Category: Private and family life

Categories
2024 Emissions reductions/mitigation European Court of Human Rights France Private and family life Right to life Standing/admissibility Victim status

Carême v. France

Summary:
On 7 June 2022, the European Court of Human Rights announced the relinquishment of an application against France concerning the municipality of Grande-Synthe to the Court’s Grand Chamber. The applicant in this case, in his capacity as mayor of the municipality of Grande-Synthe, was originally involved in the Grande-Synthe case, but the Conseil d’État held on 19 November 2020 that, unlike the municipality itself, Mr Carême could not prove that he had an interest in bringing proceedings.

This was the second climate case to reach the Court’s Grand Chamber, after the Klimaseniorinnen application. The case was lodged on 28 January 2021, and the Grand Chamber held a public hearing in this case on 29 March 2023, making it the second climate case to be heard by the Court (after KlimaSeniorinnen).

Before the Court, the applicant argued that France’s insufficient climate change mitigation measures violated his rights to life (Article 2 ECHR) and to respect for private and family life (Article 8 ECHR). The Court summarized the applicant’s complaint as follows:

The applicant submits that the failure of the authorities to take all appropriate measures to enable France to comply with the maximum levels of greenhouse gas emissions that it has set itself constitutes a violation of the obligation to guarantee the right to life, enshrined in Article 2 of the Convention, and to guarantee the “right to a normal private and family life”, under Article 8 of the Convention. In particular, the applicant argues that Article 2 imposes an obligation on States to take the necessary measures to protect the lives of persons under their jurisdiction, including in relation to environmental hazards that might cause harm to life. Under Article 8 he argues that by dismissing his action on the grounds that he had no interest in bringing proceedings, the Conseil d’État disregarded his “right to a normal private and family life”. He submits that he is directly affected by the Government’s failure to take sufficient steps in the combat against climate change, since this failure increases the risk that his home might be affected in the years to come, and in any event by 2030, and that it is already affecting the conditions in which he occupies his property, in particular by not allowing him to plan his life peacefully there. He adds that the extent of the risks to his home will depend in particular on the results obtained by the French Government in the prevention of climate change.

The Court’s press release on this case can be found here.

Date of decision:
It was announced on 26 March 2024 that the Grand Chamber would issue its judgment in this case, along with the two other climate cases pending before the Grand Chamber, in a hearing on 9 April 2024 at 10:30 a.m. The judgment and a summary were made available on the Court’s HUDOC database immediately after the hearing.

The Court’s findings on the admissibility:
From the summary prepared by Viktoriya Gurash on the day of the Grand Chamber decision in this case.

Today, on 9 April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights issued a Grand Chamber decision in this case, unanimously declaring the applicant’s complaints under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights inadmissible ratione personae.

The Court, first, noted that its assessment of Mr Carême’s victim status as a physical person in the climate context will be based on the criteria set out in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland, decided on the same day, which includes that: the applicant must be subject to a high intensity of exposure to the adverse effects of climate change; and there must be a pressing need to ensure the applicant’s individual protection, owing to the absence or inadequacy of any reasonable measures to reduce harm (para 487 of KlimaSeniorinnen). The Court emphasised that the threshold for fulfilling these criteria is especially high in view of the exclusion of actio popularis cases under the Convention (para 488 of KlimaSeniorinnen).

Using this framework, in Carême, the ECtHR first assessed the reasons adduced by the domestic courts, specifically the Conseil d’État, when rejecting Mr Carême’s standing. Before the national authorities, the applicant argued that the house in which he resided at the time was located close to the coastline and that according to some predictions it would be flooded by 2040, taking into account the effects of climate change. The Conseil d’État found that the area of the municipality of Grande-Synthe was at a very high level of exposure to high risks of flooding and severe drought with the effect not only of a reduction and degradation of water resources, but also significant damage to built-up areas, given the geological characteristics of the soil. However, the Conseil d’État ruled that Mr Carême did not have an interest in bringing proceedings on the basis of the mere fact that his current residence was located in an area likely to be subject to flooding by 2040. The ECtHR adhered to this argument, reasoning that the risk relating to climate change affecting the applicant is of hypothetical nature.

The crucial factor leading to the Court’s decision as regards the applicant’s victim status is that he no longer has any relevant links with Grande-Synthe because he no longer resides in France, nor does he own or rent any property in Grande-Synthe. The Court noted that in his initial application the applicant indicated an address in Grande-Synthe, although at that time he no longer resided in that municipality but in Brussels. In view of this, the Court found moot Mr Carême’s argument that his residence in Grande-Synthe was at a future risk of flooding and that the current situation prevented him from envisaging himself serenely in his home.

