Who is afraid of actio popularis?
If, as the German experience suggests, the actio popularis exclusion serves to bar individuals from invoking objective illegality that does not concern rights, while standing of associations is a way to enforce objective legality despite the actio popularis exclusion, it is hard to see why this should have any relevance for the European Convention of Human Rights. Human rights are, after all, rights.
The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case Verein KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland is a striking example of the Paris effect: the influence of the non-binding collective goals of the Paris Agreement (PA) on the interpretation of domestic constitutional law or international human rights law in climate litigation. The Court’s decision proves to be an essential element in triggering the necessary democratic debates on which the PA relies “from the bottom up”. Reinforcing the procedural limb of Art. 8 ECHR will be an essential step towards further strengthening democratic decision-making in the societal transition to climate neutrality.
The Supreme Court of India delivered a historic judgement on climate change and human rights in M.K. Ranjitsinh and Others v. Union of India and Others (hereinafter “M.K. Ranjitsinh”) on March 21, 2024. A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice, D.Y. Chandrachud, formulated a new constitutional right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change by drawing upon Article 21 (the fundamental right to life and personal liberty) and Article 14 (the fundamental right to equality) of the Indian Constitution. The final judgement is a remarkable development for the evolution of constitutional climate litigation in India
On 26th February 2024, in its Giudizio Universale decision, the Tribunal of Rome penned the first Italian climate judgement. Shortly after, on 9 April 2024, the ECtHR handed down its seminal trio of KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland, Duarte Agostinho v. Portugal and Others and Carême v. France. In this monumental string of cases, the ECtHR set the new standard for climate litigation in Europe, also regarding separation of powers. This invites a critical assessment of Giudizio Universale’s stance.
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.
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.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters