(a) The applicants’ appeal

32. On 26 May 2017 the applicants lodged an appeal with the Federal Administrative Court (“the FAC”) against the DETEC's decision. They requested that the impugned decision be quashed and remitted to the DETEC for re-examination.

33. In their appeal the applicants reiterated their arguments regarding the effects of climate change made before the DETEC (see paragraphs 22-27 above) and argued that their request was not aimed at obtaining the adoption of general, abstract regulations, but rather specific actions in the context of preliminary legislative proceedings as well as the correct implementation of the existing law. Such a request, in the applicants’ view, fell within the scope of section 25a of the APA. The applicants also argued that the DETEC had violated their right to be heard by not entering into the details of their request and particularly their arguments based on the Convention.

(b) The FAC's decision

34. On 27 November 2018 the FAC dismissed the applicants’ appeal.

35. With regard, first, to the applicants’ standing to lodge the appeal, the FAC held that applicants nos. 2-5 had an “interest worthy of protection” in the revocation or amendment of the impugned DETEC decision, which made the appeal admissible from that perspective. The FAC therefore considered that it was unnecessary to determine whether the applicant association had such an interest as well.

36. The FAC then examined the applicants’ complaint as regards the breach of their right to be heard. It found that, while the DETEC decision lacked reasoning, in the circumstances of the case at hand it was clear that the applicants’ request had been rejected because the DETEC considered it to be of an actio popularis nature.

37. As regards the remainder of the applicants’ arguments, the FAC explained that section 25a of the APA reflected the guarantee of access to a court provided in Article 29a of the Constitution and Article 6 of the Convention, in so far as “real acts” were concerned. It also pointed out that neither the law nor the case-law defined the concept of “real acts”. However, the FAC considered that, as regards the substantive area of application of section 25a of the APA, the decisive factor was the question whether a need for individual legal protection existed. Moreover, in order to restrict the area of application as was necessary to exclude actio popularis claims, the other criteria mentioned in section 25a(l) of the APA – namely, an “interest worthy of protection”, and rights and obligations being affected – were to be applied. The concept of an “interest worthy of protection”, which derived primarily from fundamental rights, required that there should be an existing interest and a practical benefit in pursuing it. Moreover, the appellant had to be affected in a way that differed from the general population, which was a criterion intended to exclude actio popularis proceedings. As regards potential infringements of fundamental rights, it was necessary to examine the material scope of the right in question in order to determine whether the right was affected or not. This assessment was to be carried out in the circumstances of a particular case.

38. Examining the applicants’ case from the perspective of these considerations, and relying on the Federal Supreme Court's case-law on actio popularis complaints, the FAC held that the applicants’ claim relating to the consequences of climate change, and demanding the issuance of a material ruling under section 25a of the APA, required the existence of a close proximity between the applicants and the matter in dispute, which – as opposed to actio popularis claims – went beyond the existence of a possible proximity which the general public might claim. In this connection, while accepting that over the course of the twenty-first century climate change would affect Switzerland in all its regions and seasons, the FAC considered that the impacts of climate change on people, animals and plants would be of a general nature, even if not all would be impacted equally. The FAC reasoned, in particular, as follows:

39. However, the FAC considered that the group of women older than 75 would not be particularly affected by the impacts of climate change such as to allow them to lodge an action under section 25a APA. It noted the following:

40. As regards the applicants’ reliance on Article 6 § 1, and subsidiarily on Article 13, of the Convention, concerning the protection of their rights under Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention, the FAC held that the applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention required, inter alia, the existence of a genuine dispute of a serious nature, the outcome of which was directly decisive for the civil claim in question. According to the FAC, this meant that a claim should be asserted in formal terms in a reasonable way and that Article 6 § 1 should be interpreted in conjunction with Article 34 of the Convention, which regulated the conditions for lodging individual applications before the Court and excluded the possibility of actio popularis complaints.

41. In this respect, as regards the applicants’ specific complaints, the FAC reasoned as follows:

42. Finally, the FAC summarised its findings in the following manner:

(a) The applicants’ appeal

43. On 21 January 2019 the applicants lodged an appeal in the Federal Supreme Court (“the FSC”) against the FAC's judgment. They requested that it be quashed, and the case remitted to the DETEC for examination on the merits or, alternatively, to the FAC for its reassessment. In their appeal, the applicants relied on Articles 9, 10, 29 and 29a of the Constitution and Articles 2, 6, 8, 13 and 34 of the Convention.

44. The applicants argued that they had an “interest worthy of protection”, which was current and practical, since, in the absence of a remedial action, Switzerland continued to emit excessive GHG emissions which increasingly impacted their lives and health. As regards the applicant association, they stressed that it was appealing on its own behalf but also in the interests of its members, which represented a vulnerable group whose health, and potentially lives, were particularly impacted by the consequences of global warming.

45. The applicants further contended that the FSC needed to make the necessary determination of the facts of the case since the FAC had failed to do that or had done it only in a rudimentary way, particularly in relation to the possible impacts of climate change. In their view, the FAC had failed to consider the issues relating to more frequent deaths and the adverse health impacts in the population group of women aged 75 to 84 linked to climate change. They referred to the various health ailments suffered by applicants nos. 2-5, which made them even more vulnerable to climate change.

