Category: European Convention on Human Rights

Categories
2021 Deciding Body Domestic court European Convention on Human Rights Imminent risk 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 (Lausanne)

Summary:
On 22 November 2018, a group of 20 to 30 climate activists from the collective “BreakFree Suisse”, among them the 12 complainants, occupied the entry halls of the Swiss bank Credit Suisse in Lausanne to demonstrate against the bank’s investment in fossil fuels. The protest aimed to draw attention to this issue by condemning the participation of the Swiss tennis player Roger Federer in the advertising campaign of this bank. To do so, the activists were dressed in sports clothes and staged a tennis match. While some activists complied with the police request to leave the premises, others had to be dragged out by the police.

The activists argued that they had been in a “justifiable state of emergency” (rechtfertigender Notstand) due to climate change and that their protest was therefore lawful.

On 13 January 2020, the Tribunal de police de l’arrondissement de Lausanne (“Police Court of the district of Lausanne”) ruled in favor of the protesters. The judge found that climate change posed an imminent threat and that the protest was therefore a necessary and proportionate means to achieve the activists’ intended goal.

On 22 September 2020, this decision was overruled by the Tribunal Cantonal du Vaud (“Vaud Cantonal Tribunal”). The Court argued that the activists could have protested the bank by using other means, such as political or legal instruments. It further found that climate change is an imminent threat and that measures must be taken to address it. However, the Tribunal Cantonal du Vaud doubted that the protest could have led to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, it also noted that the Swiss government is aware of the issue and has already taken necessary measures, such as ratifying the Paris Agreement. Finally, the Court held that it is not yet too late to take the necessary protective measures to combat climate change.

On 26 May 2021, the Swiss Bundesgericht (“Swiss Federal Supreme Court”) mainly upheld the Tribunal Cantonal du Vaud’s decision. It argued further that climate change may be considered an imminent threat and that the activists did not intend to protect a specific legal interest, but rather collective interests, namely the environment, health, or the well-being of the population, and thus, the protest was not lawful.

In a similar case in Geneva, a climate activist from the same collective was on trial after putting red handprints all over the front of the Swiss bank Credit Suisse.

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

The Swiss Bundesgericht argued that the complainants are not entitled to invoke Articles 10 and 11 ECHR in this context because they had no right to enter private property to take their actions. The freedom of assembly does not include the right to gather on private property without the owner’s consent. Consequently, the claimants could not rely on Articles 10 and 11 ECHR.

Date of decision:
26 May 2021

Suggested case citation:
Swiss Bundesgericht, 12 climate protesters v. ministère public central du canton de Vaud, 6B_1295/2020, Judgment of 26 May 2021.


Links:
For the judgment of the Swiss Bundesgericht (in French), see here.

For the judgment of the Tribunal Cantonal du Vaud (in French), see here.

For the judgment of the Tribunal de police de l’arrondissement de Lausanne (in French), see here.  

Categories
Access to a remedy Austria Disability and health-related inequality Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights Fair trial Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to life Victim status Vulnerability

Müllner v. Austria

Summary:
On 25 March 2021, an application was filed before the European Court of Human Rights concerning the impact of climate change (specifically, temperature increases) on an applicant suffering from temperature-sensitive multiple sclerosis and Uhthoff’s syndrome. The applicant alleged a violation of his rights under Article 8 ECHR by the failure by the Austrian government to set effective greenhouse gas emissions reduction measures.

The applicant alleged in particular that, at temperatures above 25 degrees Celsius, he is no longer able to walk, and that above 30 degrees Celsius, he loses complete control over his muscular movement. He alleged that, by failing to sufficiently reduce its emissions to meet the goals set out in the Paris Agreement, the respondent State had not only made it impossible to meet the 1,5 degree Celsius warming target set out therein, but had even actively taken measures to exacerbate the climate crisis, including through subsidies and incentives. The applicant also alleged that the domestic State’s legal system systemically impeded him from challenging the climate policies at stake, and the government’s inaction in this regard. This, he submitted, reflects a systemic deficit in the domestic legal system, making it impossible to challenge inaction by the State.

