Category: European Convention on Human Rights

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

Categories
Access to a remedy Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights Gender / women-led Imminent risk Non-discrimination Private and family life Right to life Standing/admissibility The United Kingdom Victim status

Plan B. Earth and Others v. the United Kingdom

Summary:

On 11 July 2022, an application against the United Kingdom was filed before the European Court of Human Rights by the NGO Plan B. Earth and four individual applicants. The applicants argued that the United Kingdom’s government violated their rights under Articles 2, 8 and 14 of the ECHR by failing to take practical and effective measures to tackle the threat of anthropogenic climate change. They also submitted that they had suffered violations of their procedural rights under Articles 6 and 13 ECHR because they had been denied a full hearing of their case.

Citing the UK Government’s acknowledgment of the fact that climate change is a serious threat to humanity, the applicant NGO submitted that its membership included those “who are exposed to disproportionate and discriminatory impacts and risks, whether by virtue of age, gender, mental health or membership of racially marginalised communities, or because their family life is inextricably linked to communities on the frontline of the crisis.” The applicants also cited the State’s positive obligation to safeguard the right to life, and argued that the Paris Agreement, and its temperature goal of 1,5 degrees Celsius, are relevant in determining the scope of these positive obligations. They argued that practical and effective measures are required to ensure climate mitigation, adaptation, finance flows and loss and damage, and that the respondent State has failed in all four regards.

Victim status:

As concerns the applicants’ victim status, they argued that they were “victims” of the alleged Convention violations. They referred to domestic rules that increase the cost risk by £5,000 for each additional claimant in environmental cases; this rule serves to deter class actions, and therefore prevents applicants from sharing the cost and other risks involved in litigation. They noted that the first applicants’ members include individuals exposed to disproportionate and discriminatory impacts and risks as concerns their age, gender, membership of racially marginalised communities, family life inextricably linked with communities in the Global South, and mental health, and those who are at the intersection of such increased risks. They also noted that, given the high risk of overwhelming and irreversible interference with the applicants’ rights, denying them victim status would render their Convention rights theoretical and illusory.

Status of case:

The ECtHR declared the application inadmissible, holding that the applicants were not sufficiently affected by the alleged breach of the Convention or its Protocols to claim to be victims of a violation within the meaning of Art. 34 of the Convention. This decision was taken by a Committee judicial formation, as the result of a written procedure without a public decision.

According to Plan B Earth’s press release following the decision, the panel was composed of three judges, among which the UK Judge Tim Eicke.

Response of litigants:

In response to the judgment, the litigants expressed disappointment over the ECtHR’s disengagement with their claims and the colonial, racial and class-based inequalities at the heart of the case, with Marina Xochitl Tricks arguing for example that “[t]he white working class, diaspora communities in the UK, and colonised communities globally know that the reality we live is one of injustice. (…) [I]t is time for us to stop pretending that justice will come from the colonial classist courts and start building up our own Peoples’ Tribunals. Our people back home are being killed, dispossessed and disappeared everyday at the hands of global capital, that sows violence and disorder in our communities. We know that those networks extend into the banks and establishment here in the City of London.”

Date of decision:

13 December 2022 (according to the ECtHR’s press release).

More information:

  • For the full text of the application form, click here.
  • For a press release from Plan B Earth on the filing, click here.
  • For the full claim before the High Court of Justice, click here.
  • For the Court of Appeals’ judgment, click here.

Suggested citation:
European Court of Human Rights, Plan B. Earth and Others v. the United Kingdom, Appl. no. 35057/22, Decision of 13 December 2022.

Last updated:
15 March 2023.


Categories
Deforestation Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights Farming Imminent risk Paris Agreement Private and family life Prohibition of torture Right to life The United Kingdom

Humane Being v. the United Kingdom

Summary:
On 26 July 2022, the NGO Humane Being submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that the United Kingdom’s government hat violated the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to protect against the life-threatening risks posted by factory farms. The application invokes Articles 2, 3 and 8 ECHR. Factory farming, the applicants argue, is responsible for the risk of millions of human deaths due to the climate crisis, future pandemics and antibiotic resistance. The case also challenges the effects of agricultural methane emissions and deforestation, and argues that factory farming at current levels is not compatible with the Government’s emissions reduction commitments.