46. Moreover, as regards the object of the appeal before the FSC, the applicants explained that they were challenging, in particular, the lower bodies’ determination of the procedural prerequisites for examination of the substance of their case in terms of section 25a of the APA and Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, in conjunction with Articles 10 and 29 § 2 of the Constitution and Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention. They complained of a breach of their right to be heard, namely the right to have a proper examination of their case by the DETEC and the FAC. The applicants also referred to Article 9 § 3 of the Aarhus ConventionFootnote ¹ (see paragraph 141 below) as regards their standing to bring the present proceedings before the courts.

47. The applicants further argued that the FAC had incorrectly considered that their complaint was of an actio popularis nature. In their view, as a group which was particularly vulnerable to climate change, they had a right to seek protection under Article 10 of the Constitution and under Article 2 of the Convention. Moreover, pointing to the risks to their health, physical integrity and well-being as a result of global warming, the applicants argued that excessive GHG emissions were similar to harmful air pollution and were to be considered as dangerous activities within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. On the basis of these considerations, the applicants also considered that they had victim status under Article 34 of the Convention.

48. As regards, in particular, their reliance on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicants argued that the FAC had examined the wrong question by reviewing the connection between their legal requests and GHG emissions (which it had, moreover, assessed incorrectly), whereas it had been supposed to examine the connection between GHG emissions and the State's obligation to protect their right to life under Article 10 of the Constitution.

49. In this connection, the applicants alleged that they had not had effective legal protection as required by the Convention. In their view, the FAC had misconstrued the concept of a dispute of a genuine and serious nature relevant for the applicability of Article 6. The applicants argued that their request had been aimed at addressing the omissions in climate protection on the part of the State, thereby leading to a reduction in excessive GHG emissions and the heatwaves linked to them. In other words, the outcome of the proceedings they sought to achieve was the reduction of GHG emissions and heatwaves. However, the FAC had incorrectly considered that there needed to be a direct connection between their requests and the reduction of GHG emissions. In any event, in the applicants’ view, the FAC had not properly examined the existence of a link between some of the demands they had made (such as the institution of preliminary legislative proceedings or the provision of information to the public and Parliament) and the reduction of GHG emissions and heatwaves, and, by extension, the protection of their right to life guaranteed under the relevant domestic law, namely Article 10 of the Constitution.

50. According to the applicants, there was a sufficient connection between this protected civil right under domestic law and the outcome of the proceedings which they sought to achieve. Moreover, citing the Court's case-law in Bursa Barosu Başkanlığı and Others v. Turkey (no. 25680/05, § 128, 19 June 2018), the applicants argued that Article 6 was applicable even if their claim did not benefit only them exclusively, but also benefited the general public. The applicants also considered that the FAC's interpretation of Article 6 in conjunction with Article 34 of the Convention had had no legal basis and been arbitrary. In summary, the applicants noted as follows:

51. As regards Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants argued that even if the FAC had considered Article 6 to be inapplicable, it had been required to examine the complaint under Article 13 in conjunction with the existence of adverse effects of climate change on their right to life under Article 2, and their right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention.

(b) The FSC's decision

52. On 5 May 2020 the FSC dismissed the applicants’ appeal.

53. The FSC considered that applicants nos. 2-5 had standing to lodge an appeal against the FAC's judgment. The FSC, however, left it open whether the applicant association also had standing to lodge the appeal and considered it more appropriate to limit its considerations to applicants nos. 2-5.

54. As regards the merits of the applicants’ appeal, the FSC first found that the decisions of the DETEC and the FAC had been duly reasoned, as required by Article 29 § 2 of the Constitution and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (assuming that it applied).

55. With respect to the applicants’ reliance on section 25a of the APA, the FSC stressed that this provision was intended to provide legal protection against “real acts” and not for an actio popularis avenue. This necessitated a careful examination in the particular circumstances of each case of whether the person was affected in a different way from the general public. In other words, it was essential that an applicant's own rights were affected. Moreover, the FSC explained that the term “real acts” under section 25a of the APA referred to a broad concept of State acts (or failures to act). However, the legal protection guaranteed under that provision was restricted by the application of other admissibility criteria, notably the requirement that the “real act” affect rights or obligations and that the person have an “interest worthy of protection”. The requirement of being affected presupposed an interference (actual or potential) of a certain gravity with the rights of an individual. Linked to that, the “interest worthy of protection” was primarily concerned with fundamental rights, although other legal titles might also be taken into account.

56. Applying these considerations to the case in issue, the FSC first noted that the applicants had requested a large number of measures of different nature and scope which essentially amounted to a request to institute preparatory work for the enactment of laws and secondary legislation. However, finding that in the light of other considerations it was not necessary to engage further with this issue, the FSC stressed that, according to Swiss constitutional law, proposals for shaping current policy areas should in principle be pursued by way of democratic participation.

57. The FSC further considered that the fact that the DETEC and the other authorities had not taken the actions requested by the applicants did not in itself mean that the rights invoked by the applicants would be violated. Moreover, it did not follow from that alleged omission alone that the applicants’ fundamental rights would be affected with the necessary intensity, as required under section 25a of the APA.

58. In this connection, the FSC held that the limit of “well below 2°C” in terms of the Paris AgreementFootnote ² was not expected to be exceeded in the near future. Relying on the 2018 Special report “1.5°C global warming” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the FSC concluded that global warming would reach 1.5°C around the year 2040 (likely range 2030 to 2052), provided that it continued at the current rate (0.2°C per decade, likely range 0.1 to 0.3°C per decade). The limit of “well below 2°C” would accordingly be reached at a later time. The FSC considered that the Paris Agreement and the international climate protection regime based on it, including the relevant Swiss law, were based on the assumption that the limit of “well below 2°C” would not be exceeded in the near future and that there was still some time to prevent global warming from exceeding this limit.