The applicant invoked the right to respect for private and family life in Article 8 ECHR, and subsidiarily the right to life in Article 2 ECHR, as well as the rights to access to a remedy and fair trial in Articles 13 and 6 ECHR.

The case was initially adjourned pending the outcome of Grand Chamber proceedings in three other climate cases, in which the Court issued its rulings on 9 April 2024 (KlimaSeniorinnen, Duarte Agostinho and Carême). On 1 July 2024, it was announced that the Court had communicated the case to the Austrian government. The Court also granted the case priority under Article 41 of the Rules of Court, meaning that it will receive expedited treatment.

Status of case:
The case was communicated to the Austrian government on 1 July 2024 as per the Court’s press release below.

In communicating the case, the Court asked the following questions of the parties:

1.  Is the application admissible? In particular:

a.  Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of each of his complaints lodged with the Court under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention (see Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and Others (dec.) [GC], no. 39371/20, § 215, 9 April 2024, and Communauté genevoise d’action syndicale (CGAS) v. Switzerland [GC], no. 21881/20, §§ 138-145, 27 November 2023)?

b.  Can the applicant claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 53600/20, §§ 460-472, 478-488, 527-535, 9 April 2024)?

c.  Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case (see Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others, cited above, §§ 594-625)?

2.  To the extent that the complaints are admissible, has there been a violation of Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention? In particular:

a.  Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life or home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?

Did the respondent State fail to comply with its positive obligations to effectively protect the applicant’s respect for his private and family life, including his home (see Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others, cited above, §§ 538-574)?

b.  Did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others, cited above, §§ 626-640)?

Did the manner in which the Constitutional Court applied Articles 139 and 140 of the Federal Constitution involve excessive formalism (see Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 80-86, 96-99, 5 April 2018, and Dos Santos Calado and Others v. Portugal, nos. 55997/14 and 3 others, §§ 111-117, 31 March 2020)?

c.  Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

Suggested case citation:
ECtHR, Müllner v. Austria, application no. 18859/21, filed on 25 March 2021, communicated on 1 July 2024.

Links:
For the last-instance domestic judgment in this case, see here: https://www.vfgh.gv.at/downloads/VfGH_Beschluss_G_144_2020_vom_30._September_2020.pdf

For the full text of the application to the Court, see here: https://www.michaelakroemer.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/rechtsanwaeltin-michaela-kroemer-klimaklage-petition.pdf

For more information on the case from Fridays for Future Austria, see here.

For a statement from the applicant’s lawyer, Michaela Kroemer, see here.

Last updated:
1 July 2024.

Categories
Access to a remedy Czechia Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Private and family life Right to life Uncategorized Victim status

Klimatická žaloba ČR, z.s. and Others v. Czech Republic

Summary:

On 21 April 2021, the plaintiffs in this case (Klimatická žaloba ČR, an NGO established for the purpose of climate litigation; the Municipality of Svatý Jan pod Skalou; the Czech Ornithological Society; and four individuals) initiated a civil action against unlawful interference, naming four ministries of the Czech government and the Czech government (cabinet) as defendants. They contested failures to provide adequate and necessary mitigation and adaptation measures to protect against the adverse effects of climate change. They also alleged that the Czech government’s failures to adequately address climate change had violated the rights to life, health, a healthy environment, and other rights guaranteed by the Czech constitution, the Czech Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, and the European Convention on Human Rights. They alleged that this interference was constituted by their failure to implement concrete measures for the mitigation of climate change, based on international law (in particular, the Paris Agreement), EU law, and Article 35 of the Czech Charter on Fundamental Rights (Charter), which provides for the right to a favourable environment.

The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Czech government failed to respect their rights by ensuring sufficient emissions reductions to meet the Paris Agreement’s targets. They also sought an order setting the Czech carbon budget at 800 Mt CO2 from January 2021 until the end of the century.

The plaintiffs were initially successful before the Municipal Court of Prague, whose judgment was subsequently annulled by the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic. On 5 February 2025, the plaintiffs filed a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic alleging violations of several rights under the Charter and Articles 2, 8 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).  

