, the application was inadmissible for the reasons previously outlined. Therefore, the Court declined to examine further whether the applicants could claim victim status (para 229-230).

Date:
9 April 2024

Type of Forum:
Regional

Status of case:
Communicated by the Court on 30 November 2020. Relinquished to the Grand Chamber on 29 June 2022. Grand Chamber hearing held on 27 September 2023. Decision announced at a Grand Chamber hearing held on 9 April 2024, along with rulings in the two other climate cases pending before the Grand Chamber.

Suggested case citation:
ECtHR, Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Other Member States, no. 39371/20, decision (Grand Chamber) of 9 April 2024.

Links:
For more information on this case, see the following links.

  • For more background on the case and profiles on the applicants, click here: https://youth4climatejustice.org/. 
  • For all of the case documents, including the submissions from the respondent States and the third-party interveners, see here.
  • For analyses of the Grand Chamber hearing, see this post on our own blog by Viktoriya Gurash, or this post on Verfassungsblog by Corina Heri.
  • For the judgment, click here.
  • For the Court’s Q&A on the three climate cases, click here.

Last updated:
9 April 2024

Categories
2023 Adaptation Climate activists and human rights defenders Domestic court European Convention on Human Rights Private and family life Right to life Sea-level rise The Netherlands

Greenpeace Netherlands v. State of the Netherlands (Bonaire)

Summary:
On 28 January 2026, the Commerce team of the Hague District Court issued a judgment in a case brought by Greenpeace and seven residents of the Caribbean island of Bonaire against the Dutch government. In examining the case, which concerned both alleged mitigation and adaptation failures, the Court found several violations of the human rights guaranteed in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In particular, and extensively discussing the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) KlimaSeniorinnen judgment of 9 April 2024, the Court found that the Dutch State had failed to fulfil its positive obligations towards the inhabitants of Bonaire under Article 8 ECHR, because the authorities’ mitigation and adaptation measures taken as a whole in relation to them did not meet the Netherlands’ obligations under the international climate regime (the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, discussing also the Kyoto Protocol). Additionally, given that the Dutch State took mitigation and adaptation measures for the inhabitants of Bonaire much later and less systematically than for the inhabitants of the European Netherlands, it found violations of the ECHR’s non-discrimination norms.

Background to the case:
On 11 May 2023, Greenpeace and seven residents of the Caribbean island of Bonaire sent a pre-litigation letter (Dutch: sommatie) to the office of the Prime Minister of the Netherlands. The letter claimed that the Netherlands does not sufficiently protect the authors from climate change and thereby violates their human rights. Since 2010, Bonaire has been a special municipality of the Netherlands and part of the Caribbean Netherlands. In the pre-litigation letter, the plaintiffs claim that the duties of care arising from Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the right to life and the right to family life, have been breached. The inaction of the Netherlands in sufficiently addressing climate change, they argue, violates these human rights. Therefore, they made the following demands:

  1. The Netherlands must implement the necessary measures to protect Bonaire from the consequences of climate change.
  2. The State shall develop and implement a policy which guarantees a 100% reduction of Dutch emission of all greenhouse gases in 2030 when compared to 1990 levels.
  3. Lastly, as part of and to realize the demands above, the State must implement all necessary measures to ensure that, in January 2040 at the latest, the joint volume of the national emission of all greenhouse gases will have been reduced by 100% when compared to 1990 emissions levels.

With the pre-litigation letter to the Prime Minister, the plaintiffs asked for negotiations to find a mutually agreeable decision on their demands. Given the lack of successful negotiations, the plaintiffs initiated proceedings under the Dutch Act on Redress of Mass Damages in Collective Action (WAMCA, alternatively translated as the Settling of Large-scale Losses or Damage (Class Actions) Act), which restructured the Dutch legal system’s approach to mass litigation and collective redress since coming into force in 2020.

Admissibility:
On 25 September 2024, Greenpeace announced that a court in the Hague had ruled that its action on behalf of the public interest of the people of Bonaire was admissible. A hearing was set to follow in 2025.