The Court held that the applicant had no right to lodge a complaint under Article 34 of the Convention on behalf of the municipality of Grande-Synthe because, in view of the ECtHR’s settled case law, decentralised authorities that exercise public functions are considered to be ‘governmental organisations’ that have no standing. In addition, the Court highlighted that the interests of the residents of Grande-Synthe have, in any event, been defended by their municipality before the Conseil d’État in accordance with national law.

Furthermore, as regards the applicant’s claim that he had developed allergic asthma making him particularly sensitive to air pollution caused by climate change, the Court found that since this issue was not raised in the initial application, it constitutes a new and distinct complaint and falls outside the scope of this case.

Further reading:

  • For a comment on this case, see Marta Torre-Schaub’s post on Verfassungsblog.
  • For the judgment, click here.
  • For the Court’s Q&A on the three climate cases, click here.

Webcast of the hearing:
To watch a webcast recording of the public hearing in this case, which was held before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on 29 March 2023, click here (available in French and English).

Suggested citation:
ECtHR, Carême v. France, no. 7189/21, decision (Grand Chamber) of 9 April 2024

Last updated:
9 April 2024

Categories
2022 Austria Disability and health-related inequality Domestic court Non-discrimination Private and family life Right to health Right to life Rights at stake

In Re Tax Benefits for Aviation

Summary:
The applicant, a consumer utilising both rail and air services, applied for relief, citing a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis and health issues exacerbated by the climate crisis. She argued that existing Austrian tax laws favouring aviation over rail travel contributed to environmental problems and violated her constitutional rights, including the right to equality before the law, the right to life, and the right to private and family life. Specifically, the applicant contended that tax benefits for aviation companies created an unjustified disparity in treatment between equivalent means of transport, negatively impacting consumers who choose rail travel.

Claim:
The applicant claimed that the tax advantages granted to aviation companies, in contrast to railway companies, violated her fundamental rights. These rights included the right to equality before the law, with the applicant asserting that the tax benefits led to unequal treatment of equivalent means of transport in direct competition. Additionally, she argued a violation of her right to life, contending that climate change, exacerbated by tax benefits to aviation, posed a threat to human life, and that the state failed in its positive obligation to adopt measures to prevent such threats. The applicant also alleged a violation of her right to private and family life, asserting that the state’s encouragement of climate-damaging behavior through tax benefits violated its positive obligations to protect health, well-being, and bodily integrity from environmental hazards.

Decision:
On 27 June 2023, the Constitutional Court of Austria dismissed the application as inadmissible. The court cited the amendment to the Value-Added Tax Act as of 1 January 2023, which extended value-added tax (VAT) exemptions from aviation and maritime shipping to cross-border rail transport. The court determined that the contested provision was no longer in force, leading to a lack of standing for the applicants. Additionally, the court held that the obligation to pay VAT was directed at businesses, excluding consumers from challenging relevant provisions. The same rationale applied to the mineral oil tax, as it was not payable by consumers, and they were deemed not affected in their legal sphere, thus lacking the entitlement to challenge tax provisions.

Link:
The case document is accessible below.

20230627_19868_decisionDownload

Status of the case:
Decided.

Suggested citation:
In Re Tax Benefits for Aviation [2022] G 106-107/2022-10, V 140/2022-10 (Constitutional Court of Austria).

Last updated:
12 December 2023.

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
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
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

Categories
Australia Children and young people Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Fossil fuel extraction Indigenous peoples rights Non-discrimination Private and family life Right to life Right to property

Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v. Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors

Summary:

The case concerns the applications by Waratah Coal Pty Ltd. (WC) for a ‘mining license’ and an ‘environmental authority’ under the Australian mining regulation and environmental protection legislation. These would allow it to mine coal in areas of the Galilee Basin, including parts of a protected area under the nature conservation law.  

The case reached the Land Court of Queensland on account of objections by environmental groups to WC’s applications. The Land Court of Queensland’s role was to provide a recommendation to the governmental authorities responsible for deciding on the applications after reviewing their merits (considering the compatibility of the proposed project with the environmental laws in Australia). However, the Court also found that the human rights implications of the coal mining project were relevant. The justification for this was that the court was directly bound by the Human Rights Act 2019 to not make a decision that is incompatible with human rights.

In its lengthy judgment, Court concluded on the basis of the evidence available to it and the interests at stake that it could not recommend the approval of WC’s applications.

Claims:

The objectors to WC’s applications raised several contentions in regards to the local and global environmental impacts of allowing coal mining in the Galilee Basin (including its contribution to climate change), as well as interference with private property rights. WC refuted these contentions and found that several issues raised by the objectors were irrelevant to the decision of their applications.  

