Tag: European Court of Human Rights

Verein KlimaSeniorinnen et al. v. Switzerland

Post author By Corina Heri
Post date 9 Apr 2024
3 Comments on Verein KlimaSeniorinnen et al. v. Switzerland

Summary:
In 2016, the Senior Women for Climate Protection Switzerland (German: ‘Verein KlimaSeniorinnen’), a Swiss organisation, brought proceedings concerning the alleged omissions of the Swiss federal government to adopt an adequate climate protection policy. They submitted that current domestic climate targets and measures are not sufficient to limit global warming to a safe level. This failure to prevent climate-related disasters, they argued, represents a failure to protect the rights under Articles 2 and 8 ECHR (the rights to life and respect for private and family life, respectively) of the organization’s members. In particular, they submitted evidence that their specific demographic (older women) is particularly impacted by heatwaves, citing health impacts and excess mortality risks. The respondent State, they argued, has failed to comply with its positive obligations to protect their rights, read in light of the environmental law principles of precaution and intergenerational equity.

The applicants also invoked two procedural rights under the Convention, namely the rights in Articles 6 and 13 ECHR (right to a fair trial and right to an effective remedy, respectively). In this regard they argued that the domestic courts failed to take their case seriously and provide an effective remedy to contest the violation of their rights.

These claims were rejected by the domestic instances at three levels of jurisdiction. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court, in its ruling, considered that the case represented an actio popularis, concerned questions better suited to the political arena, and did not raise an arguable claim of a rights violation. As a result, the applicants took their case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

This case was only the second climate change-related case to come to Strasbourg. Like the Duarte Agostinho case, this application raised novel questions before the Court, including the issue of victim status in climate cases, the standing of (environmental) NGOs to bring cases to the Court, and the extent of the State margin of appreciation in regard to environmental protection measures related to climate change, and the extent of the positive obligation to protect individuals from the risks to their life and health posed by climate change.

On 9 April 2024, in a historic ruling, the ECtHR declared this case admissible in part (for the association) and found that there had been violations of Articles 6(1) and 8 ECHR. In doing so, this case became the Court’s leading climate judgment, and a model for further climate-related cases in this system.

Third-party interventions:
There were an unusually large (for the ECtHR) number of third party interventions in this case: 23 in total, including eight States. The KlimaSeniorinnen association provided copies of all of the third-party interventions; these are available here. Some of the third-party interveners were also granted leave to intervene orally during the hearing before the Grand Chamber.

Grand Chamber hearing:
This was the first climate case heard by the European Court of Human Rights, followed immediately by the Carême v. France case. The Court has adjourned its examination of six other climate cases until the Grand Chamber has ruled in the three climate change cases before it, meaning that leading judgments clarifying the Convention obligations around cliamte change can be expected in these cases.

During the hearing, submissions were heard from the applicants, the respondent State, and two of the 23 total third-party interveners (the Government of Ireland & the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI). A live summary of the hearing is available here.

General findings of the Court in its judgment of 9 April 2024:
The Court’s judgment is prefaced by a number of general findings that reflect its intended nature as a leading case. Noting the need to ensure effective protection of Convention rights without undermining the prohibition of actio popularis cases under the Convention system, the Court acknowledged that it had a role to play here, finding that “the current situation (…) involves compelling present‑day conditions, confirmed by scientific knowledge, which the Court cannot ignore in its role as a judicial body tasked with the enforcement of human rights.” At the same time, noting “the necessarily primary responsibility of the legislative and executive branches and the inherently collective nature of both the consequences and the challenges arising from the adverse effects of climate change”, it held that the issue of victim status here raised an issue of the separation of powers, requiring particular consideration. Noting the global and complex nature of climate change, it held that “the necessity of combating climate change involves various conflicts, the weighing‑up of which falls, as stated previously, within the democratic decision‑making processes, complemented by judicial oversight by the domestic courts and this Court.”

In light of this, and before assessing the case, the Court set out a number of general considerations relating to climate‑change cases. This includes questions of causation, including the finding that despite indirect causal links, “the essence of the relevant State duties in the context of climate change relates to the reduction of the risks of harm for individuals”, meaning that it could not apply “a strict conditio sine qua non requirement” to matters of causation. This section also includes issues of proof and evidence, and references the “evolution of scientific knowledge, social and political attitudes and legal standards concerning the necessity of protecting the environment”. Here the Court established that “there are sufficiently reliable indications that anthropogenic climate change exists, that it poses a serious current and future threat to the enjoyment of human rights guaranteed under the Convention, that States are aware of it and capable of taking measures to effectively address it, that the relevant risks are projected to be lower if the rise in temperature is limited to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and if action is taken urgently, and that current global mitigation efforts are not sufficient to meet the latter target” (para. 436). And, importantly, it discarded the “drop in the bucket” argument made by the respondent State, stating that “The relevant test does not require it to be shown that “but for” the failing or omission of the authorities the harm would not have occurred. Rather, what is important, and sufficient to engage the responsibility of the State, is that reasonable measures which the domestic authorities failed to take could have had a real prospect of altering the outcome or mitigating the harm” (para. 444). It also stressed that there is no right to a healthy environment in the ECHR, but that it can and has nonetheless dealt with other environmental cases, reiterating its past approach that “the crucial element which must be present in determining whether, in the circumstances of a given case, an environmental harm has adversely affected one of the rights safeguarded by the Convention is the existence of a harmful effect on a person and not simply the general deterioration of the environment” (para. 446). It also noted that it is conscious of its subsidiary role and the direct democratic legitimation of national authorities to make decisions on climate policy, but that where State policy affects Convention rights, it has competence to intervene and “the Court’s competence in the context of climate-change litigation cannot, as a matter of principle, be excluded” (paras. 449-451).

The Court also set out the relevant principles for interpreting the ECHR, including the living instrument approach and the fact that while the Court “does not have the authority to ensure compliance with international treaties or obligations other than the Convention” — including the Paris Agreement — it has consistently noted that it will interpret the Convention in harmony with other international law.

Admissibility:
On 9 April 2024, the Court declared this case admissible in part. Under Article 34 ECHR, it used this judgment as an opportunity to create new standards on victim status specific to climate-related cases. In doing so, it set out the general standards on victim status, noting that it did not admit actio popularis cases and that the ECHR “does not permit individuals or groups of individuals to complain about a provision of national law simply because they consider, without having been directly affected by it, that it may contravene the Convention” (para. 460). It noted that the notion of victim status must be applied flexibly, and that it’s distinct from locus standi, i.e. representative actions.

The Court then issued general considerations on victim status and locus standi in climate cases, noting that “there is cogent scientific evidence demonstrating that climate change has already contributed to an increase in morbidity and mortality, especially among certain more vulnerable groups, that it actually creates such effects and that, in the absence of resolute action by States, it risks progressing to the point of being irreversible and disastrous” (para. 478).