Status of case:
The ECtHR declared the application inadmissible in a single judge judicial formation in a non-public written procedure. The (anonymous) judge decided that the applicant was not sufficiently affected by the alleged breach of the Convention or its Protocols to claim to be a victim of a violation within the meaning of Article 34 ECHR. Single judge decisions are not published to the Court’s HUDOC database.

Publication of decision:
Pending

Date of decision:
1 December 2022 (according to the ECtHR’s press release).

More information:
For the NGO’s press release on the application, click here.

Suggested citation:
European Court of Human Rights, Humane Being v. the United Kingdom, no. 36959/22, Decision (single judge) of 1 December 2022.

Last updated:
16 March 2023.

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
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 Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights France Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to life

Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v. France (‘L’affaire du siècle’)

Summary:
The L’affaire du siècle (French for “affair of the century”) is a French climate justice campaign initiated by four organisations (Fondation pour la nature et l’homme, Greenpeace France, Notre affaire à tous and Oxfam France) on 17 December 2018 to bring the French State to justice for its inaction in the fight against global warming. After the French State rejected the campaigners’ demand, a legal action against the State was filed with the Paris Administrative Court on 14 March 2019.

On 3 February 2021, in a decision that the associations described as ‘a historic victory for the climate’, this court confirmed the existence of a causal link between environmental damage and the failure of the State to adequately combat climate change. It ordered the State to submit written observations within a two-month time frame.

On 14 October 2021, in its final decision, the court instructed the French State to take immediate and concrete measures to combat climate change and to repair the damage caused by its inaction by 31 December 2022.

Rights invoked:
Among other things, the applicant organisations relied on Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the French Charter of the Environment, as well as the “right to a preserved climate system”. The plaintiffs argued that this right stems from national and international law such as the Stockholm Declaration, the World Charter for Nature, the Rio Declaration, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement, the Climate action and renewable energy package for 2020.

Findings on the merits:
The court found that the State had not respected its greenhouse gas reductions commitments and had therefore committed a “fault”. It accordingly held that, “[i]n line with the commitments that it had made within the framework of the first carbon budget, which it failed to respect, the State must be regarded as responsible […] for part of the ecological damage observed”.

The Administrative Court of Paris thereby confirmed on 3 February 2021 that there was a causal link between the environmental damage and the inaction of the French government in combating climate change. In other words, it recognized that the government’s inaction had caused ecological damage, and that the State should be held responsible for at least part of this damage. The court ordered the government to show, within two-months, the measures it intended to take against climate change. The court reserved the rest of its judgment until after it had received these submissions.

In its final decision on 14 October 2021, the Administrative Court of Paris instructed the Prime Minister and the relevant ministers to take all possible measures to combat climate change and to repair the ecological damage and prevent it from getting worse. The Court specified the damage in the amount of the uncompensated share of greenhouse gas emissions under the initial carbon budget, i.e. 15 million tons of CO2 equivalents. It ordered that the recuperation of this damage must be effective no later than 31 December 2022. However, the Court did not consider it appropriate to impose a penalty on its order.

The Court noted that it is not its role to assess whether the totality of the measures taken is sufficient or not. Therefore, the specific measures to implement this recuperation may take various forms, and are left to the discretion of the French government. In its findings, the Court referred to the Commune de Grande-Synthe decision of the Conseil d’État (“Council of State”) of 1 July 2021. This decision states that the current measures are not sufficient to achieve the necessary reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Date of filing:
14 March 2019

Date of decision:
14 October 2021

Links:
For the full text of the final decision of 14 October 2021 (in French), see here.

For the full text of the first decision of 3 February 2021 (in French), see here.

For an unofficial translation of the first decision of 3 February 2021 (in English), see here.  

For an unofficial translation of the State’s reply (in English), see here.

For the plaintiff’s reply to the State’s arguments (in French), see here.

