Die Klima-Entscheidungen der Großen Kammer des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte (EGMR) sind wegweisend. Auf den ersten Blick ist jedoch nicht vollkommen klar, wie sie sich auf das nationale Klimarecht der Vertragsstaaten der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention (EMRK) auswirken werden. Haben die strategischen Klimaklagen den von ihnen erwünschten Durchbruch erzielt, der das nationale Klimarecht revolutionieren wird?
On April 9, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled on three applications concerning the fight against climate change and the positive obligations of the signatory states of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in this respect. This blog post analyzes the Carême decision in which the Court declared inadmissible an application brought by a former mayor of a French town on the grounds of incompatibility ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (§ 88). In my view, this is an ill-developed decision, which could dangerously imply a regression in environmental matters.
Manuela Niehaus verteidigt die menschenrechtsgestützte Klimarechtsprechung – insbesondere des EGMR – gegen meine Kritik. Es handele sich nicht um „Globuli für Umweltjuristen“, sondern um ein potentiell lebensrettendes Medikament, das – im Zusammenspiel mit anderen Mitteln – einen wesentlichen Beitrag zum Klimaschutz leisten könne. Das sehen sicher viele ähnlich und darum bin ich dankbar für Niehaus Argumente und für ihren sanften Spott. Ihr Spott trifft mich zu Recht, ihre Argumente aber überzeugen mich nur sehr teilweise.
KlimaSeniorinnen and the Choice Between Imperfect Options
The facts of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland were categorically different from the ECtHR’s previous environmental case law. The Court therefore decided to incorporate important parts of International Climate Change Law into the ECHR. From an institutional perspective, this approach, which is not without its weaknesses, amounts to the ECtHR’s attempt to maintain the relevance of the Convention in the midst of the climate crisis, while, at the same, carefully striving to respect the realm of politics.
The criminalisation of humanitarianism has become pervasive in the EU over the last two decades. Overbroad definitions of the crimes of facilitation of irregular entry, transit and stay produce well known noxious effects on the human rights of migrants and civil society organisations. Nevertheless, the tendency has been to tighten the rules rather than contesting the EU’s failure to pursue a migration control system that is ‘fair towards third-country nationals’ and constructed ‘with respect for fundamental rights.’ In this blogpost, I argue that the EU legislator’s disregard for the human rights impacts of the facilitation regime constitutes an abuse of power. Legislative measures that have the effect of subverting legally enshrined principles (Arts 2, 6 & 21 TEU) and suppress the rights of civil society and the migrants with whom they engage are incompatible with core democratic premises.
The climate rulings of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) are landmark decisions. However, it is not obvious what they mean precisely for the State parties of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Have we witnessed, in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, a landslide victory for the activists that will revolutionize domestic climate law? Or do the two other decisions in which the Grand Chamber dismissed the applications preponderate?
Are courts, as institutions aimed at individual justice, suitable institutions for dealing with the climate crisis? Could they guide the social and global transformation processes that are certainly necessary? Bernhard Wegener takes a clear stand against the “sweet illusion of climate justice“.
On the Duarte Agostinho Decision
We may not readily describe Duarte Agostinho as a success. But it does offer an excellent opportunity to clarify what we mean by ‘success’ in this context. Arguably, this depends on our expectations – whether that’s to generate attention, trigger mobilization, seek judicial engagement with an issue, clarify the law, or pursue a given outcome, among others.
There is an old adage in the world of official transparency that “sunlight is the best disinfectant”. But when it comes to Europe’s recovery transformation via the NextGenerationEU (NGEU) programme and related instruments, the Commission insists on conducting as much of it as possible in the dark. As concerns grow about both the effectiveness and even potentially corruption in the use of recovery funds, this lack of transparency is particularly worrying.
States’ extraterritorial jurisdiction was one of the hot topics decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Duarte Agostinho. Strictly speaking, the “lack of it” led the ECtHR to declare the complaint inadmissible with respect to all defendant States except Portugal. This finding is in line with previous ECtHR case law but highlights a gap in human rights protection and creates a mismatch between the ECtHR’s case law and that of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters