{"id":25565,"date":"2025-07-25T14:00:59","date_gmt":"2025-07-25T12:00:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/?p=25565"},"modified":"2025-11-14T15:07:12","modified_gmt":"2025-11-14T14:07:12","slug":"new-ecthr-climate-cases","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/new-ecthr-climate-cases\/","title":{"rendered":"New ECtHR Climate Cases"},"content":{"rendered":"

On 7 May 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rendered\u00a0the\u00a0inadmissibility decisions\u00a0De<\/u>\u00a0<\/u>Conto v<\/u>\u00a0<\/u>Italy<\/u> and 32 Others<\/u><\/a>\u00a0and Uricchio v<\/u>\u00a0<\/u>Italy<\/u> and 31 Others<\/u><\/a>.\u00a0They\u00a0are\u00a0the first climate cases to be decided by a three-judge\u00a0Committee\u00a0of the Court\u00a0(see Art\u00a028 European Convention of Human Rights [ECHR])\u00a0rather than by the Grand Chamber.\u00a0For this reason, the decisions are of high practical and legal relevance.\u00a0They\u00a0indicate how the principles on climate litigation established by the Grand Chamber (notably in\u00a0Verein <\/u>KlimaSeniorinnen<\/u> Schweiz and Others v\u00a0Switzerland<\/u><\/a> and Duarte<\/u>\u00a0<\/u>Agostinho and Others v\u00a0Portugal and 32 Others<\/u><\/a>)\u00a0will be applied and how unresolved legal issues might be dealt with\u00a0by smaller ECtHR panels.<\/p>\n

Facts<\/strong><\/p>\n

The applicants alleged violations of Art\u00a02 (right to life) and Art\u00a08 ECHR (right to private and family life) due to the negative effects of\u00a0climate change and related State inaction.\u00a0Elena De Conto referred to\u00a0the \u2018Vaia Storm\u2019, which\u00a0had affected several Italian regions in 2018 (De Conto<\/u><\/a>, para\u00a02). Daniela Uricchio stated that Southern Italy had experienced\u00a0extreme heat in summer and severe flooding. She also claimed that high temperatures had worsened her allergies (Uricchio<\/u><\/a>, paras\u00a02\u20135). Furthermore, both applicants claimed that climate change had impacted their mental health, causing nightmares and preventing them from going outside on hot days\u00a0(Uricchio<\/u><\/a> and De\u00a0Conto<\/u><\/a>, para\u00a03).\u00a0Born in 2000 and 2002 respectively,\u00a0they also alleged a breach of Art\u00a014 ECHR (prohibition of discrimination), arguing that\u00a0the harmful effects of climate change would disproportionately affect younger generations\u00a0(Uricchio<\/u><\/a> and De\u00a0Conto<\/u><\/a>, para\u00a06).<\/p>\n

Summary of the decisions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Committee rejected both applications as inadmissible\u00a0(Art\u00a035 para\u00a04 ECHR).\u00a0It largely adhered to the climate cases decided by\u00a0the Grand Chamber, for example regarding extraterritorial jurisdiction.\u00a0As in Duarte Agostinho<\/u><\/a>, the applications were directed not only against the applicants\u2019 country of residence, but also against other Member States. In this respect, the Committee referred to Duarte Agostinho<\/u><\/a>\u00a0and dismissed the complaints.<\/p>\n

Regarding the applicants\u2019 victim status\u00a0<\/strong>(Art\u00a034 ECHR),\u00a0<\/strong>the Committee\u00a0relied on KlimaSeniorinnen<\/u><\/a>. It confirmed the high threshold for victim status for complaints under Art\u00a08 ECHR (KlimaSeniorinnen<\/u>, paras\u00a0487\u00a0f).\u00a0The applicants could\u00a0not demonstrate that they were subject to a high intensity of exposure to the adverse effects of climate change or that there was a pressing need to ensure their protection (Uricchio<\/u><\/a> and De<\/u>\u00a0<\/u>Conto<\/u><\/a>, para\u00a014). In climate cases, victim status requires concrete medical evidence\u00a0suggesting\u00a0a correlation between an applicant\u2019s condition and the complaint (KlimaSeniorinnen<\/u>, para\u00a0534). Furthermore, the applicants were unable to substantiate their complaints under Art\u00a02 ECHR (Uricchio<\/u><\/a> and De\u00a0Conto<\/u><\/a>, para\u00a016).<\/p>\n