Procedural History 

The first instance the plaintiffs approached was the Municipal Court in Prague. On 15 June 2022, the Municipal Court rendered a judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, declaring that each of the four ministries had unlawfully interfered with the applicants’ right to a favourable environment under of Article 35 of the Charter, on the grounds that they had not undertaken measures for the state to achieve a 55% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, compared to 1990 levels. It held that the claims against the cabinet as inadmissible as it did not constitute an ‘administrative authority’ against whom claims of unlawful interference could be brought under the Czech Code of Administrative Justice. 

Both the parties appealed against this judgment. The defendant ministries (appellants) argued that the Municipal Court exceeded its competence in breach of the separation of powers doctrine and interpreted EU and international law incorrectly. The plaintiffs (cross-appellants) argued that the Municipal Court erred in declining the cabinet’s capacity to be sued and ought to have prescribed a more ambitious mitigation target than the 55% target for the Czech government to achieve. On 20 February 2023, the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) overruled the Municipal Court’s decision on account of the separation of powers doctrine and found that it incorrectly interpreted the EU climate target (entailing 55% emission reduction by 2030) as EU law does not prescribe a specific mandatory emissions reduction target for the Czech Republic alone. Since this was a cassation appeal, the SAC remanded the case to the Municipal Court. Following a remand and a subsequent dismissal by the Municipal Court, the plaintiffs’ final appeal to the SAC was unsuccessful.

Claims

The plaintiffs thus filed a complaint before the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, seeking an annulment of the SAC and Municipal Court decisions on account of violations of their rights under Articles 6, 10, 11, 26, 31, 35 and 36 of the Charter and Articles 2, 6 and 8 of the ECHR. 

In support of their arguments, the plaintiffs relied on climate jurisprudence from the Netherlands, France, Germany, Ireland, Nepal, Colombia, and most importantly, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, which emphasize the judiciary’s role in reviewing the state’s mitigation policy based on human rights law. They also placed heavy reliance on the interpretation of Article 8 of the ECHR laid down in the case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen and Others v. Switzerland to challenge the lack of a national carbon budget for the Czech Republic, a climate neutrality target, and binding intermediate emission reduction targets. Furthermore, they problematized the SAC’s use of European Climate Law (which provides for a framework for emissions reduction targets to be achieved by EU member states collectively) as a shield against the plaintiffs’ human rights claims against the Czech Republic. 

Judgment

On 22 October 2025, the Constitutional Court issued its ruling wherein it dismissed the plaintiffs’ requests by emphasizing on the form of action they used to bring the claim before the Municipal Court (and SAC). Under the Code of Administrative Justice, the administrative authorities in question could only be regarded as having produced an unlawful interference by failing to implement their statutory duties. The Court found the plaintiffs had not proven how the ministries could adopt the requested measures within their existing legal authorizations. It also held that neither the Constitution nor the ECHR specifically obligate the four named ministries to adopt the measures requested by the applicants. 

Regarding the KlimaSeniorinnen judgment, the Constitutional Court held that while the ECtHR is an international court which assesses the actions of the state as a whole, its own role was limited to examining the conduct of the named defendant ministries. Finally, it held that the administrative courts did not violate the plaintiffs’ right of access to the court (Article 36 of the Charter, and Article 6 of the ECHR) as it found the courts to have examined each of their submissions and ruled on the entire subject matter of the proceedings. 

Status: 

The Constitutional Court ruling is final and cannot be appealed.

On 2 February 2026, the NGO Klimatická žaloba ČR submitted an application to the ECtHR alleging violations of Articles 8, 6 and 13 of the ECHR. 

Links:

The ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic can be found here.

The Municipal Court of Prague Judgment from 15 June 2022 (finding in favour of the plaintiffs) can be found here (Czech) and here (unofficial English translation). 

The decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic (SAC), annulling the Municipal Court of Prague Judgment from 15 June 2022, dated 20 February 2023 can be found here (Czech).

The Municipal Court of Prague Judgment from 25 October 2023 (upon remand of the case from the SAC) can be found here.

The second decision of the SAC dated 26 November 2024 (dismissing the plaintiffs’ appeal) can be found here.

All other case related documents can be found on the website of the NGO Klimatická žaloba. 

Suggested citation: 

Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, Klimatická žaloba ČR, z.s. and Others v. Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Industry and Trade, Ministry of Agriculture, and Ministry of Transport, Czech Republic, Pl. ÚS 6/25, 22 October 2025, Judge Veronika Křesťanová (judge rapporteur).

Last updated:
12 March 2026.

Categories
2021 Access to a remedy Elderly Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights Fossil fuel extraction Norway Private and family life Prohibition of torture Right to life

The Norwegian Grandparents’ Climate Campaign and Others v. Norway

Summary:
This case was filed on 26 March 2021 by The Norwegian Grandparents’ Climate Campaign (or Besteforeldrenes klimaaksjon, see the NGO’s website here, which counted 5600 members at the time and aims to counter anthropogenic climate change) along with four individuals, who were then aged 29, 32, 80, and 9 months. According to the Court’s press release, the case relates to the same domestic proceedings as the subject of Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway (no. 34068/21). Before the Court, the applicants invoke Articles 2, 3, 8, 13 and 14 ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (the right to life, the prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, the right to respect for private and family life, the right to an effective remedy, the prohibition of discrimination and the right to property). They rights, they argue, have been infringed by the Norwegian authorities’ petroleum activities in the Barents Sea in the Arctic Ocean. They describe, in particular, the disastrous effects of rising temperature levels on Norway, invoking the prevention and precautionary principles, inter-generational equity and Norway’s duty of care.

The applicants argue that there is a “real and imminent threat” facing them as Norwegian oil production contributes to the reaching of tipping points in the global climate system. On the Court’s victim status requirements (standing), they argue that these criteria must be interpreted in harmony with the priniciple of inter-generational equity, and invoke both the Rio Declaration and the Paris Agreement to argue that current generations have a duty to act as stewards of the planet for future generations.

This case has not yet been communicated by the Court at the time of writing. It had been announced, however, that the case has been adjourned pending the outcome of Grand Chamber proceedings in three other climate cases (i.e. KlimaSeniorinnen, Duarte Agostinho, and Carême; see “Status of case” below). More information on the case will be published as it becomes available.

Date filed:
26 March 2021

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 case citation:
ECtHR, The Norwegian Grandparents’ Climate Campaign and Others v. Norway, application no. 19026/21, filed on 26 March 2021 (not yet communicated).

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

For further information on the domestic proceedings, see Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway (no. 34068/21).

For the full standardized application form submitted to the ECtHR, see here.

Last updated:
16 March 2023.

Categories
2020 Climate activists and human rights defenders Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Extraterritorial obligations Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to life The Netherlands

Greenpeace Netherlands v. State of the Netherlands (KLM)

Summary:

During the Covid-19 pandemic, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines struggled with serious financial difficulties. To support the airline during the crisis, the Dutch government granted KLM a bailout package totalling 3.4 billion Euros. Along with the support package, a number of conditions were imposed on KLM. These included a set of sustainability requirements and a requirement to reduce CO2 emissions. As a result, Greenpeace Netherlands sued the Dutch government before the District Court of the Hague on 7 October 2020. Greenpeace claimed that the conditions imposed were not sufficient to achieve the climate goals of the Paris Agreement and that the state should either have imposed a cap on CO2 emissions on the airline or should not have granted the bailout package at all. In Greenpeace’s view, the state has thus breached its duty of care to prevent dangerous climate change, following the ruling of the Dutch Supreme Court in the Urgenda Foundation case, thereby allegedly violating of Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

In its ruling of 9 December 2020, the court ruled against Greenpeace, reasoning that neither the Paris Agreement nor other international climate agreements oblige the Dutch government to reduce CO2 emissions from international aviation. According to the court, the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 stipulates that cooperation with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is required for CO2 reduction in international aviation. The Paris Agreement therefore only contains the obligation to reduce domestic emissions, but not emissions from international air traffic. Furthermore, the court found that the conditions requested by Greenpeace go beyond the ICAO’s resolution on CO2 emissions and that the conditions imposed by the Dutch government are in accordance with all international obligations in this regard. The court concluded that there was no obligation of the State of the Netherlands which was violated by granting KLM the bailout package with its conditions.