It also held that (para. 479): the critical issues around climate change “arise from failures to act, or inadequate action”, meaning omissions in legislative or regulatory frameworks that require a special approach to victim status. Importantly, the Court also clarified that its findings on victim status in the context of complaints about omissions in climate policy “is without prejudice to the determination of victim status in circumstances where complaints by individuals concern alleged violations arising from a specific individual loss or damage already suffered by them” (para. 480), meaning that the special approach spelled out for mitigation cases need not preclude other types of claims. However, it held, in the context of climate change, “a potentially a huge number of persons could claim victim status under the Convention”, which “would not sit well with the exclusion of actio popularis from the Convention mechanism and the effective functioning of the right of individual application” (para. 483). The Court clarified the difficult situation in which it found itself, between “disrupting national constitutional principles and the separation of powers” and depriving individuals affected in their rights from “any judicial recourse before the Court”, noting the “distinct representational disadvantage” of those most affected (para. 484). It then, in para 487 of the judgment, spelled out the criteria for individual victim status in climate cases. These are:

(a) “a high intensity of exposure to the adverse effects of climate change”, i.e. a significant level and severity of risk of adverse consequences; and
(b) “a pressing need to ensure the applicant’s individual protection, owing to the absence or inadequacy of any reasonable measures to reduce harm.”

Given that there is no actio popularis under the Convention, the Court held, “the threshold for fulfilling these criteria is especially high”, and will depend on specific vulnerabilities and local circumstances as well as including considerations relating to: “the nature and scope of the applicant’s Convention complaint, the actuality/remoteness and/or probability of the adverse effects of climate change in time, the specific impact on the applicant’s life, health or well-being, the magnitude and duration of the harmful effects, the scope of the risk (localised or general), and the nature of the applicant’s vulnerability” (para. 488).

As to the standing of associations, the Court generally reiterated its previous Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others judgment, which had allowed representative standing for an organisation. It noted that recourse to collective bodies like associations can make defense of one’s interests more accessible in certain circumstances, including the context of climate change, noting that this general principle was also reflected in the Aarhus Convention. The Court then set out some general principles on organizations’ victim status versus their standing as representatives of victims. In light of the former, it reiterated past case-law finding that “an association cannot rely on health considerations or nuisances and problems associated with climate change which can only be encountered by natural persons”. But it also recognized that understandings of the importance of litigation by associations had evolved, and that climate cases are complex and demanding and affect many individuals (para. 498). In addition, “the special feature of climate change as a common concern of humankind and the necessity of promoting intergenerational burden-sharing in this context (…), speak in favour of recognising the standing of associations before the Court in climate-change cases” (para. 499). However, this should not mean allowing an actio popularis: a test for associations’ standing is required. To design its test, the Court had regard to the Aarhus Convention while also noting key difference between its approach and that under Aarhus.

The test it devised for associations looks as follows (§ 502): associations will have locus standi to bring climate cases about impacts on human lives and health where they:

(a) have been lawfully established in the relevant jurisdiction, or have standing to act there;
(b) pursue, under their statutory objectives, a dedicated purpose of defending the human rights of their members or other affected individuals in the jurisdiction concerned, and
(c) are genuinely qualified and representative to act on behalf of affected individuals in the jurisdiction who are subject to specific threats on their lives, health or well-being from climate change.

The Court also noted that it would consider additional factors, like the purpose for which the association was established, its non-profit character, the nature and extent of its activities, its membership and representativeness, its principles and transparency of governance and whether standing is in the interests of the proper administration of justice.

There was no need, however, to show that those on whose behalf the case has been brought would themselves have met the climate-specific victim-status requirements for individuals as set out earlier in the judgment.

Because the Court joined its actual analysis of the victim status requirement to the merits of the case, this is discussed in the following section.

Merits:
In setting out general principles on the applicability of Article 2 ECHR (the right to life), the Court noted past cases where the right was applicable to situations where there is a threat to life, but “where the person concerned did not die”. Although noting the evidence on vulnerable populations, the Court reiterated that the appropriate test here is one of whether there is a “real and imminent” risk to life, meaning that the risk must be serious, genuine, sufficiently ascertainable and in physical proximity. It then tailored this last aspect to the nature of climate change, stating that it would suffice to show “an element of material and temporal proximity of the threat to the harm complained of by the applicant”. This means that, provided an applicant has victim status, “a serious risk of a significant decline in a person’s life expectancy owing to climate change ought also to trigger the applicability of Article 2.”

As for Article 8 ECHR, the Court stated generally that it was necessary to show an “actual interference” with the right, meaning that there needs to be “a direct and immediate link between the alleged environmental harm and the applicant’s private or family life or home”, and a certain level of severity. Drawing on its past environmental case-law, the Court went on to establish that “Article 8 must be seen as encompassing a right for individuals to effective protection by the State authorities from serious adverse effects of climate change on their life, health, well-being and quality of life” (para. 519).

The Court then considered the applicability of Art. 8 ECHR to the case before it. As concerned the applicant association, it found that it met the criteria for standing by associations as set out earlier in the judgment, describing the KlimaSeniorinnen association as “a vehicle of collective recourse aimed at defending the rights and interests of individuals against the threats of climate change in the respondent State”. The complaints pursued by the association on behalf of its members, it held, fall within the scope of Article 8. The association accordingly had locus standi, and Article 8 was declared applicable to its complaint.

On applicants 2-5 (the individual applicants), the Court held that the threshold for meeting its two criteria (high-intensity exposure and a pressing need to ensure protection) was high. It was not enough to show that they were particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. The crucial paragraph of the judgment here is para. 533: “while it may be accepted that heatwaves affected the applicants’ quality of life, it is not apparent from the available materials 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 (…). It cannot be said that the applicants suffered from any critical medical condition whose possible aggravation linked to heatwaves could not be alleviated by the adaptation measures available in Switzerland or by means of reasonable measures of personal adaptation”. Their complaint was accordingly declared inadmissible.

On the claims under Article 2, the Court held that it was not necessary to analyze this further, noting that its analysis would “have regard to the principles developed also under Article 2, which to a very large extent are similar to those under Article 8 (…) and which, when seen together, provide a useful basis for defining the overall approach to be applied in the climate-change context under both provisions.”

The Court then recapitulated more general principles now on the merits proper. It held that the Article 2 and 8 positive obligations are generally quite similar, requiring the State:

(a) to put in place an adequate legislative and administrative framework and govern the licensing, setting-up, operation, security and supervision of the activity;
(b) to apply that framework effectively in practice;
(c) to remain within their margin of appreciation;
(d) to exercise due diligence and consider all competing interests;
(f) to provide access to essential information enabling individuals to assess risks to their health and lives;

Noting also that “the scope of the positive obligations imputable to the State in the particular circumstances will depend on the origin of the threat and the extent to which one or the other risk is susceptible to mitigation”.