59. On the basis of the above considerations, the FSC found as follows:

60. Moreover, the FSC considered that, in terms of section 25a of the APA, the applicants’ legal action was of an actio popularis nature and aimed at achieving something which should more appropriately be achieved not by legal action but by political means. The DETEC had therefore not acted in breach of section 25a of the APA when rejecting the applicants’ requests.

61. As regards the applicants’ reliance on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the FSC reasoned as follows:

62. Lastly, as regards the applicants’ complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, the FSC found that, in the light of the findings above, the applicants did not have an arguable claim under another provision of the Convention triggering the application of Article 13.

63. In conclusion, the FSC stressed as follows:

(a) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

133. The relevant parts of the UNFCCC provide as follows:

(b) The Kyoto Protocol

134. The UNFCCC was first operationalised through the Kyoto Protocol (1997). This Protocol committed industrialised countries and economies in transition to limit and reduce GHG emissions in accordance with agreed individual targets and the principle of “common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities”. The relevant part of the Kyoto Protocol provides as follows:

135. Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol set quantified emission limitation or reduction commitment (percentage of base year or period) for Switzerland at 92%.

(c) The Paris Agreement

136. The Paris Agreement – adopted at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris on 12 December 2015 – is an international treaty setting out the overarching goal of GHG emissions reduction. The relevant parts of it provide as follows:

(d) COP26 and COP27

137. At the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow, which took place between 31 October and 13 November 2021, the Glasgow Climate Pact was adopted, which provides, inter alia, as follows:

138. The UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP27) took place in Sharm el-Sheikh from 6 to 20 November 2022. The relevant parts of the adopted Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan provide as follows:

(e) COP28

139. In preparation for the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP28) in Dubai, held between 30 November and 12 December 2023, the synthesis report on the technical dialogue of the first global stocktake under the Paris AgreementFootnote ⁹², made the following key findings:

140. The relevant parts of the COP28 First Global StocktakeFootnote ⁹³ provide as follows:

(a) Resolution on the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment

144. Upon the invitation of the Human Rights Council formulated in its Resolution 48/13 of 8 October 2021, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted its Resolution 76/300 on the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment on 28 July 2022.

145. It was adopted with 161 votes in favour (of the 169 member States present), 8 abstentionsFootnote ⁹⁶ and no votes againstFootnote ⁹⁷. 45 of the 46 member States of the Council of Europe voted in favour.Footnote ⁹⁸

146. In the Preamble to the Resolution, the General Assembly noted the following:

147. Its four operative paragraphs provide as follows:

(b) Other General Assembly material

148. Nearly every year since its first Resolution on the subject, namely Resolution no. 43/53 on the protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind adopted on 6 December 1988, the issue of global climate protection for future generations has been put on the agenda of the General Assembly, resulting in the adoption of numerous resolutionsFootnote ⁹⁹.

149. In its Resolution 69/220 adopted on 19 December 2014, the General Assembly made explicit reference to the necessity to protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, referring to the UNFCCC.

150. In the Preamble to its Resolution 72/219 adopted on 20 December 2017, the General Assembly made a statement which it has retained ever since in the Preamble of each of the resolutions adopted on this subjectFootnote ¹⁰⁰:

(a) Resolutions

154. In 2018, in its Resolution 37/8, the Human Rights Council acknowledged that “more than 100 States [had] recognized some form of a right to a healthy environment in, inter alia, international agreements, their constitutions, legislations or policies”.Footnote ¹⁰⁴

155. In Resolution 46/7 on human rights and the environmentFootnote ¹⁰⁵ the Human Rights Council noted as follows:

156. In Resolution 48/13 of 8 October 2021, the Human Rights Council formally recognised the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right and invited the General Assembly to consider the matter (see the General Assembly Resolution 76/300, cited above). The relevant parts of the Resolution read as follows:

157. The Human Rights Council also adopted Resolution 50/9 on human rights and climate change of 7 July 2022, in which it focused more closely on the implications of climate change for the full enjoyment of the right to food, but also called upon all States to adopt

158. On 6 October 2022 the Human Rights Council adopted Resolution 51/4 on the human rights of older persons, in which it recognised the essential contribution that older persons made to the functioning of societies and to the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (see also Resolution 44/7 of 16 July 2020).

(b) Special procedures

(a) Concerning GHG emissions

204. By Decision No. 94/69/EC of the Council of 15 December 1993 concerning the conclusion of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (OJ 2009/L 140, pp. 136-48), the Council approved the UNFCCC on behalf of the European Community (now the European Union).

205. Decision No. 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the effort of Member States to reduce their GHG emissions to meet the Community's GHG emission reduction commitments up to 2020 (OJ 2009/L 140, pp. 136-48) provides that each Member State is to limit its GHG emission according to a percentage set for that Member State (Article 3). Detailed percentages by Member States can be found in Annex II.

206. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009/L 140, pp. 16-62), establishes a common framework for the promotion of energy from renewable sources (Article 1) and sets mandatory national overall targets for the use of energy from renewable sources (Article 3 and Annex 1).

207. Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC (OJ 2012/L 315, pp. 1-56) establishes a common framework of measures for the promotion of energy efficiency within the Union in order to ensure the achievement of the Union's 2020 20% headline target on energy efficiency (Article 1).