Areas\u00a0severely affected by climate change<\/strong><\/p>\n

In other aspects, the decisions went beyond the Grand Chamber’s climate cases.\u00a0The applicants argued that they lived in cities and regions which\u00a0were severely affected by climate change.<\/strong> Elena De Conto\u2019s\u00a0city of residence was severely hit by a storm allegedly caused by climate change. Daniela Uricchio lived in Southern Italy, which was\u00a0experiencing rising temperatures and flooding. However, although local conditions must be taken into account when assessing victim status (KlimaSeniorinnen<\/u>, para\u00a0488), these arguments were not addressed by the ECtHR.<\/p>\n

This was likely due to lack of concrete evidence\u00a0<\/strong>submitted. The Committee\u00a0could not rely on national rulings\u00a0either, because\u00a0the applicants had apparently not brought\u00a0their cases to Italian courts beforehand but\u00a0had gone straight to the ECtHR instead. By contrast, in the climate case\u00a0Car\u00eame<\/u> v<\/u>\u00a0<\/u>France<\/u><\/a>, the Grand Chamber could\u00a0build on the findings of the Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat that the coastal municipality\u00a0in question was at high risk of\u00a0flooding and severe drought due to climate change\u00a0(Car\u00eame<\/u><\/a>, paras\u00a078,\u00a080). Still, the application was dismissed due to lack of victim status, because the applicant no longer lived in the municipality in question.<\/p>\n

In the absence of detailed submissions on the areas\u00a0concerned, it is not surprising that the ECtHR did not elaborate on this aspect. Thus, it remains to be seen whether the Court will adopt a similar approach\u00a0to climate cases\u00a0as it does to\u00a0environmental cases. When entire\u00a0regions are affected by severe environmental damage, the Court grants victim status due to mere residency in those areas. Applicants are not required to prove specific adverse effects on their quality of life or health (e.g.\u00a0Cordella and Others v<\/u>\u00a0<\/u>Italy<\/u><\/a>, paras\u00a0101\u2013107; Cannavacciuolo<\/u> and Others v<\/u>\u00a0<\/u>Italy<\/u><\/a>, para\u00a0390; L.F. and Others v<\/u>\u00a0<\/u>Italy<\/u><\/a>, para\u00a0124).<\/p>\n

Climate anxiety<\/strong><\/p>\n

Under Art\u00a08 ECHR, the applicants alleged that climate change had impacted their mental health\u00a0<\/strong>(\u2018climate anxiety\u2019, \u2018eco-anxiety\u2019). However, the medical documents submitted\u00a0did not reveal any correlation between the claimed harm and climate change (Uricchio<\/u><\/a> and De\u00a0Conto<\/u><\/a>, para\u00a014). Thus, the Court rightly rejected these complaints.<\/p>\n

Notably, these are the first decisions in which\u00a0the ECtHR has engaged with climate anxiety. In Duarte Agostinho<\/u><\/a>\u00a0and KlimaSeniorinnen<\/u><\/a>, it did not deal with the applicants\u2019 mental health claims (see Duarte Agostinho<\/u><\/a>, paras\u00a026,\u00a066; KlimaSeniorinnen<\/u><\/a>,\u00a0paras\u00a066,\u00a0530). In Car\u00eame<\/u><\/a>, it only alluded to feelings of anxiety in the context of actio<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>popularis<\/em> (Car\u00eame<\/u><\/a>, para\u00a084; see also here<\/u><\/a>).\u00a0The present findings of the Court suggest that\u00a0mental health impacts\u00a0caused by climate change could enable\u00a0applicants to be recognised as victims\u00a0for complaints under Art\u00a08 ECHR. At first glance, this is not surprising\u00a0given that Art\u00a08 ECHR also protects mental health (for the environmental context, compare T\u0103tar<\/u> v\u00a0Romania<\/u><\/a>, para\u00a0122). The Court appears to set a high threshold, stating that the medical documents submitted did not mention\u00a0states of \u2018severe anxiety\u2019 (De\u00a0Conto<\/u><\/a>, para\u00a014). However, upon closer inspection it is questionable whether\u00a0the\u00a0aforementioned criteria\u00a0for victim status can\u00a0be applied at all to persons with mental health conditions.\u00a0Rather, these criteria\u00a0seem to be tailored to physical suffering\u00a0(compare KlimaSeniorinnen<\/u><\/a>,\u00a0para\u00a0530). For example,\u00a0at what level of climate anxiety is an applicant \u2018subject to a high intensity of exposure to the adverse effects of climate change\u2018? What constitutes a \u2018pressing need to ensure the applicant\u2019s individual protection\u2018? Can \u2018reasonable measures to reduce harm\u2019 be taken at all if an applicant suffers from climate anxiety?<\/p>\n