In reviewing the domestic decision-making process, the Court has particular regard to the following considerations:

(a) Its subsidiary role;
(b) The need to consider all of the procedural aspects;
(c) The presence of appropriate investigations and studies;
(d) The public’s access to the conclusions of the relevant studies; and
(e) Whether or not the individuals concerned had an opportunity to protect their interests in the environmental decision-making process, i.e. participate effectively.

Turning to States’ positive obligations relation to climate, it first considered the State margin of appreciation. Having regard to the scientific evidence, the Court considered it justified to give climate protection considerable weight against competing considerations.

Regarding the margin of appreciation it distinguished between the scope of the margin as regards (i) the State’s commitment combating climate change and setting objectives in this respect, and (ii) the choice of means designed to achieve those objectives. The margin is more narrow with regard to the former. For the latter aspect, i.e. the choice of means, States have a wide margin of appreciation.

As to the content of States’ positive obligations under Article 8, this is primarily a regulatory obligation. This means that, in line with their international commitments, States need to put in place regulations and measures to prevent climate change. The global aims in the Paris Agreement are not enough; and “must inform the formulation of domestic policies, it is obvious that the said aims cannot of themselves suffice as a criterion for any assessment of Convention compliance of individual Contracting Parties to the Convention in this area. This is because “each individual State is called upon to define its own adequate pathway for reaching carbon neutrality, depending on the sources and levels of emissions and all other relevant factors within its jurisdiction.”

This means that Article 8 ECHR “requires that each Contracting State undertake measures for the substantial and progressive reduction of their respective GHG emission levels, with a view to reaching net neutrality within, in principle, the next three decades” (ca. 2050). To avoid a disproportionate burden on future generations, this means immediate action needs to be taken and adequate intermediate reduction goals must be set for the interim period. The Court spelled out that this must be part of a binding regulatory framework at the national level, followed by adequate implementation, and that “the relevant targets and timelines must form an integral part of the domestic regulatory framework, as a basis for general and sectoral mitigation measures.”

In para. 550, the Court set out the criteria it would use to decide whether a State has remained within its margin of appreciation, namely whether the authorities had due regard to the need to:

“(a) adopt general measures specifying a target timeline for achieving carbon neutrality and the overall remaining carbon budget for the same time frame, or another equivalent method of quantification of future GHG emissions, in line with the overarching goal for national and/or global climate-change mitigation commitments;
(b) set out intermediate GHG emissions reduction targets and pathways (by sector or other relevant methodologies) that are deemed capable, in principle, of meeting the overall national GHG reduction goals within the relevant time frames undertaken in national policies;
(c) provide evidence showing whether they have duly complied, or are in the process of complying, with the relevant GHG reduction targets (…);
(d) keep the relevant GHG reduction targets updated with due diligence, and based on the best available evidence; and
(e) act in good time and in an appropriate and consistent manner when devising and implementing the relevant legislation and measures.”

These mitigation measures, it added, must be supplemented by adaptation measures aimed at alleviating the most severe or imminent consequences of climate change, taking into account particular protection needs.

The Court also set out procedural safeguards, namely

(a) The publicity of relevant information; and
(b) The availability of procedures to take into account the views of the public, and in particular the interests of those affected.

Applying these principles to the case before it, the Court held that it could “take into account the overall situation in the respondent State”, including relevant information that came to light after the domestic proceedings, but that here, given an ongoing domestic legislative process, its assessment was limited to examining the domestic legislation as it stood on the date of the (internal) adoption of the judgment, which was 14 February 2024.

The Court noted that the currently existing 2011 CO₂ Act (in force since 2013) required that emissions reductions of 20% by 2020 compared with 1990 levels. However, as far back as August 2009, the Swiss Federal Council had found that the scientific evidence under a 2-2.4°C warming limit required a reduction in global emissions of at least 50-85% by 2050 compared with 1990 levels. Industrialised countries (like Switzerland) had to reduce their emissions by 25-40% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels. for the higher 1.5°C limit, emissions would have to decline continuously, and the pathway 20% by 2020 pathway was insufficient to achieve that objective.

As the Government acknowledged, domestic assessments found that even the reduction target for 2020 had been missed. Between 2013 and 2020, Switzerland reduced its emissions by around 11% compared with 1990 levels, indicating the insufficiency of the authorities’ past action to take the necessary measures to address climate change.

A proposed revision of the CO2 Act for 2020-2030 proposed an overall reduction of 50% of emissions, including a domestic reduction of 30% by 2030 and measures to be taken abroad (“external emissions”). This proposal was rejected in a popular referendum in June 2021. Here the Court held that, “irrespective of the way in which the legislative process is organised from the domestic constitutional point of view”, there was a legislative lacuna, pointing to a failure on the part of the respondent State to fulfil its positive obligations under Article 8 to devise a regulatory framework setting the requisite objectives and goals.

Reflecting the updated Swiss NDC, the Climate Act was enacted, and envisages the principle of a net‑zero emissions target by 2050, but several lacunae remain, and “the Court has difficulty accepting that the mere legislative commitment to adopt the concrete measures “in good time” (…) satisfies the State’s duty”, especially because “the introduction of that new legislation is not sufficient to remedy the shortcomings identified in the legal framework applicable so far.”

Currently, the Swiss goal used more emissions than even a globally equal “per capita emissions” approach would entitle it to use.

The Court rejected the Government’s argument that there was no established methodology to determine a country’s carbon budget, and noted that an NDC under the Paris Agreement was not an appropriate substitute. The Court approved of the reasoning of the German Federal Constitutional Court in Neubauer, where it rejected the argument that it was impossible to determine the national carbon budget by emphasizing the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement.

Thus, “while acknowledging that the measures and methods determining the details of the State’s climate policy fall within its wide margin of appreciation, in the absence of any domestic measure attempting to quantify the respondent State’s remaining carbon budget, the Court has difficulty accepting that the State could be regarded as complying effectively with its regulatory obligation under Article 8” (para. 572). This meant that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (by a majority of 16-1).

On the issue of Article 6 ECHR, concerning the right of access to a court, the Court held that the issue of victim status should again be joined to the merits, and the Court again dove in with general principles, finding that it did not per se need to tailor these principles to the nature of climate change cases.

Examining these principles in the case before it, the Court held that “it cannot be said that the individual applicants’ claim was frivolous or vexatious or otherwise lacking in foundation in terms of the relevant domestic law (…). The Court is unable to agree with the finding of the FSC that the individual applicants’ claim could not be considered arguable for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention” (para. 618). It went on to find that interests defended by the association meant that the “dispute” raised by it had a direct and sufficient link to its members’ rights. Finding that Article 6 (1) applied to the complaint of the applicant association, the Court also considered it to have victim status.