208. Regulation (EU) 2018/842 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on binding annual GHG emission reductions by Member States from 2021 to 2030 contributing to climate action to meet commitments under the Paris Agreement and amending Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 (OJ 2018/L 156, pp. 26-42) defines obligations on Member States with respect to their minimum contributions for the period from 2021 to 2030 to fulfilling the Union's target of reducing its GHG emissions by 30% below 2005 levels in 2030 in specific sectors. It provides that each Member State will, by 2030, limit its GHG emissions at least by the percentage set for that Member State in relation to its GHG emissions in 2005 (Article 4 § 1; Annex 1).

209. By Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action (“the Governance Regulation”, OJ 2018/L 328, pp. 1-77), the European Union established a governance mechanism, based on long-term strategies, to implement strategies and measures designed to meet the objectives and targets of the Energy Union and the long-term Union GHG emissions commitments consistent with the Paris Agreement (Article 1).

210. Through the adoption on 6 April 2022 of Decision (EU) 2022/591 on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2030 (OJ 2022/L 114, pp. 22-36), the European Parliament and the Council set out a general action programme in the field of the environment for the period up to 31 December 2030 (the “8th Environment Action programme” or “8th EAP”).

211. Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (“European Climate Law”) (OJ 2021/L 243, pp. 1-17), established a framework for the irreversible and gradual reduction of anthropogenic GHG emissions by sources and enhancement of removals by sinks regulated in Union law. It sets out a binding objective of climate neutrality in the Union by 2050 in pursuit of the long-term temperature goal set out in point (a) of Article 2 § 1 of the Paris Agreement, as well as a binding Union target of a net domestic reduction in GHG emissions for 2030. The Regulation also requires that the projected indicative Union GHG budget be established and based on the best available science.

(b) Concerning access to information, public participation and access to justice in environmental matters

212. Through Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006/L 264, pp. 13-19), the then European Community guaranteed the right of public access to environmental information received or produced by Community institutions and bodies (Article 1).

213. This Regulation was recently amended, following the 2017 findings and recommendations of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee with regard to a communication brought by an NGO concerning compliance of the European union with the Aarhus Convention (in particular with its Article 3 § 1 and Article 9 §§ 2, 3, 4 and 5).Footnote ¹⁴⁰

214. Consequently, Regulation (EU) 2021/1767 of 6 October 2021 amending Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies broadened the scope of the type of acts that can be subject to internal review and the range of persons entitled to request an internal review. The relevant provisions of the consolidated Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 read as follows:

1. Inter-American system

(b) The Inter-American Court of Human Rights

225. On 15 November 2017 the Inter-American Court of Human Rights delivered an Advisory Opinion entitled “The Environment and Human Rights”Footnote ¹⁴⁷ in which it derived the right to a healthy environment from Article 26 of the American Convention (Economic, social, and cultural rights). The relevant concluding part of the Advisory Opinion reads as follows:

226. In the 2020 case of the Indigenous communities of the Lhaka Honhat Association (Our Land) v. Argentina Footnote ¹⁴⁸, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights held Argentina responsible for violating indigenous communities’ human rights through its failure to recognise and protect their lands. In that case, the Court examined the rights to a healthy environment, adequate food, water, and cultural identity autonomously.

227. In January 2023 a new requestFootnote ¹⁴⁹ for an Advisory Opinion was submitted to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights by Colombia and Chile asking it to clarify the scope of State obligations, in their individual and collective dimension, in order to respond to the climate emergency within the framework of international human rights law, paying special attention to the differentiated impacts of this emergency on individuals from diverse regions and population groups, as well as on nature and on human survival on the planet.

(c) The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

228. In March 2022, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Office of the Special Rapporteur on Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental RightsFootnote ¹⁵⁰ published a resolution recognising that climate change was a human rights emergency.

(a) The Grande-Synthe case

236. The detailed circumstances of the Grande-Synthe case of the Conseil d’État are set out in the case of Carême v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 7189/21, 9 April 2024. In that case, upon an action brought by Mr Carême acting on his own behalf and in his capacity as mayor of Grande-Synthe, and in the name and on behalf of the latter municipality, the Conseil d’État declared admissible the action brought by the municipality and inadmissible the action brought by Mr Carême. The Conseil d’État found that the measures taken by the authorities to tackle climate change had not been sufficient and ordered the authorities to take additional measures by 31 March 2022 to meet the GHG emissions reduction targets set out in the domestic legislation and Annex I of Regulation (EU) 2018/842.

(b) Applications for judicial review seeking to secure compliance with the limit values for concentrations of particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide

237. By a decision of 12 July 2017, the Conseil d’État, on an application for judicial review, set aside the tacit refusals of the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister and the Ministers responsible for the environment and health and ordered the Prime Minister and the Minister responsible for the environment to take all appropriate measures before 31 March 2018 and to draw up plans in accordance with Article 23 of Directive 2008/50/EC of 21 May 2008 in order to reduce the concentrations of particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide throughout the national territory (Conseil d’État (plenary), 10 July 2020, Association Les Amis de la Terre France et autres, no. 428409).

238. Referring in particular to the limit values for concentrations of particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide laid down by the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for EuropeFootnote ¹⁵⁶ and to the fact that, in certain areas of French territory, those values had been exceeded each year between 2012 and 2014, the Conseil d’État found that the regulatory authority had failed to fulfil its obligations by omitting to draw up air-quality plans for the areas concerned in accordance with the provisions of the Directive and those transposing the Directive into domestic law.

239. The Conseil d’État stated in that judgment that the setting-aside of the decisions tacitly refusing to take action necessarily entailed taking all the measures necessary to ensure that the appropriate air-quality plans were drawn up and implemented.