The applicant organisations are active on Twitter at @laffairedusiecl, and they have a website that can be found at https://laffairedusiecle.net/.

Suggested citation:
Paris Administrative Court, Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v. France (‘L’affaire du siècle’), Decision of 3 February 2021, Nos. 1904967, 1904968, 1904972, and 1904976/4.

Paris Administrative Court, Notre Affaire à Tous and Others v. France (‘L’affaire du siècle’), Decision of 14 October 2021, Nos. 1904967, 1904968, 1904972, and 1904976/4.

Further reading:
Christel Cournil, Antoine Le Dylio, Paul Mougeolle, ‘L’affaire du Siècle : French Climate Litigation between Continuity and Legal Innovations’, 14(1) Carbon & Climate Law Review (2020), 223-233. Available here.

Categories
2021 Deciding Body Domestic court European Convention on Human Rights Keywords Paris Agreement Right to assembly and association Right to freedom of expression Rights at stake State concerned Switzerland Year

Credit Suisse Climate Activists Trial (Geneva)

Summary:
On 13 October 2018, during a climate march in Geneva, a young climate activist from the collective “BreakFree Suisse” spread his hands smeared with red paint all over the facade of the Swiss bank Credit Suisse, leaving red handprints to denounce investments in fossil fuels. According to the climate activist, these red handprints symbolized the blood of the various victims of climate change.

On 20 February 2020, the activist was found guilty by the Tribunal de police (“Police Court”) for property damage.

On 14 October 2020, the Cour de Justice (“Court of Justice”) acquitted the climate activist and argued that the young man had acted in a putative state of necessity due to climate change.

A year later, on 28 September 2021, the Swiss Bundesgericht (“Federal Supreme Court”) overturned this decision and referred the case back to the Cour de Justice. The Bundesgericht argued that climate change and the resulting consequences do not represent an imminent danger to individual legal interests.

Consequently, on 31 March 2022, the Cour de Justice revised its first decision and ordered the climate activist to pay a symbolic fine of 100 Swiss francs as well as compensation for material damage.

In a similar case in Lausanne, climate activists from the same collective were on trial after occupying the entrance halls of the Swiss bank Credit Suisse.  

Rights invoked:
The activist invoked his rights to freedom of expression (Article 10 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) and assembly and association (Article 11 ECHR).

The Swiss Bundesgericht held that Article 11 ECHR only protects the right to freedom of “peaceful assembly”. With his behavior, the young man committed an act of vandalism, which is incompatible with freedom of expression. Accordingly, the Court found that the activist could not rely on Articles 10 and 11 ECHR.  

Further proceedings:
It was reported that applications concerning both of these cases have been filed at the European Court of Human Rights.

Date:
28 September 2021

Suggested citation:
Swiss Bundesgericht, N.B. v. Credit Suisse, 6B_1310/2020, 6B_1298/2020, Judgment of 28 September 2021.

Links:
For the Federal Supreme Court’s judgment, see here.

For the Cour de justice’s second judgment, see here.

For the Cour de Justice’s first judgment, see here.

For the Tribunal de police’s judgment, see here.

Categories
Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Italy Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment

Giudizio Universale (The Last Judgment) (A Sud and Others v. Italy)

Summary:
On 5 June 2021, 203 plaintiffs (24 associations, 17 minors represented in court by their parents, and 162 adults) led by the environmental justice NGO A Sud filed a lawsuit with the Civil Court of Rome against the Italian State, represented by the Presidency of the Council of Ministers. The lawsuit is part of a campaign for awareness raising named “Giudizio Universale” (The Last Judgment).