For the individual applicants, however, the Court found that the dispute they had brought concerning the failure to effectively implement mitigation measures was not directly decisive for their specific rights. They had not shown that there was a sufficiently imminent and certain effect on their individual rights, and this part of their complaint was inadmissible.

For the association, among other things, the Court rejected the domestic courts’ findings that there was still some time to prevent global warming from reaching the critical limit, and noted that they “did not engage seriously or at all with the action brought by the applicant association.” There had accordingly been a violation of Art. 6(1) ECHR, with the Court emphasizing “the key role which domestic courts have played and will play in climate-change litigation”.

The applicants also complained that they had not had access to an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention. Here the Court noted that Article 6 is a lex specialis to Article 13, the latter being absorbed by the more stringent requirements of Article 6, so there was no separate issue in its regard.

Remedies:
The individual applicants had made requests for just satisfaction for damage under Article 41 ECHR, but the organisation did not, so no award was made. The Court did award costs and expenses to the amount of EUR 80,000.

The applicants had also made an Art. 46 claim for a general measures order. Here the Court noted that it is primarily for the State to choose, under the supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the means to be used domestically to discharge its obligation to comply with the Court’s judgment, as long as the means are compatible with the conclusions and spirit of that judgment. The Court went on to hold that, “having regard to the complexity and the nature of the issues involved, the Court is unable to be detailed or prescriptive as regards any measures to be implemented in order to effectively comply with the present judgment.” It noted the State’s broad margin of appreciation choose the means to discharge its Convention obligations, and found that the State was thus better placed than the Court to decide which specific measures to take.

Separate opinions:
A separate opinion by Judge Eicke is annexed to this judgment. He disagreed with the majority in several points, especially victim status and the merits of Art. 8. He presented his view as a disagreement of a “fundamental nature” that “goes to the very heart of the role of the Court within the Convention system and, more generally, the role of a court in the context of the unique and unprecedented challenges posed to humanity” because the majority had exceeded “the permissible limits of evolutive interpretation”.

According to Judge Eicke, the majority judgment creates a new right to “effective protection by the State authorities from serious adverse effects on their life, health, well‑being and quality of life arising from the harmful effects and risks caused by climate change”. While acknowledging the seriousness of the threat of climate change, and noting “(a) the absolute need for urgent action and (b) the sheer complexity of the challenges climate change (and the other aspects of the “triple planetary crisis”) pose (geo-)politically, practically, logistically as well as legal,” he argues that the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances (Article 2(2) Paris Agreement) is “difficult to reconcile (if not wholly inconsistent) with the Court’s primary role of ensuring observance of a common minimum standard of protection applicable equally to all Contracting Parties”.

On victim status, Eicke argues that “there was, in fact, no dispute and no uncertainty about the “victim” status of the individual applicants in relation to the Article 6 § 1 complaint in this case; and therefore no need to join that question to the merits”. He sets out and adheres to the previously established case-law on victim status, refusing to join the majority in creating a new approach tailored to climate cases and arguing that exceptions should only be possible where individual applications document victim status are not “ever” likely to be possible. He argues that the judgment creates an actio popularis.

Under Articles 2 and 8, Eicke argues that while it would have been possible to find a procedural violation of Articles 2 or 8, “the substantive violation of Article 8 which the majority seeks to construct from this starting premise has no basis either in the text of the Convention nor in any of the Court’s case-law.” He considers that “the Court would already have achieved much if it had focussed on a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and, at a push, a procedural violation of Article 8 relating in particular to (…) the right of access to court and of access to information”. He accuses the majority of trying “to run before it could walk”, and “giving (false) hope that litigation and the courts can provide “the answer” without there being, in effect, any prospect of litigation (especially before this Court) accelerating the taking of the necessary measures towards the fight against anthropogenic climate change”, and mentions the risk that this judgment will distract from other efforts to tackle climate change.

Implementation measures taken:

N/A

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 to be held 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.

Type of Forum:
Regional

Status of case:
This case was communicated to the respondent State, Switzerland, on 17 March 2021. On 26 April 2022, a Chamber of the Court relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, held a public hearing in this case on 29 March 2023. A webcast of the hearing is available here. On 9 April 2024, the Court issued its judgment in the case.

Suggested case citation:
ECtHR, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, no. 53600/20, judgment (Grand Chamber) of 9 April 2024.

Links:

The Court’s HUDOC database: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-209313
More information on the case in English: https://klimaseniorinnen.ch/english/.
All documents on the case: https://klimaseniorinnen.ch/dokumente/, including the application to the Court.

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).

Last updated:
9 April 2024

Tags European Court of Human Rights

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

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

Post author By Corina Heri
Post date 9 Apr 2024
2 Comments on Duarte Agostinho et al. v. Austria et al. (“Portuguese Children’s Case”)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date:
9 April 2024

Type of Forum:
Regional

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

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

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

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

Last updated:
9 April 2024

Tags European Court of Human Rights

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.

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

Last updated:
9 April 2024

Tags European Court of Human Rights

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

Post author By Corina Heri
Post date 13 Dec 2022
No Comments on 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.

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.

Tags European Court of Human Rights

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

Post author By Corina Heri
Post date 1 Dec 2022
No Comments on 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.

Tags European Court of Human Rights

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

Post author By enalato
Post date 1 Sep 2022
No Comments on 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. GERMANY Download

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.

Tags European Court of Human Rights

Climate activists and human rights defenders European Court of Human Rights Right to assembly and association Right to freedom of expression Switzerland

Lausanne Action Climate v. Switzerland

Post author By Corina Heri
Post date 16 Aug 2022
No Comments on Lausanne Action Climate v. Switzerland

Summary:

On 5 November 2021, four climate activists submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights challenging the Swiss Federal Supreme Court’s dismissal of their appeals of criminal convictions concerning the occupation of the premises of the Lausanne branch of Credit Suisse bank in 2018. The applicants invoked the right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly in Articles 10 and 11 ECHR.

On November 22, 2018, twelve activists occupied the bank’s lobby for one hour. Disguised as Roger Federer, the bank’s ambassador, they engaged in a wild game of tennis to denounce the banking giant’s investments in fossil fuels and urge the tennis star to terminate his sponsorships deals with CS. The applicants were charged with trespassing and acquitted at first instance, but later found guilty on appeal by the Public Prosecutor of the canton of Vaud. The applicants invoked a provision in the Swiss Penal Code with permits illegal actions under certain conditions, i.e. under conditions of lawful necessity given imminent danger. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court did not agree with this argumentation, noting that the activists also had legal methods at their disposal in order to draw attention to the climate crisis.

Context:

Although it has not yet specifically considered the right to protest or to civil disobedience in the context of climate change, the European Court of Human Rights has extensive case-law on the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. For example, in the case of Bumbeș v. Romania, it found a violation of these rights when an activist was fined for handcuffing himself to a government car park barrier in protest against a mining project. Here, the Court noted that, while States have a margin of appreciation in this context, the imposition of sanctions in response to political expression can have a chilling effect on public speech.