(c) Full administrative-law actions seeking to secure compliance with GHG emissions reduction targets

240. In another more recent case, known as the “Case of the century”, which concerned GHG emissions reduction targets, the Paris Administrative Court, drawing on the Grande-Synthe case, acknowledged, this time in the context of a full administrative-law action and in a judgment of 3 February 2021, that environmental associations were “justified in arguing that, to the extent [that the State] had made commitments which it had not complied with in the context of the first carbon budget, [it should] be regarded as liable for part of the ecological damage within the meaning … of Article 1246 of the Civil Code”. That Article, as amended by Law no. 2016-1087 of 8 August 2016 on the recovery of biodiversity, nature and landscapes, provides that “[a]ny person who causes ecological damage has the duty to afford redress” (Paris Administrative Court, 3 February 2021, Oxfam France et autres, no. 1904967).

241. As regards the commitments of the French State and the general obligation to combat climate change, the Paris Administrative Court found support in the same texts referred to in the Grande-Synthe case, namely: France's commitments under the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement, Decision No 406/2009/EC of 23 April 2009 on the effort of Member States to reduce their GHG emissions, and Regulation (EU) 2018/842 of 30 May 2018 on binding annual GHG emission reductions; and Article L. 100-4 of the Energy Code and Article L. 222-1 B of the Environment Code. The Administrative Court also referred to Article 3 of the Environment Charter, which recalls the existence of the preventive principle already enshrined in law, and provides that “[e]veryone shall, in accordance with the conditions laid down by law, avoid causing any damage to the environment or, failing that, limit its consequences”. The Administrative Court inferred that it was clear from all the above provisions that the French State “[had] recognised the urgency of combating current climate change and acknowledged its capacity to take effective action in relation to that phenomenon in order to limit the causes and mitigate the adverse consequences” and “[had] chosen … to exercise its regulatory powers, in particular by pursuing a public policy of reducing GHG emissions from French territory, through which it [had] undertaken to achieve, within specific and successive deadlines, a certain number of targets in this sphere …”.

242. As to the implementation of those State commitments in the light of the GHG emissions reduction targets, the Administrative Court concluded that “the State [had to] be regarded as having failed to adhere to the first carbon budget and [as not having] … carried out the actions which it itself [had] recognised as apt to reduce GHG emissions”. In reaching that conclusion the Administrative Court found support, inter alia, in the same reports of the High Council on Climate cited by the Conseil d’État in its decision in the Grande-Synthe case.

243. Observing that “the State [could not] be held liable for the alleged ecological damage … except in so far as the failure to adhere to the first carbon budget [had] contributed to the increase in GHG emissions”, the Administrative Court, in an interlocutory judgment, ordered further investigations. It found that, as the evidence stood, it could not determine the specific measures to be ordered to enable the State to achieve the targets that France had set itself in terms of reducing GHG emissions.

244. Following that investigative measure, in a subsequent judgment of 14 October 2021, the Administrative Court ordered the Prime Minister and the competent ministers to take, by 31 December 2022, all appropriate measures to remedy the environmental damage and prevent aggravation of the damage, in an amount equal to the uncompensated share of GHG emissions under the first carbon budget, namely 15 Mt CO2e, and subject to an adjustment in line with the CITEPA's (Interprofessional Technical Centre for Studies on Air Pollution – Centre interprofessionnel technique d’études de la pollution atmosphérique) estimated data as at 31 January 2022. In the Administrative Court's view, those concrete measures were apt to afford redress for the alleged damage (Paris Administrative Court, 14 October 2021, Oxfam France et autres, no. 1904967). The court did not impose a coercive fine at that stage.

245. In his opinion on the second decision of the Conseil d’État of 1 July 2021 in the Grande-Synthe case, the public rapporteur set out the following considerations regarding the specific nature of the climate cases examined in France compared with other European States:

246. In an address to the Court of Cassation on 21 May 2021 entitled “L'environnement: les citoyens, le droit, les juges”Footnote ¹⁵⁷ (“The environment: citizens, the law and judges”), the Vice-President of the Conseil d’État, Bruno Lasserre, made the following remarks on the first decisions given by the administrative courts (the decision of the Conseil d’État of 19 November 2020 in the Grande-Synthe case, the decision of the Conseil d’État, sitting in plenary, of 10 July 2020 in the case of Association Les Amis de la Terre France, and the ruling of the Paris Administrative Court of 3 February 2021 in the “Case of the century”):

(d) Examples of orders and coercive fines imposed in climate cases

247. In the case of Association Les Amis de la Terre France et autres, on an application for judicial review, the Conseil d’État, having ordered the Prime Minister and the Minister responsible for the environment to take all necessary measures by 31 March 2018, gave a decision on 10 July 2020 in which it ordered the State to pay a coercive fine unless it could demonstrate, within six months of service of the decision, that it had implemented the decision of 12 July 2017 in each of the areas concerned. The Conseil d’État fixed the amount of the fine at EUR 10 million for each six-month period until the date of enforcement (Conseil d’État, 10 July 2020, Association Les Amis de la Terre France et autres, no. 428409).

248. The Conseil d’État subsequently assessed the interim amount of the fine.

249. By a decision of 4 August 2021, it ordered the State to pay the sum of EUR 10 million in respect of the six-month period from 11 January to 11 July 2021.

250. In his opinion on this case, the public rapporteur made the following remarks concerning the issue of the proper recipient of the sums payable by the State by way of fines in climate cases:

251. In line with that opinion, the Conseil d’État therefore ordered that the sum of EUR 10 million be paid out as follows: EUR 8,800,000 mainly to four public institutions active in the environmental field, namely the Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME), the Centre for Studies and Expertise on Risk, Environment, Mobility and Planning (CEREMA), the National Health, Food, Environment and Work Safety Agency (ANSES) and the National Institute for the Industrial Environment and Risk (INERIS), with the remainder to be paid to the air-quality monitoring associations in the most affected regions.

252. In a decision of 17 October 2022, the Conseil d’État again assessed the interim amount of the coercive fine, for the two six-month periods from 12 July 2021 to 12 July 2022, and ordered the State to pay the sum of EUR 20 million, of which EUR 16,950,000 was to be paid out mainly to the same public institutions. In a further decision of 24 November 2023, the Conseil d’État found that the decision of 12 July 2017 had been partially executed and ordered the State to pay the sum of EUR 10 million to the above-mentioned public institutions and associations, as well as to the association Les Amis de la Terre France.

253. Lastly, that case also resulted in a judgment of the CJEU finding an infringement in view of France's failure to comply with the limit values for concentrations of nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter laid down in Directive 2008/50/EC (judgment of 24 October 2019 in Commission v. France, C-636/18, EU:C:2019:900, paragraphs 44-45).

2. Germany

254. In the case of Neubauer and Others v. Federal Republic of Germany Footnote ¹⁵⁸, the German Federal Constitutional Court (“the GFCC”) examined four constitutional complaints directed against certain provisions of the Federal Climate Change Act of 12 December 2019 (Bundes-Klimaschutzgesetz) and against the State's failure to take further measures to reduce GHG emissions.

255. The applicants grounded their claims on the right to life and integrity (Article 2 § 2, first sentence, of the Basic Law), the right to property and the right of inheritance (Article 14 § 1 of the Basic Law), as well as on a fundamental right to a future consistent with human dignity and a fundamental right to an ecological minimum standard of living, which they derived from Article 2 § 1 in conjunction with Article 20a and from Article 2 § 1 in conjunction with Article 1 § 1, first sentence, of the Basic Law.

256. The GFCC held that the provisions of the Federal Climate Change Act were incompatible with fundamental rights in so far as they lacked sufficient specifications for further emission reductions from 2031 onwards. In all other respects, the constitutional complaints were rejected. The GFCC held that it could not be ascertained that the legislature, in introducing these provisions, had violated its constitutional duty to protect the complainants from the risks of climate change or failed to satisfy the obligation arising from Article 20a of the Basic Law to take climate action. However, the challenged provisions did violate the freedoms of the complainants, some of whom were still very young, because the provisions irreversibly shifted major emission reduction burdens into periods after 2030. The fact that GHG emissions had to be reduced followed from the Basic Law, among other things the constitutional climate goal arising from its Article 20a. These future obligations to reduce emissions had an impact on practically every type of freedom because virtually all aspects of human life still involved the emission of GHG and were thus potentially threatened by drastic restrictions after 2030. Therefore, the legislature should have taken precautionary steps to mitigate these major burdens in order to safeguard the freedoms guaranteed by fundamental rights.

257. The official Headnotes of the Order summarised the findings as follows:

3. Ireland

258. In the case of Friends of the Irish Environment CLG v. the Government of Ireland, Ireland and the Attorney General Footnote ¹⁵⁹, the Supreme Court of Ireland was asked to examine the adequacy of domestic measures taken in relation to climate change in the light of statutory provisions enacted in 2015, as well as rights-based arguments under the Constitution and the Convention in relation to the right to life and the right to bodily integrity.

259. The relevant concluding part of the judgment, delivered by the then Chief Justice, reads as follows:

(a) Preliminary remarks

299. According to the applicants, there was no doubt that climate change-induced heatwaves had caused, were causing and would cause further deaths and illnesses to older people and particularly women. This message had been part of the respondent State's communication with its citizens regarding the public-health impacts of climate change.

300. The individual applicants argued that they were part of a vulnerable group owing to their age and gender. In particular, many members of the applicant association explained how they were affected by climate change. The second applicant had suffered, and the third applicant still suffered, from cardiovascular diseases, while the fourth and fifth applicants suffered from respiratory diseases. The relevant risk to the second to fourth applicants had already materialised, as evidenced by their medical certificates. In addition, the second to fifth applicants had described in personal statements how their health and well-being were affected by heatwaves.

301. The Swiss authorities were well aware of the risks associated with climate change and the necessity to address them. They had acknowledged these risks in their public communications, by endorsing the findings of the IPCC and by taking part in the UNFCCC and in the Paris Agreement. However, the authorities had failed to set binding climate targets for 2030 and 2050 and their climate strategy was not in line with the 1.5°C limit. Moreover, the authorities had failed to meet their own inadequate climate targets. At the same time, Switzerland was able to do its share, namely, to reduce the risk of heat-related excess mortality and morbidity.

302. In this connection, the applicants argued that Switzerland's 2020 climate target had been intended to meet the (outdated) 2°C limit. After committing to the 1.5°C limit, the Swiss 2030 target underwent only a superficial update. The intended reductions were not only wholly inadequate, but their inadequacy had been aggravated by a reduction in domestic ambition. Neither the 1.5°C long-term temperature goal itself nor 1.5°C compatible emission reduction targets had been enshrined in national law, nor was there an intention to do so. The applicants’ complaint therefore related to the current climate situation in Switzerland and to the inadequacy of the targets set for 2030 and 2050.

303. Under its current climate strategy, Switzerland planned to emit more emissions than an “equal per capita emissions” quantification approach would entitle it to do. In any event, an “equal per capita emissions” burden-sharing approach was not a valid approach to determine national “fair shares” in reducing GHG emissions. The general understanding, embodied in the Paris Agreement and the Rio DeclarationFootnote ¹⁶⁷, was that a fair level of contribution reflected the “highest possible ambition” and “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances”.

304. The applicants argued that Switzerland's current climate strategy fell far short of meeting a “fair share” contribution towards the global mitigation target of 1.5°C. A fair contribution would require Switzerland to strengthen domestic reductions and – through financing emission reduction in other countries – attain a net-negative GHG emission level in 2030 with reductions of 160% and up to 200% below the 1990 emission levels for a 50% chance of meeting the 1.5°C limit. As regards the strengthening of the domestic emission reduction commitments within the “fair share” standard, Switzerland would need to ensure domestic GHG emission reductions of more than 60% below 1990 levels by 2030. However, this could not be realistically achieved with the measures currently envisaged in the domestic legislation.

(b) Victim status

305. The applicants contended that they were all (the applicant association and applicants nos. 2-5) victims, within the autonomous meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of a violation of Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention on account of the ongoing failure of the respondent State to afford them effective protection against the effects of global warming. In particular, the applicants considered that they were victims as they were directly affected by the impugned measures. The term “victim” was an autonomous concept which should be interpreted in an evolutive manner and not applied in a rigid, mechanical, or inflexible way. It was sufficient that a violation was conceivable, whether it had materialised should be decided on the merits.

(c) Applicability of the relevant Convention provisions

(d) Merits

319. The applicants submitted that under Article 2 of the Convention the Court needed to determine whether, given the circumstances of the case, the State had done all that could have been required of it to prevent their life from being avoidably put at risk (citing L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom, 9 June 1998, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III). The risks climate change posed to the lives of applicants nos. 2-5 and the other members of the applicant association were comparable to, and potentially greater than, those with which the Court had been faced to date. In particular, in view of the magnitude of the risks posed by climate change, the clear science, the urgency of the situation and the clear ultimate objective of the UNFCCC, the State had a positive obligation to take all measures that were not impossible or disproportionately economically burdensome with the objective of reducing GHG emissions to a safe level. The situation required the State to do everything in its power to protect the applicants.

320. The scope of the respondent State's obligation to protect derived in particular from relevant rules and principles of international law, evolving norms of national and international law, and the consensus emerging from specialised international instruments and from the practice of Contracting States. Having regard to the harmonious interpretation of the Convention taken together with these considerations, the applicants argued that to comply with its positive obligation to protect them effectively, the State was required to do everything in its power to do its share to prevent a global temperature increase of more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. This necessarily included establishing a legislative and administrative framework to achieve that objective. The principle of harmonious interpretation also helped to clarify the ambiguity around the respondent State's exact “fair share” of the required global mitigation effort, and the question whether the scope of the obligation to protect extended to emissions occurring abroad. In this respect, the commitments undertaken by the State under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement were of particular importance as they, together with the IPCC findings, demonstrated the State's knowledge of the real and serious risk of harm posed to the applicants by climate change, including extreme heatwaves. Moreover, the relevant scientific studies and the established standardsFootnote ¹⁷⁰ needed to inform the scope of the State's obligations.

321. In view of these considerations, the applicants contended that the respondent State had failed to take the necessary steps to mitigate the harm and risk to them caused by climate change. Specifically, it had done significantly less than its share to prevent a global temperature increase of more than 1.5°C. Contrary to what was required, the Swiss climate strategy was not in line with the 1.5°C limit. Instead, there was a long history of failed climate action. Also, the State had failed to set any domestically binding climate targets for 2030 and 2050 and had failed to meet its (inadequate) 2020 climate target. The mitigation potential in Switzerland remained largely unused, partly without any justification, partly on the justification of high costs, which was not evidenced and was – in so far as Switzerland was concerned – not a relevant consideration. The applicants stressed that the burden of proof was on the Government to demonstrate, using detailed and rigorous data, that the State had taken the necessary action. However, in Switzerland, the decisions had not been based on scientific studies and the State had in fact decided to dispense with its consultative body on climate change which had pointed to the inadequacy of the climate targets as long ago as 2012.

322. With respect to the Government's explanation as to Switzerland's failure to determine a national carbon budget – and thus to establish its climate policy on the basis of a quantitative assessment (see paragraph 360 below) – the applicants were of the view that there were fundamental misconceptions underlying the State's approach.

323. In this connection, the applicants had commissioned an expert reportFootnote ¹⁷¹ to assess the methodology used in the 2012 Policy Brief on which the State reliedFootnote ¹⁷². The expert report applied the methodology of the Policy Brief to the remaining global 1.5°C budget from the IPCC's AR6 and determined a remaining budget for Switzerland of 381 Mt CO2e from 1 January 2022 onwards. The expert report calculated that, based on Switzerland's current and planned emission reduction targets, this budget would be depleted by between 2030 and 2033. On the basis of its current and planned targets, Switzerland would apportion itself 0.2073% of the remaining global CO2 budget as of 2022, compared to a population share of 0.1099%. For Switzerland to stay within the budget as defined by the methodology of the Policy Brief, it would need to achieve net-zero emissions by 2040, and thus well before its current target of net zero by 2050. The expert report also noted several shortcomings of the methodology in the Policy Brief which made it unsuitable to inform “fair share” targets for countries.