The plaintiffs allege that the Italian State is fully aware of the climate emergency and the urgency of GHG emissions reduction, as demonstrated by official declarations and explicit acknowledgements by State representatives in recent years which produced environmental information as per Article 2(3) of the Aarhus Convention. Notwithstanding, the climate measures taken by the Italian State were insufficient. Limited emissions reductions had been achieved mainly due to the economic crisis and the following recessions, but it was projected that the State would not meet even modest reduction targets by 2030. These measures would not satisfy the climate obligations that the Italian State is required to observe and implement, originating from the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement, and specific EU Regulations. Therefore, the plaintiffs allege that the State infringed human rights, including the right to a stable and safe climate, which interfaces with the principles in Article 6 of the Treaty of the European Union, and the rights recognized by Articles 2 (right to life), 8 (respect for private and family life), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the ECHR. The plaintiffs allege that this gives rise to non-contractual liability of the State under Article 2043 of the Italian Civil Code, and that responsibility may also be identified according to Article 2051 of the Civil Code as the State can be considered the guardian of the climate system.

The plaintiffs requested the judge to declare that the Italian State is responsible for failing to tackle the climate emergency and to order the State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 92% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels, applying the principle of equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (Fair Share).

Hearings:
The first hearing was held on 14 December 2021 in the form of an exchange of written briefs. The Italian State requested the judge to declare the complaint inadmissible, or to dismiss it on the merits as completely ill-founded. Subsequent oral hearings were held on 21 June 2022 and 13 September 2023.

Decision:
On 26 February 2024 the Court declared the complaints inadmissible for absolute lack of jurisdiction. Notably, the Court considered it impossible to verify the adequacy of the measures taken by the State to achieve its climate targets, noting that it lacked the necessary information to examine choices of such complexity. The Court also rejected the existence of State emissions-reductions obligations under private law that can be claimed by individuals, and invoked the principle of the separation of powers. The plaintiffs declared that they would challenge this judgment on appeal.

Appeal proceedings:
In November 2024, it was reported that the applicants had appealed the Civil Court of Rome’s decision, citing the success of the KlimaSeniorinnen case at the European Court of Human Rights as bolstering its case.

Date filed:
5 June 2021

Jurisdiction:
Civil Court of Rome

Status of the case:
First instance judgment; appeal pending

Suggested case citation:
Complete first instance judgment citation: A Sud Ecologia e Cooperazione ODV et al. v. Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Tribunale di Roma, Seconda Sezione Civile, n. 39415/2021, 26 febbraio 2024 [A Sud Ecologia e Cooperazione ODV et al. v. Presidency of the Council of Ministers, Civil Court of Rome, Secon Civil Section, n. 39415/2021, 26 February 2024], case under appeal.

Further reading:
English language: a summary of the legal action was provided by the applicant NGO here.

Italian language: all the documents from the proceedings and a review of relevant literature can be found on this website hosting the Observatory on Italian climate change litigation, edited by the students in Comparative Climate Change Law at the University of Salento.

Last updated:
13 November 2024

Categories
2021 Belgium Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Private and family life Right to life

Belgian ‘Klimaatzaak’

Summary:

On 30 November 2023, a Court of Appeal in Brussels, Belgium, issued its judgment in the Urgenda-inspired “Klimaatzaak” (Dutch for “climate case”). Its judgment builds on a 17 June 2021 first-instance judgment, which held that Belgian climate policy was negligent and violated positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (Articles 2 and 8). While confirming this part of the judgment for three of the four domestic governments involved, the appeal court overturned the first instance’s finding that, in light of the separation of powers, it could not set greenhouse gas reduction targets. The appeal court set clear targets for domestic emissions reductions, ordering reductions of 55 percent by 2030 (compared to 1990 levels).

First-instance judgment:

The applicants in this case alleged, among other things, that the four Belgian governments (i.e. the three regional governments and the federal state) had violated human rights law, and were obligated to reduce Belgium’s greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels.

The case was delayed for almost three years because of proceedings contesting the language of the case, which was ultimately adjudicated in French.

On 17 June 2021, a court of first instance found that Belgian climate policy was negligent and violated positive obligations under human rights law. At stake were, among other things, violations of Articles 2 and 8 ECHR, in claims inspired by the Dutch Urgenda case. However, the court of first instance also held that, in light of the principle of separation of powers, it could not set greenhouse gas reduction targets for the Belgian governments.