More information:

The application form in this case has not been made publicly available, and the ECtHR has yet to communicate the case. More information will be added here as it becomes public.

Notably, because it is different in focus from the mitigation cases pending before the ECtHR as of early 2023, this case had not been adjourned awaiting a ruling in the Grand Chamber’s three climate cases, as had seven other pending climate cases.

For media reports on this case, click here and here (in French) and here (in English).

Last updated:

17 March 2023

Tags European Court of Human Rights

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

Post author By Corina Heri
Post date 16 Aug 2022
No Comments on 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.

Tags European Court of Human Rights

2022 Austria Belgium Cyprus Denmark European Court of Human Rights France Germany Greece Luxembourg Private and family life Right to life Sweden Switzerland The Netherlands The United Kingdom

Soubeste and 4 other applications v. Austria and 11 other States

Post author By Corina Heri
Post date 21 Jun 2022
No Comments on Soubeste and 4 other applications v. Austria and 11 other States

Summary:
On 21 June 2022, it was reported that an application had been filed at the European Court of Human Rights concerning membership in the Energy Charter Treaty of 1994 (ECT), which entered into force in 1998. The case was brought by five young people, aged between 17 and 31, who allege that the 12 respondent States’ membership of the ECT stymies climate action, thereby violating their rights under Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) ECHR.

It was further reported that the 12 respondent States in this case are Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and Britain. In these States, corporate actors in the fossil fuel sector can bring legal action against the respective governments for losses of profits due to energy-related measures, thereby raising the costs of the green energy transition or making it illusory. The applicants argue that their Convention rights have been violated as a result.

In this regard, the IPCC pointed out in Chapter 14 of Working Group III report in the Sixth Assessment Cycle in 2022 (available here) that “bilateral and multilateral agreements, including the 1994 Energy Charter Treaty, include provisions for using a system of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) designed to protect the interests of investors in energy projects from national policies that could lead their assets to be stranded. Numerous scholars have pointed to ISDS being able to be used by fossil-fuel companies to block national legislation aimed at phasing out the use of their assets”. It also noted that “international investment agreements may lead to ‘regulatory chill’, which may lead to countries refraining from or delaying the adoption of mitigation policies, such as phasing out fossil fuels”.

Status of case:

The case was initially adjourned until the Grand Chamber has ruled in the climate change cases pending before it (see the ECtHR’s press release here).

On 24 July 2024, it was reported that the applicants had withdrawn their application after the European Union agreed to leave the ECT and the governments of France, Germany, Poland and the United Kingdom initiated the procedures to terminate their membership in the treaty.

Suggested case citation:

European Court of Human Rights, Soubeste and 4 other applications v. Austria and 11 other States (nos. 31925/22, 31932/22, 31938/22, 31943/22, and 31947/22), application filed on 21 June 2022 (not yet communicated).

Last updated:

15 March 2023

Tags European Court of Human Rights

2021 Access to a remedy Children and young people Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights Non-discrimination Norway Private and family life Right to life

Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway

Post author By Corina Heri
Post date 15 Jun 2021
No Comments on Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway

Summary:
This case was the fourth climate change case brought to the European Court of Human Rights. It was brought by six young Norwegian climate activists aged between 20 and 27, along with two organisations, who alleged that their members’ lives, health and well-being are being directly affected by the escalating climate crisis. The six individual applicants also alleged that, as young people, some of whom belong to an Indigenous community, they are being disproportionately affected by the climate crisis.

The application concerns the Norwegian State’s decision to license continuing exploration for oil and gas in new areas of the Arctic (Barents Sea), and its intention to bring new fossil fuels to market after 2035. The applicants argued that the best available science shows that the emissions from known reserves of fossil fuels will already exceed the carbon budget that remains given the 1.5°C temperature target set in the Paris Agreement.

Citing the seriousness and urgency of the climate crisis, the applicants alleged that the respondent State had failed to take the precautionary measures of prevention and protection required under Articles 2 and 8 ECHR (the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life, respectively). They furthermore alleged a breach of the prohibition of discrimination in Article 14 ECHR. during the domestic court proceedings, as well as a violation of the right of access to an effective domestic remedy under Article 13 ECHR.

Domestic proceedings and the reasoning of the Norwegian Supreme Court:
This case is a follow-up from domestic proceedings that were concluded by a judgment in favor of the State issued by the Norwegian Supreme Court on 22 December 2020. In 2016, the two applicant organizations brought a case against the State’s decision to grant 10 licenses in the Barents Sea (in what is known as “the 23rd licensing round” on the Norwegian continental shelf). On 22 December 2020, the Norwegian Supreme Court ruled that this decision did not violate the right to a healthy environment under Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution. It also found no violation of the ECHR. While it did find that climate impacts should have been assessed, it held that this could be remedied at the development stage (after the licenses in question had been issued). The Supreme Court’s judgment followed rulings from Oslo City Court and the Borgarting Court of Appeal, both of which held that the disputed licensing decision was valid.

In its ruling, the Norwegian Supreme Court considered that there had been no violation of the ECHR in this case because that Convention only applies to “direct and immediate” environmental harms. Although the Supreme Court considered Articles 2 and 8 ECHR and referred to the pending Duarte Agostinho case in its oral ruling, it considered that the case-law as it stood at the time of decision had not been contravened.

Regarding Article 2 ECHR, the Supreme Court held that this only applies to real and immediate risks of loss of life. The question before the Supreme Court, it argued, was the issue of a sufficient link between the domestic administrative decisions and the risk of a loss of life. It considered that it was not clear whether the decisions would in fact lead to emissions, and the threat concerned was in the future.

Regarding Article 8 ECHR, the Court held that this did not cover every harm to the environment, that an impact had to be “direct and immediate” also here, and that efforts by the Committee of Ministers to add a separate right to a healthy environment to the ECHR had failed. The Supreme Court also considered that the Dutch Urgenda judgment was not comparable to the case at hand, because that case concerned already-established climate targets, and not the possible invalidity of an administrative decision.

Given these considerations, the Norwegian Supreme Court held, by a majority of eleven to four, that the disputed licensing decision granting was valid. A minority of four judges dissented, arguing that – although they agreed with the majority’s conclusions on Article 112 of the Constitution and Articles 2 and 8 ECHR – the production licenses awarded in the 23rd licensing round were invalid because of procedural errors in the impact assessment.

Submissions before the ECtHR in greater detail:
The applicants argued that there is a real and serious risk to their lives and well-being, and to their ability to enjoy their private life, family life and home. They submitted that the Norwegian State had failed to adopt the necessary and appropriate measures to address this risk, and that it had failed to describe and assess the total climate effects, including exported emissions, of continued and expanded extraction of oil and gas from the Arctic, thereby also violating the applicants’ rights.