Intergenerational burden-sharing<\/strong><\/p>\n

In a first for climate cases before the ECtHR, the applicants alleged a violation of Art\u00a014 ECHR due to the harmful effects of climate change on younger generations. However, the Committee\u00a0did not address this\u00a0issue, merely stating that these \u2018other complaints\u2019 did not meet the admissibility criteria of Art\u00a034 and Art\u00a035 ECHR (Uricchio<\/u><\/a> and De\u00a0Conto<\/u><\/a>, paras\u00a06,\u00a017).<\/p>\n

In KlimaSeniorinnen<\/u><\/a>, the Grand Chamber frequently referred to the concept of\u00a0intergenerational justice. For example, it stated that future generations are particularly exposed to the negative effects of climate change and related\u00a0State failures (KlimaSeniorinnen<\/u>, para\u00a0420). The Court also recognised\u00a0the legal standing of associations for the protection of future generations (KlimaSeniorinnen<\/u>, paras\u00a0489,\u00a0499). Moreover, it found that Art\u00a08 ECHR should be interpreted to prevent a disproportionate burden on future generations (KlimaSeniorinnen<\/u>, para\u00a0549).<\/p>\n

The present decisions would have provided an opportunity to clarify and specify the concept of intergenerational burden-sharing in the context of victim status. The Court\u2019s inaction cannot be justified by the applicants\u2019\u00a0unsubstantiated claims\u00a0about\u00a0the personal impact of climate change.\u00a0In fact, this highlights the\u00a0key issue for young applicants in climate cases. As\u00a0all\u00a0individual applicants, they need to demonstrate that they are\u00a0highly exposed to the adverse effects of climate change. However, young people generally suffer fewer physical health problems than older generations. The strict criteria developed in KlimaSeniorinnen<\/u><\/a> do not adequately address this, because they require high and current\u00a0exposure to the adverse effects of climate change. Since younger generations will be particularly exposed to climate change in the future (KlimaSeniorinnen<\/u>, para\u00a0420), the Court could have set a lower threshold for this group or focused on mental health impacts (e.g. substantial fear of the future) instead. This could have incorporated intergenerational burden-sharing\u00a0into the Convention and\u00a0advanced its role beyond that of an argumentative tool. Moreover, this would comply with the notion of \u2018victim\u2019 under Art\u00a034 ECHR.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

Following\u00a0the three Grand Chamber climate cases, Uricchio<\/u><\/a> and De\u00a0Conto<\/u><\/a>\u00a0were the first such cases to be decided\u00a0by a smaller panel of the ECtHR. While it is\u00a0impossible to predict the outcome of future cases, the Court\u2019s decisions suggest that it will likely adopt a more pragmatic approach to climate litigation. Both decisions are remarkably concise.\u00a0This was mainly due to\u00a0lack of substantiated submissions. However, it is\u00a0notable that the Committee did not address\u00a0open legal questions (e.g. on\u00a0the victim status of applicants living in areas\u00a0particularly exposed to climate change). The criteria developed in Duarte Agostinho<\/u><\/a>\u00a0and KlimaSeniorinnen<\/u><\/a> were applied, but\u00a0additional argumentation (e.g. on intergenerational burden sharing) was not considered.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On 7 May 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rendered\u00a0the\u00a0inadmissibility decisions\u00a0De\u00a0Conto v\u00a0Italy and 32 Others\u00a0and Uricchio v\u00a0Italy and 31 Others.\u00a0They\u00a0are\u00a0the first climate cases to be decided by a three-judge\u00a0Committee\u00a0of the Court\u00a0(see Art\u00a028 European Convention of Human Rights [ECHR])\u00a0rather than by the Grand Chamber.\u00a0For this reason, the decisions are of high practical and legal […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":35,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6639],"tags":[3792,3782],"authors":[7648],"article-categories":[6000],"doi":[],"class_list":["post-25565","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-climate-change","tag-ecthr","authors-alfred-benny-auner","article-categories-article"],"acf":{"subline":"Business as Usual?"},"meta_box":{"doi":"10.17176\/20250725-143034-0"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25565","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/35"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25565"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25565\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25572,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25565\/revisions\/25572"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25565"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25565"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25565"},{"taxonomy":"authors","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/authors?post=25565"},{"taxonomy":"article-categories","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article-categories?post=25565"},{"taxonomy":"doi","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/doi?post=25565"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}