In regards to climate change, WC disagreed that the emissions produced by foreign consumers of the mined coal are a relevant consideration. It argued that approving the mining of coal does not entail approving its combustion, and that the responsibility for the emissions from the latter falls on importing countries which decide to do so.  WC also argued that the mine will make no difference to total emissions because it would displace lower quality coal with higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  

Decision:

The Court framed its recommendation as pertaining to the specific coal mining project in question rather than coal mining in general. It was not convinced by the evidence put forth by WC with respect to the adequacy of its plans of offsetting the environmental impacts which would follow from the coal mining project.

In relation to climate change, the Court found that the mitigation of climate change was amongst the public interests which needed to be considered in the balance against the public interest considerations in support of the project (such as economic development). While the Court acknowledged that the project itself would not necessarily put Australia over its greenhouse gas emissions budget or lead to an exceedence of the temperature limits set by the Paris Agreement, Australia’s limited carbon budget and the risks of exceeding the 1.5° and 2°degree C temperature limits, and Queensland’s intention to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, were strong factors which supported the refusal of the project. 

The Court rejected WC’s contentions in regards to foreign emissions from the combustion of the coal mined by WC, finding that not considering them would be inconsistent with the public interest criterion in the environmental protection legislation.

The Court found that the human rights to life, protection of children, culture of First Nations People, privacy and home, property, and the enjoyment by certain groups of rights without discrimination were engaged by the coal mining project. In its assessment, the project constituted a ‘limit’ to these rights owing to its causal link with climate change which, in turn, affects the enjoyment of these rights. The Court concluded that the economic and other public interest benefits of the project were not sufficient to justify the limitation of human rights which would result from the project.

Links:

For full judgment of 25 November 2022, see here.

Suggested case citation:

Land Court of Queensland, Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21, 25 November 2022, President Fleur Kingham.

Last updated:

03 August 2023.

Categories
2023 Business responsibility / corporate cases Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Imminent risk Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to life Standing/admissibility Victim status

Citizens’ Committee on the Kobe Coal-Fired Power Plant v. Kobe Steel Ltd., et al.

Summary:
On 20 March 2023, a first-instance court in Japan heard a civil case concerning the construction and operation of new coal-fired power plants brought by the citizens of Kobe. Two weeks previously, on 9 March 2023, the Japanese Supreme Court refused to hear its first-ever administrative climate case concerning the same set of facts, giving no substantive reasons for doing so. In the civil case, which was filed in 2018, 40 citizens of Kobe brought suit against three corporations involved in the construction and operation of the plants. They argued that these plants would impact themtheir personal rights and right to a peaceful life both through air pollution and through their contribution to the climate change.

As Grace Nishikawa and Masako Ichihara have explained on the Sabin Center’s Climate Law Blog, ‘personal rights’ are established through case-law and frequently enter into play in environmental cases. They protect personal well-being, including the rights to life, bodily integrity, health, and a peaceful life (the last of which the authors compare to the right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights). The plaintiffs in this case invoked these personal rights, arguing that the coal plants would aggravate climate change, leading to extreme heat and rainfall events that would directly affect them. In their submissions, they made arguments based on international and comparative law, mentioning carbon budgets, the Paris Agreement, the Dutch Urgenda case, and the Glasgow Climate Pact.

In its first-instance judgment, the Kobe District Court accepted that greenhouse emissions, including those from the plant, contribute to climate change and can violate personal rights. However, it found the risk of harm to the individual plaintiffs to be too uncertain, and rejected their claim, noting the difficulty of causally attributing responsibility for damage related to climate change.

Concerning the alleged violation of the right to a peaceful life, which the plaintiffs argued contains a right to a healthy and peaceful life, the Court likewise rejected this claim, for the same reasons, finding that fears about climate change were not concrete enough to constitute human rights violation. The Court also noted that there was no legally recognized right stable climate in Japan.

Concerning the additional air pollution complaint, the Court found that this was not serious enough to constitute a concrete danger to the plaintiffs’ rights. It also did not engage with the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction halting the operation of the coal plants.

Appeal:
Climate Case Chart reports that an appeal in this case was filed on 4 January 2023.

Further reading:
The above draws on the following two key sources:

The original case documents (in Japanese) are available via Climate Case Chart.

Suggested citation:
Kobe District Court, Citizens’ Committee on the Kobe Coal-Fired Power Plant v. Kobe Steel Ltd., et al., Judgment of 20 March 2023.

Last updated:
20 July 2023