The six individual applicants submitted that they have experienced climate anxiety, emotional distress and great worry about the
current and imminent risks of serious climate harms, and the impact on their lives, life choices, and the lives of future generations. They referred to mental health literature, which increasingly draws attention to such concerns, described in the application as “pre-traumatic stress.”

The applicants noted that, under current climate policies, the average temperature in Norway is expected to rise by more than 5.5 degrees Celsius by 2100. There had already been an increase in extreme rainfall events, flooding and landslides. Future impacts will include increased risk of drought and forest fire-inducing thunderstorms, changes to flood systems, sea level rise and ocean acidification.

The applicants noted that there is a significant difference between planned fossil fuel extraction and Norwegian climate goals. The applicants submitted that State representatives stated before the Norwegian Supreme Court that Norway will continue to produce and export petroleum as long as there are buyers. They noted that Norway is the 7th largest exporter of emissions in the world, and the 3rd largest per capita, behind Qatar and Kuwait. There is no system in place to declare, assess, calculate, or reduce exported emissions from fossil fuels extraction projects, nor the exported emissions from oil and gas extraction overall.

On victim status, the applicants alleged that the licensing of fossil fuels extraction is too complex for individuals and young people to challenge alone. The organizations in question are not only better suited to challenge such decisions, but they also claim to represent future generations.

The applicants alleged that Articles 2 and 8 ECHR had been violated because of the presence of a real, immediate and serious risk to these rights, of which the State had actual or putative knowledge and regarding which it failed to adopt reasonable and appropriate preventative measures. They invoked the principle of prevention, and argued that the State must adopt a legislative and administrative framework designed to provide effective deterrence against threats to the right to life. They argued that an unequal burden has been placed on younger generations, and those unborn. The applicants argued that the threats against their rights are ongoing since temperature increase cannot be reversed and the authorities must act immediately to prevent the harms in question.

Under Article 13 ECHR (right to an effective remedy), the applicants argued that the Norwegian courts did not assess the merits of the Convention claims in full and based on ECtHR case law.

Under Article 14 ECHR (prohibition of discrimination, they argued that there were disproportionately prejudicial effects on a particular group, citing the factors of young age and the fact that two of the individual applicants were members of the indigenous Sami minority, whose traditions, land and resources are negatively impacted. Due to their age, the young applicants, they submitted, had no opportunity to participate in the relevant decision-making while at the same time having to shoulder a heavier burden concerning the long-term consequences of the acts and omissions in question.

Interim developments:
The 10 disputed licenses were returned and relinquished by the companies concerned given that no potentially profitable gas discoveries were made. On 11 March 2022 Norway re-licensed the area covered by one of the disputed licenses (no. 855) under the so-called APA system for mature areas. The original license had covered the drilling of two wells, one of which had discovered an oil column but was ultimately considered have limited economic potential. The new production license for the area, no. 1170, is valid until 11 March 2030. It allowed the discovery of two significant gas deposits adjacent to and geologically part of Wisting, the largest undeveloped oil discovery on the Norwegian continental shelf. The two wells were plugged and abandoned after evaluation, but their discovery remains valid and open to development.

In 2019, the Ministry awarded twelve new petroleum production licenses to eleven companies in the 24th licensing round. In 2021, the Ministry awarded four new petroleum production licenses in the 25th licensing round. In addition, the Government also granted licenses under the system of Awards in Predefined Areas (“APA”), which relate to the mature areas of the Norwegian continental shelf.

On 8 April 2022 the Government approved the recommendation of the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy of a report that states that “The Norwegian petroleum industry will be further developed” and “[t]he licensing system will remain unchanged. Permits will continue to be granted to explore for oil and gas in new areas.” This same report indicates that licensees must “assess the climate impacts of production and combustion emissions when considering all new plans for development and operation (PDOs), and highlight the assessments in decisions related to those plans”. The Ministry also indicated that it would follow up to the Norwegian Supreme Court’s judgment in this case by “conducting an assessment of the climate impacts of production and combustion emissions when considering all new development plans (PDOs). The scope of the assessment will be adapted to the scale of the resources in the individual development.”

Judgment of the ECtHR of 28 October 2025:
On 28 October 2025, the Second Section of the ECtHR issued its unanimous judgment in this case, examining the applicants’ claim that the 2016 decision granting 10 petroleum production licenses was contrary to Norway’s obligation to mitigate climate change, which was adversely affecting the lives, living conditions and health of the individual applicants and other persons whose interests were represented by the applicant organizations. The Court, in doing so, engaged in an extensive comparative exercise. It noted the 2024/2025 climate-related advisory opinions issued by the ITLOS, IACtHR and ICJ, summarizing their findings as well as noting environmental treaties (the Aarhus Convention and Espoo Convention) and the (R (Finch) v Surrey County Council judgment of the UK Supreme Court.

After these considerations, the Court turned to the scope of the case before it. It held that the scope of the case as defined by the domestic proceedings was narrow, given that it concerned “an allegedly faulty decision-making process in one specific round of licensing of petroleum exploration, which would precede petroleum production” (para. 282). Contrasting the case with the 2024 Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Grand Chamber judgment, the Court held that Greenpeace Nordic “concerns the State’s procedural, rather than substantive, obligations, and is moreover limited to ten exploration licences”, while nevertheless raising “the issue of an alleged failure of the State to effectively protect individuals from the serious adverse effects of climate change on their life, health, well-being and quality of life” (para. 282). The Court also decided to examine the case only under Article 8 ECHR, the right to respect for private and family life, and not to examine the complaint made under Article 2 ECHR, the right to life (paras. 283-284).

The Court then examined the victim status and locus standi of the applicants under Article 34 ECHR, applying the criteria developed in the 2024 Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Grand Chamber judgment. On individual victim status, the Court applied the high-threshold, two-step KlimaSeniorinnen test that requires (a) a high intensity of exposure and (b) a pressing need to ensure individual protection of the applicants. For the NGOs, it applied the KlimaSeniorinnen representative standing test that requires associations to be (a) lawfully established in the jurisdiction, (b) dedicated to the defense of climate rights, and (c) genuinely qualified and representative. The Court combined the assessment of these two tests with the merits of its examination of Article 8 ECHR, and ultimately found that the individual applicants, including the youth and Indigenous applicants, had not satisfied the individual victim status test. However, it did find that the legal persons had standing to bring a representative application.

The Court’s reasoning in this regard first examined whether there was a “sufficiently close link” between the disputed 2016 licensing decision and the risk of climate-related impacts on ECHR rights. It held that:

294. “The Court observes that while exploration will not always, and certainly not automatically or unconditionally, be followed by extraction, in Norway, it is both a legal and a practical precondition for it. (…) [P]etroleum would not be extracted but for the opening of an area for extraction, and the granting of production licences. The fact that other events and permits are also necessary before extraction can take place does not break that chain of causation. When considering causation for the purposes of attributing responsibility for adverse effects arising from climate change, the Court has not required it to be shown that “but for” a failing or omission of the authorities the harm would not have occurred (…). The Court further observes that the link between petroleum exploration and its future production is inherent. (…) The Supreme Court itself observed that the SEA had to include all stages of the petroleum production, from exploration to development, extraction, transport, exploitation and termination (…). In these circumstances, it is clear that the petroleum project in question was of such a nature as to entail potential risks of extraction.”