Date of decision:

9 December 2020

Suggested case citation:

District Court of The Hague, Greenpeace Netherlands v. State of the Netherlands, Judgment of 9 December 2020, C/09/600364 / KG ZA 20-933, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:12440.

Case ducuments:

District-Court-Judgment-in-DutchDownload
Plaintiffs-advocacy-note-in-DutchDownload
Notice-of-possible-legal-procedure-in-DutchDownload

Date last updated:

11 January 2023

Categories
Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights France Paris Agreement Sea-level rise Uncategorized

Commune de Grande-Synthe v. France

Summary:
This case was brought to the French Conseil d’Etat by the municipality of Grande-Synthe, which is a low-lying coastal community, against the French government. The plaintiffs alleged that the government had taken insufficient action to combat climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and invoked the European Convention on Human Rights, the Paris Agreement, and domestic environmental regulations.

Admissibility:
The case was declared admissible on 19 November 2020 by the Conseil d’Etat. The Government was given three months to justify its current approach to climate measures. The Conseil d’Etat indicated that the Paris Agreement, and France’s 40% reduction target by 2030 as opposed to 1990 emissions levels, would be used to interpret the State’s obligations.

Merits:
Pending

Remedies:
Pending

Separate opinions:
Pending

Implementation measures taken:
On 1 July 2021, it was announced that, in light of this case, the French Conseil d’État would require the Government to take measures before 31 March 2022 in order to reach the target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions totalling 40% by the year 2030.

To achieve the reduction targets set out in the Paris Agreement, meaning a -40% reduction in emissions as compared to 1990 levels, the Government had previously adopted a reductions plan covering four time periods (2015-2018, 2019-2023, 2024-2028 and 2029-2033), each with its own reduction targets. The Conseil d’État observed in its decision of 1 July 2021 that the level of emissions measured in 2019 had respected the annual target set for the period of 2019-2023. However, the 0.9% decrease in emissions observed was too low when compared to the reduction objectives for the previous period (2015-2018), which were 1.9% per year, and compared to the objectives for the following period (2024-2028), which are 3% per year. Provisional data for 2020 might show a significant drop in emissions, but this must be to some extent due to pandemic-related restrictions and must therefore be regarded as “transitory”. It did not, by itself, guarantee that the reductions needed to achieve the 2030 target were being made. The Conseil d’État found that additional efforts were needed in the short term to achieve the target of 12% emissions reductions between 2024 and 2028.

Date:
Pending

Type of Forum:
Domestic

Status of case:
Pending

Suggested case citation:
Decision on the Admissibility: French Conseil d’Etat, Commune de Grande-Synthe and Others v. France, case no. 427301, Admissibility, 19 November 2020.

Links:
http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/non-us-case/commune-de-grande-synthe-v-france/

Categories
2020 Austria Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Keywords Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to life Rights at stake Standing/admissibility State concerned Year

Greenpeace et al. v. Austria (The Zoubek Case)

Summary:
On 20 February 2020, Greenpeace Austria and other applicants called on the Austrian Constitutional Court to invalidate the preferential tax treatment of aviation companies over rail transportation companies in two Austrian tax laws. They claim that this preferential treatment would lead to an unjustified favoring of passenger air traffic and a disadvantage for less climate-damaging means of transport (e.g. railroads). Furthermore, the value-added tax exemption for cross-border flights and the kerosene exemption for domestic flights lead to higher prices for rail than for air travel and thus, contribute to climate change. Against this background, the applicants alleged that their rights under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) were violated, since the Austrian State has not fulfilled its duty to protect its citizens from the consequences of climate change.

On 30 September 2020, the Constitutional Court dismissed the application as inadmissible because it considered that the plaintiffs were not covered by the challenged legislation, which does not apply to rail transport, but only to air transport.