Judgment of 28 January 2026:
The District Court of Hague (Court) found that individuals residing in Bonaire were owed positive obligations arising from the application of Article 8 of the ECHR in the context of climate-related risks as identified in the judgment in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen et al. v. Switzerland. It further found that the non-discrimination norms found in Article 14 of the ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol 12 to the ECHR were applicable to the case in light of the difference in treatment of the residents of Bonaire arising out of the lack of a climate adaptation applicable to Bonaire, when in contrast, a coherent and integrated climate adaptation policy was being implemented for the European Netherlands since 2016.

In its reasoning, it assessed the Netherlands’ and the EU’s climate mitigation laws as falling short of the minimum requirements of ambition and stringency, which it derived from decisions of the Conference of Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC read with provisions of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. It negatively appraised the Netherlands’ reliance on a ‘grandfathering’ approach, which it found to be ‘controversial’ although not prohibited. These shortcomings informed its negative ‘overall assessment’ of the Netherlands’ climate mitigation framework for compliance with Article 8 of the ECHR, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights in the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen judgment. Next, regarding the positive obligation to effectively implement climate mitigation measures, it held that the State’s admission that the 2030 emissions reduction was ‘highly unlikely’ to be met as a decisive factor in determining a breach of that obligation.

Regarding adaptation measures, the Court found that although initial steps have been taken (for instance, the setting up of a local project for the development of an adaptation plan) the fact that no concrete timeline for the implementation of adaptation measures exists despite the known climate risks (especially that of partial submergence significant parts of land territory by 2050), and that the State has carried out insufficient scientific research and committed no financial resources for certain adaptation-related policies in Bonaire were assessed negatively. On this basis the Court concluded that the State had breached its positive obligation to sufficiently and in a timely manner, take appropriate adaptation measures in Bonaire. Finally, it found that the State did not fulfil its obligations to provide relevant environmental information to the residents of Bonaire and allow for their participation in climate-related decision making at least until 2023.

The Court found that the State did not provide an adequate justification of the unequal treatment of Bonaire as it related to its inclusion within the Netherland’s overall climate adaptation policy and the commitment of resources for the implementation of adaptation measures. It thus found that the State had breached its obligation of non-discrimination under Article 14 of the ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol 12 to the ECHR.

Order:
Based on the above, the Court partially allowed the plaintiffs’ claim for specific performance against the state and ordered the State to ensure incorporate ‘absolute’ emissions reduction targets compatible with the minimum requirements arising out of COP decisions and the Paris Agreement into its national climate legislation and provide insight into Netherlands’ ‘remaining emission allowance’; to draft and implement an appropriate national adaptation plan that also includes Bonaire; and pay legal costs to the plaintiffs. It rejected the plaintiffs’ requests that the Court order the State to adopt specific emissions reduction targets, and a binding national carbon budget determined in accordance with its fair share of the global carbon budget for 1.5˚C.

In doing so, it held that the State has considerable policy-making discretion in choosing its measures to comply with its international obligations under the UN climate treaties, meaning that the Court ordered the State to take effective measures to fulfil its UN obligations in a timely manner, without issuing any concrete orders as to the measures to be taken, deferring to the other branches of government and the separation of powers in this regard (trias politica).

Appeal:
With a letter dated 10 April 2026, the Dutch government announced that it had decided to appeal this case. The letter (in Dutch) indicates that the government has identified “compelling (legal) reasons to have the ruling reviewed by the Court of Appeal in The Hague”. The government indicates its reservations about the legal framework applied by the district court and the obligations the court derives from decisions of UN climate conferences (COP decisions). The government also contests the court’s finding that emissions from international aviation and maritime shipping must be taken into account when setting national emission reduction targets; according to the government, this does not align with current international practice, under which these emissions are regulated through specialized UN organizations (ICAO and IMO).

The government also noted that it was seeking a motion to stay the provisionally enforceable nature of the ruling, which would otherwise require the government to immediately implement the judgment, even if an appeal is filed, and include absolute emission reduction targets for the entire economy in national targets, including emissions from international aviation and shipping.