The Court went on to find that the relinquishment of the 10 licenses “does not break the required causal nexus for the applicability of Article 8 of the Convention”, emphasizing the preventive function of the right of access to information and observing that “the Convention guarantees a right for affected individuals to be informed about the environmental effects of a planned activity” which means that “[t]he procedural nature of the right to information and the preventive function of that right make the applicability of the provisions in question independent of the later materialisation of the risk” (para. 295). The Court also noted that the previously licensed areas could be automatically re-licensed for exploration under the APA system, meaning that “even a relinquished licence maps out an opened area for future discoveries” (para. 296). The Court went on to hold that

297. Having established the link between exploration licensing and extraction, the Court also notes that oil and gas extraction is the most important source of GHG emissions of Norway (…), and that the burning of fossil fuels, including oil and gas, is among the main causes of climate change (…).

This meant that there was a sufficiently close link between the disputed licensing procedure and serious adverse effects of climate change on the lives, health, well-being and quality of life of individuals (para. 299).

Examining this with regard to individual victim status, the Court held that “no grievances about the personal situation of the six individual applicants were examined in the disputed judicial review of the 23rd licensing round” (para. 301). Nevertheless, it noted that “the crux of these applicants’ complaint concerns the adverse effects of climate change which they, as young people, are suffering as a result of the respondent State’s allegedly inadequate action on climate change, particularly as a result of the authorisation of further petroleum production.” It considered these to be localized claims, focused on the specific situation prevailing in Norway and noting the climate impacts in that country, including ocean warming, rising air temperatures, seasonal effects and forest and fish stock degradation (para. 302). However, it found that the individual applicants (applicants nos. 2‑7) did not fulfil the criteria for victim status under Article 34 ECHR. Albeit noting the Indigenous rights implications of the case – the fact that that three of the six individual applicants identify as members of the Sámi people – it held that “[w]hile the Court fully appreciates that climate change poses a threat to the traditional Sámi way of life and culture (…), it cannot conclude that the hardships that the situation complained about may be causing the three applicants personally are of “high intensity”” (para. 303). Neither had arguments about the mental health impacts of climate change been adequately substantiated. However, the Court did note “the seriousness of conditions such as climate anxiety or climate grief” (para. 304), but found that it lacked evidence to examine this in light of ECHR rights. Likewise, it lacked medical evidence indicating “any particular morbidity or any other serious adverse effect on their health or well-being that had been created by climate change and would go beyond the effects which any young person living in Norway and having a degree of awareness about climate change might experience” (para. 305). On this basis, it rejected the individual victim status of the applicants.

On representative locus standi, the Court applied the three-step KlimaSeniorinnen test, finding that the two NGOs concerned, Greenpeace Nordic and Young Friends of the Earth, met all three criteria of that test. They enjoyed standing in the domestic courts and “act in the interest of the general public and of future generations – and, in the case of Young Friends of the Earth, also in the interest of its members – with the aim of ensuring effective climate protection”, meaning that they take “legal action to address the effects of climate change in the interests of its members and/or other persons affected by specific climate change impacts” (para. 309). As a result, the Court was satisfied that these two organizations represented “a collective means of defending the rights and interests of individuals against the threats of climate change in the respondent State” (para. 310).

Under Article 8 ECHR, the Court began its merits analysis by setting out the nature of the State’s positive obligation in the specific context of climate risk. It reiterated that Article 8 protects individuals against serious adverse effects of climate change on their life, health, well-being and quality of life, and that the Contracting State must ‘do its part’ to ensure effective protection against such risks through an adequate legal and administrative framework. The Court underlined that this obligation is not purely theoretical: States are required to organize their decision-making in a way that meaningfully addresses climate-related risks that may interfere with the enjoyment of Convention rights (para. 314).

At the same time, the Court accepted that States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in determining the specific measures they adopt to discharge their climate-related obligations under Article 8, including how they balance climate protection against other competing interests.

That margin of appreciation is nevertheless framed and limited by what could be described as three considerations of particular weight. First, in any such balancing, climate protection must be afforded ‘considerable weight,’ reflecting both the severity and the irreversibility of climate harm. Second, greenhouse gas emissions are cumulative and transboundary, meaning that the harmful effects of present-day decisions will manifest and intensify over time and are not confined to national borders. Third, despite longstanding scientific warnings, States collectively have not yet acted sufficiently to avoid dangerous climate change risk, and there remains only a ‘rapidly closing window of opportunity’ to secure a liveable future. In the Court’s view, those elements reinforce the urgency and seriousness of climate mitigation as a human rights concern (paras. 315-316).

The Court then specified how Article 8 operates in procedural terms. It recalled that, in environmental cases, its analysis often centers on whether the domestic decision-making process provided adequate procedural safeguards, rather than on substituting its own assessment for that of national authorities. In the climate context, this procedural obligation see itself in a requirement that States, before authorising an activity which could significantly contribute to climate change and thereby threaten the protected interests under Article 8, carry out an environmental impact assessment that is adequate, timely and comprehensive. The assessment must be conducted in good faith, rely on the best available science, and be sufficiently concrete and detailed to inform the authorities’ decision at a stage when all options (including refusing the project) are genuinely open (para. 318).

This assessment must, at a minimum, allow identification and, so far as possible, quantification of expected greenhouse gas emissions arising from the proposed activity; evaluate the compatibility of that activity with the State’s domestic and international climate obligations; and address not only direct operational emissions but also downstream emissions (scope 3) that would result from the eventual use of the extracted petroleum, including where that combustion would take place outside the State’s territory. The Court also stressed that meaningful public participation is an integral part of this procedural duty. Individuals and communities affected by the climate risks associated with a project must have access to relevant information and a genuine opportunity to express their views early enough in the process to influence the outcome (paras. 319–320). Crucially, the Court held that

319. In the context of petroleum production projects, the environmental impact assessment must include, at a minimum, a quantification of the GHG emissions anticipated to be produced (including the combustion emissions both within the country and abroad; compare, mutatis mutandis, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others, cited above, § 550). Moreover, at the level of the public authorities, there must be an assessment of whether the activity is compatible with their obligations under national and international law to take effective measures against the adverse effects of climate change. Lastly, informed public consultation must take place at a time when all options are still open and when pollution can realistically be prevented at source.

The Court situated these procedural requirements within broader developments in international law, noting the converging obligations articulated in recent advisory opinions by international courts and tribunals such as the 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion; the 2025 EFTA Advisory Opinion; the 2024 Advisory Opinion of the ITLOS; and the IACtHR Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 (paras. 320–324).