One of the applicants, who suffers from multiple sclerosis and Uhthoff’s syndrome, took this case to the European Court of Human Rights. He alleges a violation of his rights under, among others, Article 8 ECHR. The case, Müllner v. Austria, was filed at the ECtHR on 25 March 2021.

Date of decision:
30 September 2020

Status of case:
Dismissed

Suggested citation:
Austrian Verfassungsgerichtshof, Greenpeace et al. v. Austria, Decision of 30 September 2020 – G 144-145/2020-13, V 332/2020-13.

Links:
For the decision of the Constitutional Court, see here.

For the application, see here.

Categories
2020 Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Ireland Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to life

Friends of the Irish Environment v. Government of Ireland

Summary:
In this case, brought before the Irish Supreme Court by the environmental activist group Friends of the Irish Environment, the Supreme Court quashed the Irish National Mitigation Plan of 2017 on the grounds that it was incompatible with the Irish Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 (the 2015 Climate Act). The Supreme Court ordered the creation of a new, Climate Act-compliant plan.

Facts:
The case was premised on evidence that Ireland was set to miss its 2030 mitigation targets by a substantial degree.

Domestic instances:
The applicant’s claim was unsuccessful before the High Court. After the High Court proceedings were concluded, the Irish Supreme Court agreed to hear the case directly, without first seizing the Court of Appeal with the case. In doing so, the Supreme Court noted the “general public and legal importance” of the case, and the fact that the seriousness of climate change, the climate science, and the emissions at stake were not contested.

Merits:
In a unanimous seven-judge judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Clarke on 31 July 2020, the Supreme Court found that the Mitigation Plan did not reach the level of detail required under the 2015 Climate Act and was ultra vires that Act.

However, the judges did not allow the applicants’ rights-based arguments. Because Friends of the Irish Environment was a corporate entity, it did not enjoy the right to life or bodily integrity under the ECHR and the Irish Constitution, and lacked standing to bring these claims. Chief Justice Clarke CJ accepted that constitutional rights could be engaged in environmental cases, but held that the Irish Constitution does not contain a right to a healthy environment.

Date of judgment:
31 July 2020

Suggested citation:
Supreme Court of Ireland, Friends of the Irish Environment v. The Government of Ireland and Others, Judgment of 31 July 2020, [2020] IESC 49.

Further reading:
Orla Kelleher, ‘The Supreme Court of Ireland’s decision in Friends of the Irish Environment v Government of Ireland (“Climate Case Ireland”)’ in EJIL Talk!, 9 September 2020.

The full text of the judgment is available here.

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

Urgenda Foundation v. the Netherlands

Summary:
This case, brought in 2013 by the Urgenda foundation and hundreds of Dutch citizens against the Netherlands, has become the leading climate and human rights judgment, and served as inspiration for similar litigation around the world. The final judgment in this case was issued in 2019, and in this case the domestic courts not only found that the Dutch climate policy had violated Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the rights to life and respect for private and family life, respectively), but also issued an injunction requiring greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

Remedies ordered:
District Court of The Hague had previously ruled that the government was obligated to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020 in comparison to 1990 levels. The District Court’s decision was appealed by the State. The Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s decision on 9 October 2018. After the State’s appeal to the Supreme Court, the Supreme court ruled in favour of Urgenda and held that the government has a legal duty to prevent dangerous climate change.

Date of final domestic judgment:
20 December 2019

More on this case:
For the final judgment in Dutch, click here.

For the summary provided by the Supreme Court (English), click here.

Recommended reading:
Ingrid Leijten, ‘Human Rights v. Insufficient Climate Action: The Urgenda Case’ 37(2) Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights (2019)

Benoit Mayer, ‘The State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation: Ruling of the Court of Appeal of The Hague (9 October 2018)’ 8(1) Transnational Environmental Law (2019), 167-192.

Maiko Meguro, ‘State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation’ 114(4) American Journal of International Law (2020), 729-735.

Suggested citation:
Hague District Court, Urgenda Foundation v. the Netherlands, Judgment of 24 June 2015, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:7196.

Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), Urgenda Foundation v. the Netherlands, Judgment of 20 December 2019, No. 19/00135, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2006.