The full text of the letter is available for download below.

Further reading:

English translation of the judgment of 28 January 2026:

ECLI_NL_RBDHA_2026_1347Download

Judgment of 28 January 2026 (Dutch):

ECLI_NL_RBDHA_2026_1344Download

Pre-litigation letter of 11 May 2023:

pre-litigation-letter-BonaireDownload

Letter communicating the government’s intention to appeal (10 April 2026):

Brief eerste kamer BonaireDownload

Suggested citation:
The Hague District Court, Greenpeace Netherlands v. State of the Netherlands (Bonaire), Judgment of 28 January 2026, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2026:1347.

Date last updated:
6 May 2026.

Categories
Austria Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Farming Fossil fuel extraction Imminent risk Margin of appreciation Right to life

Jasansky and Others v. Austria

Summary:
On 10 November 2023, it was reported that a climate-related application had been filed with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) against Austria. The case is brought on behalf of four Austrian nationals — Monika Jasansky, Peter Fliegenschnee, Friedrich Pichler, and Klara Butz –along with the NGO Global 2000.

The application contests Austrian inaction in terms of mitigation measures, and argues that the individual applicants — who have been described, respectively, as an organic farmer, a retiree, a mayor, and a climate activist — have been adversely affected by extreme weather events aggravated by climate change, namely droughts, heatwaves and mudslides. The applicants allege a violation of the State’s positive obligation to protect the right to life in Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Domestic proceedings:
The applicants contest a finding from the Austrian Constitutional Court, made in July 2023, which recognized the state’s duty to actively take effective measures to protect life and health as well as to protect private life and property, but accorded the government a wide margin of discretion and found that fundamental and human rights do not allow for claims to a specific measure (here the applicants petitioned the domestic courts to order legislators to set binding expiry dates for the permissibility of the sale of fossil fuels in 2040). Rather, the domestic court found that the legislature must be allowed to choose between the various available measures to meet the State’s protective obligations.

Suggested citation:
European Court of Human Rights, Jasansky and Others v. Austria, pending case, filed November 2023.

Categories
Adaptation Disability and health-related inequality Domestic court European Convention on Human Rights Imminent risk Margin of appreciation Non-discrimination Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to housing Right to life Right to property Sea-level rise The United Kingdom Vulnerability

R (Friends of the Earth Ltd, Kevin Jordan and Doug Paulley) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Road & Rural Affairs

Summary:
On 17 October 2023, the reportedly first-ever adaptation case in the United Kingdom was brought against the government before the UK’s High Court of Justice. The plaintiffs in this case included Kevin Jordan, a homeowner from Norfolk (UK), who alleged that his home was acutely threatened by coastal erosion, with the road leading up to it having already collapsed into the sea. Jordan brought his case together with the NGO ‘Friends of the Earth’ and disability rights activist Doug Paulley, a care home resident who alleged that his health conditions were being exacerbated by climate-aggravated heatwaves. Together, the plaintiffs challenged the UK’s National Adaptation Programme (NAP). Domestic law requires the production of new NAP every five years, and the most recent version — NAP3 — was published in July 2023. The claimants argued that NAP3 is deficient for the following reasons:

  1. Failure to set sufficiently specific objectives;
  2. Failure to conduct and publish information on the assessment of the risks involved in implementing NAP3;
  3. Failure to consider the unequal impacts of NAP3 on protected groups (on the grounds of age, race and disability); and
  4. Violation of Articles 2, 8, 14 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the rights to life, respect for private and family life, non-discrimination and property, respectively), as enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998.