Against that normative structure, the Court turned to the Norwegian system. It noted that petroleum activities on the Norwegian continental shelf proceed in three administrative stages: first, the opening of an area for petroleum activities, following a strategic environmental assessment and parliamentary involvement; second, the granting of exploration licenses (the stage at issue in the present case); and third, the approval of a Plan for Development and Operation (PDO), which is required before any extraction can begin (para. 326).

The applicant organizations had argued that Norway failed to comply with Article 8 because, prior to awarding the exploration licenses in 2016, the authorities did not conduct a sufficiently comprehensive climate impact assessment. In particular, they submitted that there had been no assessment, at that stage, of the total climate effects of future extraction, including exported combustion emissions, no evaluation of the project’s compatibility with the remaining carbon budget aligned with the 1.5°C temperature goal, and an overall approach that prioritized economic projections over climate constraints. They also challenged the position taken by the Norwegian Supreme Court, namely that any deficiencies could simply be addressed later at the PDO stage, arguing that deferring climate assessment to the PDO stage was contrary to EEA and international law and, in practice, ineffective (paras. 328-329).

The ECtHR accepted an important part of the applicants’ arguments at the factual level. It observed that the domestic procedures leading to the 2016 licensing decision were ‘not fully comprehensive,’ in that the strategic environmental assessment did not include all stages of the petroleum project, particularly the downstream combustion emissions. It noted that the Norwegian Supreme Court acknowledged this omission but considered that it could be remedied at the later PDO stage (para. 330).

However, the Court did not consider those gaps, taken alone, to amount to a breach of Article 8. Instead, it asked whether, looking at the process ‘as a whole,’ Norway had put in place procedural guarantees capable of ensuring that no petroleum extraction project would proceed without a sufficiently rigorous climate assessment and an opportunity for effective public challenge. The Court based its reasoning on three following elements.

First, it attached weight to the legal position, confirmed by the Norwegian Supreme Court, that the granting of an exploration license does not create any automatic entitlement to extract petroleum. Under Norwegian law, extraction cannot commence without approval of a PDO by the competent ministry. The authorities therefore retain both the power and, under Article 112 of the Constitution, the duty to refuse a PDO if climate or environmental considerations so require (para. 331).

Second, at the PDO stage, Norwegian law requires an environmental impact assessment and public consultation. This assessment must address the climate impacts of both production and combustion emissions and be reviewed by the authorities in light of Norway’s domestic and international climate commitments. The Court also noted the Government’s formal undertaking, following the domestic litigation, to ensure that all future PDOs include such assessments and that their results are explicitly reflected in the approval decisions. These commitments, in the Court’s view, confirmed that downstream emissions and compatibility with climate targets would be examined before any extraction could begin (paras. 332–334).

Third, the Court observed that affected individuals and organisations have access to environmental information and opportunities to participate in the PDO-stage decision-making, which is subject to administrative and judicial oversight before any extraction begins. Because the PDO stage precedes production, the Court considered that meaningful preventive control remains possible at that point (paras. 333–334).

The Court further observed that, under Norwegian law interpreted in light of EEA environmental requirements, impact assessments at the PDO stage must take account of cumulative and transboundary climate effects, including downstream or ‘exported’ emissions from the eventual combustion of petroleum. It considered that this mechanism, assessed together with the wider procedural safeguards of the Norwegian system, adequately addressed the applicants’ concern that such emissions had been overlooked at the earlier licensing stage. On that basis, the Court concluded that, although the environmental impact assessment at the licensing stage was incomplete, the Norwegian system, assessed in its entirety, still satisfied the procedural requirements inherent in Article 8. In light of this, the Court unanimously found that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention (paras. 336-337).

Thus, the decisive point for the Court was that there are effective safeguards built into the approval process for actual extraction: extraction cannot begin without a PDO; the PDO must be preceded by a climate-focused assessment and public participation; the authorities are under a duty to refuse the PDO if climate considerations so require; and those decisions remain open to challenge. The Court found no evidence of bad faith on the part of the Norwegian authorities, no indication that the PDO stage is structurally incapable of correcting earlier deficiencies, and no indication that those safeguards are purely theoretical or illusory. It therefore held that Norway had remained within its margin of appreciation in structuring climate-related assessment across multiple stages, and that the deferral of a full climate assessment to the PDO stage, while not ideal from the applicants’ perspective, did not in itself breach Article 8 as long as the PDO stage functions in the manner described above.

Concerning the complaint under Article 14 ECHR (prohibition of discrimination), the Court considered that it was not necessary to examine whether this provision was applicable as concerned the individual applicants because this complaint was in any event inadmissible given the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. Citing its own subsidiarity and the exhaustion rule in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court noted that “the individual applicants did not avail themselves of any domestic remedy in their own name” (para. 350). It held that “while the applicants complained before the Court that not invalidating the 2016 licensing decision constituted indirect discrimination on the grounds of the individual applicants’ age and of ethnic status, no such complaint had been made, even in substance, in the course of the domestic judicial review proceedings, and, in particular, before the Supreme Court” (para. 351). As a result, the applicants had not afforded the domestic courts with the requisite opportunity to examine or remedy this complaint, and it was declared inadmissible.

As concerned Article 13 ECHR (right to an effective remedy), the Court held that the domestic courts “duly engaged” with the applicant organizations’ arguments and duly examined their claims, in line with the requirements of Article 13, and that their review powers were not limited in the sense of precluding them from examining the applicants’ complaints. The fact that the domestic courts ultimately held that the omission to conduct a prior assessment did not invalidate the licensing decision, as that could be rectified at the next PDO stage, and did not mean that their examination of the issues had been superficial (para. 363). The ECtHR also noted that the Norwegian Supreme Court devoted a separate section of its judgment to whether ECHR rights were engaged. The fact that the Supreme Court’s conclusion could be called into question in the light of the Court’s findings in this case did “not mean that the assessment was insufficient or that it was not diligently undertaken” (para. 354). The ECtHR itself noted that the approach taken in this case represented “a significant development in Convention case-law”, based on the KlimaSeniorinnen judgment. It ultimately declared the Article 13 complaint manifestly ill-founded in light of this reasoning.

Date filed:
15 June 2021

Date communicated:
6 January 2022 (press release).

Date of judgment:
28 October 2025

Adjudicating Body:
European Court of Human Rights

Status of case:
Decided by a Chamber formation of the ECtHR on 28 October 2025.

Suggested case citation:
ECtHR, Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway, no. 34068/21, Judgment of 28 October 2025.

Case documents:
Link to the text of the application: click here.
The full text of the judgment is available below.

CASE OF GREENPEACE NORDIC AND OTHERS v. NORWAY Download

Last updated:
28 October 2025

Tags European Court of Human Rights