The Brussels court of first instance not only declared the complaint of the applicant association, VZW Klimaatzaak, admissible, but also that of the 58,000 co-plaintiffs. Belgian law does not allow for an actio popularis, but the first-instance court recognized that all of the applicants faced a risk of material, physical or moral damage. In doing so, it referred to the risks to human and animal health and to the territorial integrity of the Belgian state, and especially of the Flemish region, which was particularly at risk of harms caused by sea level rises. The best available science, as reflected in existing diplomatic consensus, did not leave room for doubt about the existence of a real risk from dangerous climate change. This meant a serious risk that current and future generations would see their daily lives profoundly impacted (“profondément perturbées”). The fact that other Belgian citizens could bring a similar claim did not change this.

The judgment also stated that the federal state and the three regions are jointly and individually responsible for the risk of harm at stake, despite the complex structure of the Belgian state.

Lastly, the judgment stated that the four governments’ inadequate climate policy violated articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (which enshrine the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life, respectively).

However, the court did not order the injunction claimed by the applicants for concrete reduction targets. The applicants had requested an injunction to the effect that the Belgian state should reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 42% by 2025 and by 55% by 2030.

Judgment on appeal:

On appeal by the applicants, who challenged the first-instance judgment over the decision not to order concrete reductions targets, the case was reviewed by the Brussels Court of Appeal. Its judgment, which was issued on 30 November 2023, confirmed that the 2020 climate policy of three out of the four respondent domestic governments had violated Articles 2 and 8 ECHR. In its judgment, the court ordered the Belgian state, the Flemish Region and the Brussels-Capital Region to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions more quickly, namely by 55 percent by 2030 (compared to 1990 levels). Meanwhile, it found that the Walloon region’s climate policy had progressed sufficiently to be in conformity with human rights law.

In its judgment, the court found that “in light of the prevailing consensus within the scientific community and the international political community, the three governments have violated Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Articles 1382 and 1383 of the old Civil Code because they had not sufficiently reduced greenhouse gas emissions in 2020” (our translation). This violation was still ongoing because these governments have “set insufficiently strict targets and have not taken sufficiently far-reaching measures to sufficiently limit emissions by 2030”. The court found that “a reduction of -55% in GHG emissions by 2030 constitutes a minimum threshold, below which Belgium cannot go under penalty of violating Article 2 of the ECHR” (in the original French: une diminution de -55 % des émissions de GES à l’horizon 2030 constitue ce seuil minimal, en deçà duquel la Belgique ne peut aller sous peine de ne pas respecter l’article 2 de la CEDH). In doing so, it draws on the European Climate Law, which codifies the goals set out in the European Green Deal for the EU to become climate-neutral by 2050.

While the applicants had requested a penalty payment of 1 million euros per month, the appeal court deferred its ruling on this issue to await, among other things, emissions figures from the 2022-2024 period.

Status of case:

After the November 2023 ruling, further proceedings — in cassation, and potentially before the European Court of Human Rights — are possible in this case, which is accordingly not yet final.

On 18 April 2024, the applicants communicated that Flanders had filed a cassation appeal. Flanders was the only one of the domestic governments involved to lodge an appeal in cassation. The federal and Brussels governments had decided against a further appeal.

Suggested citation:

Francophone first instance court of Brussels, 4th chamber, Klimaatzaak ASBL v. Belgium, no. 2015/4585/A, Judgment of 17 June 2021, available at https://prismic-io.s3.amazonaws.com/affaireclimat/18f9910f-cd55-4c3b-bc9b-9e0e393681a8_167-4-2021.pdf

Brussels Court of Appeal, Klimaatzaak ASBL v. Belgium, case 2021/AR/1589, Judgment of 30 November 2023.

Full text:

For background information on the case, see here.

For a summary (in Dutch) by Klimaatzaak, see here.

For the full first-instance judgment (in French), see here.

For the full second-instance judgment, click here.

Further reading:

For more on this case, see the blog post by Matthias Petel and Antoine De Spiegeleir in the Sabin Center’s Climate Law Blog, available here.

For a press release from the applicants concerning the second-instance judgment, click here.

Last updated:

7 September 2024