In regards to the alleged human rights violations, the plaintiffs invoked:

a. The well-established but urgent need for long-term policy and protected funding to enable care-homes (and similar healthcare settings) to adapt to excessive heat. This remains absent in NAP3 despite the increasing frequency and severity of annual heatwaves.
b. There being no new policy to manage overheating risks in existing health and social care buildings, such that they are properly refurbished as soon as reasonably practicable.
c. A lack of a commitment to provide adequate resources to support communities at imminent risk of being lost to erosion and flooding, including as to the established mental health and emotional wellbeing impacts for those affected.
d. Gaps, inconsistency and uncertainty in the potential allocation of funding provided for a range of areas, in particular for those communities that must (or are likely to have to) relocate and have their homes demolished.
e. There being no insurance or compensation schemes available for the worst affected by coastal erosion and who lose their homes.
f. No evidence of their being an express consideration, or reasoned analysis, of what a fair balance to strike would be between doing more to safeguard the human rights of vulnerable people and the interests of wider society.

https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/non-us-case-documents/2023/20231101_21608_complaint.pdf (emphasis added)

High Court Judgment:
In a judgment issued on 25 October 2024, the High Court of Justice for England and Wales rejected the applicants’ claims. Justice Chamberlain, in his judgment, found that there had been no error of law in this case. His ruling extensively considered the 2024 Verein KlimaSeniorinnen judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, but found that “[u]nlike in the field of mitigation, and subject to the arguments about the effect of the ECHR as interpreted in [Verein KlimaSeniorinnen] (…), there is no internationally binding quantified standard governing how States must adapt to climate change. It would be very difficult to devise any such standard because the risks of climate change differ widely from state to state (and indeed within states). In some places, the main risk may be from flooding, in other places extreme heat or drought. Elsewhere, there may be a combination of risks, which all have to be addressed but some of which are more urgent than others. Moreover, the profile of risks, and the priorities attached to addressing them, may change over time” (para. 92 of the High Court ruling).

Assessing the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen judgment overall, Judge Chamberlain found that while this judgment “represents a significant development of the case law in relation to climate change, not only as regards the standing of associations to bring claims before the Strasbourg Court, but also as regards the scope and extent of the positive obligations of the State and the margin of appreciation to be accorded when assessing whether those obligations have been discharged”, “the significance of the judgment for the UK’s climate change framework should not be overstated.” The Judge noted that KlimaSeniorinnen focused heavily on lacunae in domestic legislation and the targets set out in the Paris Agreement, whereas the law of the United Kingdom does not feature similar lacunae in mitigation target-setting.

Lawyers for the government in this case had sought to dismiss the findings of the ECtHR, as made in para. 552 of KlimaSeniorinnen, as an obiter dictum. This paragraph of the Strasbourg Court’s judgment reads as follows:

Furthermore, effective protection of the rights of individuals from serious adverse effects on their life, health, well-being and quality of life requires that the above-noted mitigation measures be supplemented by adaptation measures aimed at alleviating the most severe or imminent consequences of climate change, taking into account any relevant particular needs for protection. Such adaptation measures must be put in place and effectively applied in accordance with the best available evidence (…) and consistent with the general structure of the State’s positive obligations in this context (…).

Judge Chamberlain disagreed with the government as concerns the nature of this finding, noting the dangers of applying “common law concepts [the idea of obiter dicta] to the judgment of a court most of whose members come from different legal traditions.” Still, Judge Chamberlain noted that the Strasbourg Court’s findings were of a general nature (para. 101). He found that KlimaSeniorinnen “appears to indicate that the positive obligation imposed by Articles 2 and 8 [ECHR] extends to adopting and effectively implementing ‘adaptation measures aimed at alleviating the most severe or imminent consequences of climate change, taking into account any relevant particular needs for protection'”, stemming from the State’s underlying regulatory obligation. He notes that “[w]hat that means in the context of adaptation measures, however, is far from clear” (para. 103), given that adaptation measures were not central to the KlimaSeniorinnen case, and that the international legal framework in this regard is less well-developed than for mitigation measures. He went on to anticipate future rulings from the ECtHR, considering it

(…) likely that, if the Strasbourg Court had in a future case to apply the reasoning in [Verein KlimaSeniorinnen] to the adaptation context, it would say that:
(a) the narrow margin of appreciation in relation to the mitigation aims was justified by reference to the internationally agreed objective of carbon neutrality by 2050 and the impact of one State’s default on other States;
(b) neither of these features applies in the field of adaptation; and
(c) accordingly, in the field of adaptation, States are to be accorded a wide margin of appreciation in setting the relevant objectives and a wider margin still in setting out the proposals and policies for meeting them (by analogy with the margin accorded to the State in setting the means for achieving the mitigation objectives).

Accordingly, he found that the current adaptation framework in the United Kingdom appears to “fall comfortably within the UK’s margin of appreciation under Articles 2 and 8 ECHR” and is not “contrary to any clear and consistent line of authority from the Strasbourg Court”. On this basis, he found that there was neither an error of law nor an incompatibility with human rights law evident in this case.

Friends-of-the-Earth-v-Secretary-of-State-for-Environment-Food-and-Rural-AffairsDownload

Application to the European Court of Human Rights:
In July 2025, Friends of the Earth announced that the case had been filed as an application before the European Court of Human Rights.

More information:
For reporting on the case, see coverage from the Guardian and the Independent.

Suggested citation:
High Court of Justice for England and Wales, R (Friends of the Earth Ltd, Kevin Jordan and Doug Paulley) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Road & Rural Affairs, [2024] EWHC 2707 (Admin), 25 October 2024.

Last updated:
13 November 2024

Categories
Climate activists and human rights defenders Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Non-discrimination Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment Right to culture Right to education Right to health Right to life Right to subsistence/food Right to water Self-determination Turkey Uncategorized

A.S. & S.A. & E.N.B v. Presidency of Türkiye & The Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change

Summary:

On 13 April 2023, Türkiye submitted its updated Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The NDC states that Türkiye aims to reduce its CO2 emissions by 41% by 2030 compared to the business-as-usual scenario with 2012 as its base year, and plans on peaking emissions by 2038 at the latest. This would increase CO2 emissions by 30% until 2030. Due to this further increase in CO2 emissions, climate activists Atlas Sarrafoğlu, Ela Naz Birdal and Seren Anaçoğlu filed a lawsuit against President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and the Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change before the Council of State (the highest administrative court in Türkiye) on 8 May 2023.

The plaintiffs claimed that Türkiye’s NDC is inadequate under the Paris Agreement and that the resulting increase in CO2 emissions violates their human rights under the country’s constitution, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the European Convention on Human Rights. The rights they claimed had been violated included: the right to life, the right to intergenerational equality, the right to the protection of one’s private life, the right to health, cultural rights, the right to develop one’s material and spiritual existence, the right to live in a healthy and balanced environment, the right to education, the right to work, and the right to healthy food and water. Because of the alleged inadequacy of the NDC under the Paris Agreement, they demanded its annulment and the creation of a more ambitious commitment.

Status of Case:

On 22 December 2023, The Wave reported that the Council of State had dismissed this case without examining it, arguing that the NDC did not constitute an administrative act and was accordingly not open to judicial annulment.

Further reading:

News Article by PAMACC: https://www.pamacc.org/index.php/k2-listing/item/1440-president-recep-erdogan-of-turkey-sued-for-slow-implementiion-of-the-paris-agreement

News Article by the Turkish human rights press agency “Bianet”: https://bianet.org/haber/young-climate-activists-file-lawsuit-against-erdogan-over-inadequate-emission-goals-278474

Date last updated:

22 December 2023.

Categories
Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to life Right to property Romania

Declic et al. v. The Romanian Government

Summary:

In January 2023, Declic (a prominent Romanian NGO) alongside a number of individuals initiated Romania’s first-ever climate lawsuit against the government, specifically targeting Prime Minister Nicoale Ciucă and the Ministers of Environment and Energy. The lawsuit alleges that the government has failed to implement adequate measures to address and mitigate the foreseeable risks associated with the climate crisis, violating its legal obligations under the Paris Agreement. The plaintiffs are seeking fines for each day of government inaction and demanding a court order mandating immediate and comprehensive actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels, achieve climate neutrality by 2050, and increase the share of renewable energy in final energy consumption to 45% while improving energy efficiency by 13% by 2030.

Claim:

The plaintiffs assert that the government is in breach of its duty of care by applying insufficient greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2030, falling well below the EU-wide reduction goal of 55% below 1990 levels. They argue that the absence of annual carbon budgets and mechanisms for monitoring and reporting progress towards climate goals hinders the meaningful assessment of the government’s measures to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Furthermore, the lawsuit questions whether the measures taken by the government are sufficient to prevent climate change from becoming dangerous to humanity and the environment, considering the discretionary power of the government. The plaintiffs also challenge whether the government’s climate mitigation and adaptation measures meet objective standards and pass reasonableness tests set by international bodies like the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Finally, the court is called upon to determine whether the government’s measures are compatible with the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Romanian Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, including the right to life, privacy, property, health, and a healthy and ecologic environment.

Links:

The case documents are accessible via Climate Case Chart: Click here.

Status of the case:

The case is currently pending before the Cluj Court of Appeal of Romania.

Suggested citation:

Declic et al. v. The Romanian Government (Cluj Court of Appeal, Romania, filed January 2023).

Last updated:

03 November 2023.

Categories
Children and young people Climate activists and human rights defenders Domestic court European Convention on Human Rights Fossil fuel extraction Private and family life Right to life Standing/admissibility Sweden Uncategorized

PUSH Sweden, Nature and Youth Sweden and Others v. Government of Sweden (Magnolia Case)

Summary:
In June 2016, the Swedish government approved the request from state-owned energy company Vattenfall to sell its lignite assets to the German subsidiary of a Czech holding company. The deal included some of Germany’s largest coal mines, whose annual emissions total around 60 million tonnes of greenhouse gases. In September 2016, two youth environmental NGOs, PUSH Sweden and Nature and Youth Sweden (Fältbiologerna), together with 176 individuals, filed a claim against the Government of Sweden. According to the Plaintiffs, the sale of the lignite assets would enable the expanded exploitation of lignite coal assets and contribute to an increase in the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The sale would give the Czech holding company the opportunity to expand the lignite operations, which in turn would lead to increased emissions which, although the emissions were generated in Germany, would affect Swedish territory.

Claims made:
The Plainiffs argued that the State’s sale of coal-fired power plants violated the sustainability statement in Chapter 1, Section 2, paragraph 3 of the Swedish Constitution, as well as the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. They requested the Stockholm District Court to find that the Swedish State has breached its duty of care with the sale of Vattenfall’s lignite operations, and that the sale is illegal.

Judgement:
The Stockholm District Court found that the Plaintiffs had not suffered any damage from the Swedish government’s decisions to permit Vattenfall to sell its lignite assets. It held that the mere risk of damage cannot be a basis for liability for damages and that the ECHR did not apply because the Plaintiffs could not prove damage correlating to the sale of Vattenfall’s lignite assets. Therefore, the Stockholm District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ requests.

Date filed:
15 September 2016

Date of Judgement:
30 June 2017

More information:
An unofficial translation of the application is available via Climate Case Chart.

Suggested citation:
Stockholm District Court, PUSH Sweden, Nature and Youth Sweden and Others v. Government of Sweden, case T 11594-16, Judgment of 30 June 2017.

Categories
2022 Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Non-discrimination Private and family life Right to life Right to property Sweden Uncategorized

Anton Foley and others v. Sweden (Aurora Case)

Summary:
On 25 November 2022, a group of over 600 young people born between 1996 and 2015 filed a class action lawsuit against the Swedish State in the Nacka District Court (Nacka tingsrätt). According to the Plaintiffs, the Swedish State is failing to do its fair share to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration in the atmosphere to keep warming below 1.5°C as compared to pre-industrial levels, by not undertaking immediate and adequate procedural and substantive measures to continuously reduce GHG emissions and enhance GHG sinks, thus failing to adequately protect the plaintiffs from adverse impacts of anthropogenic climate change. Therefore, the Plaintiffs claim that this constitutes a violation of their rights to life, private and family life, and non-discrimination under Articles 2, 8, and 14 of the ECHR, and their right to property under Article 1, Protocol 1 of the ECHR.

The Plaintiffs requested the Nacka District Court to order the Swedish State to do its fair share in reducing GHG emissions to keep global warming below 1.5°C. They argued that the Swedish State should be required to take sufficient and adequate measures to ensure that emissions are continuously reduced and that GHG are absorbed through natural carbon sinks to limit the risk of adverse impacts of climate change on them.

On 31 March 2023, the Nacka District Court invited the Swedish State to file its response to the Plaintiffs’ application. On 21 June 2023, the Swedish State filed its response with the Nacka District Court, requesting that the case be dismissed. The Court then invited the Plaintiffs to submit their comments on the request for dismissal no later than 28 August 2023.

Inadmissibility ruling:
The Nacka District Court referred a question to the Swedish Supreme Court concerning whether such a case against the state could be brought before a court. On 19 February 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that the group members’ claim, as formulated in the district court, could not be admissible. In doing so, it engaged with the KlimaSeniorinnen ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, summarizing the high victim status standard set in that case and its emphasis of cases brought by associations. It also noted that the ECtHR established that it would not tolerate actio popularis cases. The Supreme Court found that the case before it was (a) brought not by an association but by individuals who did not argue that they were particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change as per the KlimaSeniorinnen victim status test, and (b) sought an order on the State to take specific measures, which raised issues of the separation of powers and the margin of appreciation of the State authorities. However, the Court left open the admissibility of differently-argued cases, for example cases brought by an association or requesting only a declaration that the state had violated the ECHR by failing to take sufficient measures to counteract the effects of climate change.

Date filed:
25 November 2022

Status of case:

Plaintiffs withdrew the case on 30 June 2025, and the environmental association Aurora initiated a new climate lawsuit before the Nacka District Court on 06 February 2026. The database entry on Aurora v. Sweden (Aurora Case II) is available here.

The plaintiffs’ appeal against an order for payment of legal costs is pending before the Supreme Court.

More information:
The Plaintiffs’ summons application is available via the Climate Case Chart.

The ruling of the Supreme Court is available here.

A press release concerning the inadmissibility decision (in Swedish) is available here.

Suggested citation:

Supreme Court of Sweden, Anton Foley and others v. Sweden, Ö 7177-23, 19 February 2025.

Last updated:
21 February 2025

Categories
Children and young people Climate activists and human rights defenders Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Indigenous peoples rights Indigenous peoples' rights Non-discrimination Paris Agreement Private and family life Prohibition of torture Right to a healthy environment Right to culture Right to health Right to housing Right to life Right to property Russian Federation

Ecodefense and Others v. Russia

Summary:
In 2022, the NGOs Ecodefense and Moscow Helsinki Group, together with a group of individual plaintiffs representing Fridays for Future and the Sami and Itelmen indigenous people, brought an administrative action before the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation seeking to declare the Russian Federation’s climate legislation invalid. They argue that the current measures are not in line with the temperature targets under the Paris Agreement, noting that Russia is currently the fourth biggest global carbon emitter. They submit that Russia is accordingly in violation of its own constitution, as well as of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Russia ceased to be a party to the ECHR on 16 September 2022.

Key arguments:
The plaintiffs invoke a number of human and constitutional rights, arguing that their right to life, to health care, to a healthy environment (which is recognized by the Russian Constitution), to the protection of land and other natural resources as the basis of the life and activities of indigenous peoples, and to the protection of young people and future generations (based on the principle of equality). They also invoke the prohibition of torture and the right to home, private life and property as well as the prohibition of discrimination and the right to an adequate standard of living.

On this basis, the plaintiffs argue that the existing Russian climate policy measures are not only incompatible with domestic law, but that they also violate Russia’s international legal obligations under the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement, the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the ECHR. The plaintiffs also contest the emphasis on carbon absorption (and not GHG emissions reductions) in the current Russian strategy, which they argue does not suffice to do Russia’s “fair share” to keep global warming below the Paris Agreement’s targets of 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius.

Status:
Pending

Further information:
A summary of the plaintiff’s submissions in this case is available via ClimateCaseChart.com.

Suggested citation:
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Ecodefense and Others v. Russia, pending case, submitted on 11 September 2022.

Last updated:
4 August 2023