324. The IPCC had also engaged with assessments of effort-sharing methodologies. In its most recent AR6, the IPCC had explicitly recognised the importance for countries to explain how fairness principles were “operationalised” and to express their targets in terms of the portion of the remaining global budget.Footnote ¹⁷³ The same approach of the necessity to quantify a State's fair share had been followed in the national climate litigation in Germany and the Netherlands. On the other hand, and as regards the respondent State's reliance on the IPCC's global emission reduction pathways, the applicants stressed that it had been recognised by the IPCC itself that these could not be taken as explicit assumptions about global equity, environmental justice or intra-regional income distributionFootnote ¹⁷⁴.

325. The studies provided by the applicants – notably by the CAT and Climate AnalyticsFootnote ¹⁷⁵ and Rajamani et al. – provided an appropriate common ground for the applicants’ submissions. They built upon the assessment of effort-sharing studies as reported by the IPCC in its AR5, updated with more recent studies and historical data. They therefore covered an even broader spectrum of effort-sharing methodologies as compared to the AR4 assessment. In contrast, the respondent State had not provided any quantified justification for the fairness of its emission target. Its reliance on an approach that came close to a budgetary approach was flawed and clearly insufficient. Upon the applicants’ explicit request for it to do so, in a letter of 10 March 2021, the FOEN had, however, failed to demonstrate that in its assessment of Switzerland's climate policy it had relied on the Policy Brief or the internal assessment now provided by the Government before the Court, which were in any event documents based on flawed methodology (see paragraph 323 above).

326. The effort-sharing studies provided by the applicants only determined the “fair share” level of emission reductions for a country, and whether these reductions needed to be achieved domestically. Alleged technical difficulties and the high costs of reducing emissions within the respondent State's territory were irrelevant for the determination of the level of responsibility for overall emission reductions, which could also be achieved through supporting countries with lower levels of responsibility and capability. Switzerland would therefore clearly be capable of achieving the requisite mitigation measures.

327. In short, the applicants submitted that Switzerland's action to tackle climate change was inadequate for the following reasons: (a) Switzerland had failed to legislate for the minimum possible requisite emissions reduction targets for 2020, and had then failed to meet that inadequate emissions reduction target; (b) the 2030 proposed target was manifestly inadequate and had not even been given legislative effect; and (c) Switzerland's 2050 proposed target was inadequate in so far as it did not commit Switzerland to net-zero domestic emissions and this too had not yet even been given legislative effect.

328. Against the above background, the applicants contended that the State had failed and continued to fail to protect them effectively, in violation of their right to life under Article 2 of the Convention.

329. The applicants also pointed out that in environmental matters, the scope of the positive obligations under Article 2 largely overlapped with those under Article 8 (citing, inter alia, Kolyadenko and Others, cited above, § 216). They therefore considered that the same considerations outlined above concerning Article 2 also applied to their complaint under Article 8. In addition, as regards a fair balance between the competing interests of the individual and the community as a whole (which was of relevance under Article 8), the applicants stressed that in the present context there was no conflict of interest. On the contrary, it was in the interests of the community as a whole that the State adopt preventive measures to reduce the likelihood of global temperatures exceeding the 1.5°C limit, as provided in the Paris Agreement. However, it would be a misrepresentation of their complaint to consider that they sought from the Court for the Paris Agreement to be applied. They only asked the Court to rule on whether Switzerland had violated their rights under the Convention.

330. The scope of the State's margin of appreciation was limited because the complaint concerned an issue of compliance with international standards recognised by the State itself. It also concerned the risk of a man-made disaster and a violation of fundamental rights protected by Article 2 of the Convention. The urgency of the situation and the risk of irreversible harm also pointed to a narrow margin of appreciation. While the applicants accepted that it was for Switzerland to decide what measures to take to give effect to targets and to that extent it had a margin of appreciation, no such margin existed in relation to the fixing of the targets themselves, nor the need for legislation to give them practical effect. This was because there was only one way to prevent the 1.5°C limit from being breached and that was for global emissions to not exceed the remaining carbon budget, which should be shared fairly between States.

331. The scope of the respondent State's obligation to protect under Articles 2 and 8 needed to be interpreted in the light of the relevant international instruments, which manifested an international trend (and international obligations) on the measures that needed to be taken to address the serious and profound risks of climate change. This related, in particular, to the commitments undertaken by the State under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, as well as the 2021 Glasgow Climate Pact which had confirmed 1.5°C as the primary global temperature rise ceiling.

332. The prevention principle and the precautionary principle were important sources in determining the scope of the obligation to protect through harmonious interpretation of the Convention (citing Article 3 § 3 of the UNFCCC and the Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary HarmFootnote ¹⁷⁶). The requirements of “prevention” and “precaution” covered the full range of preventive measures, whether taken in the context of scientific uncertainty or not. In its case-law, the Court had also referred to the precautionary principle (citing Tătar, cited above, §§ 109-20).

333. Further important sources for determining the scope of the obligation to protect through harmonious interpretation of the Convention were evolving norms of national and international law and the consensus emerging from specialised international instruments and from the practice of States. Over the past decade, a wide range of judicial, quasi-judicial and other institutions at the national, regional and international level had recognised the significant impact that climate change was already having, and would have in future, on the enjoyment of a wide range of human rights, including the rights to life and health. In this respect, the UN General Assembly Resolution 76/300 was to be seen as a major and recent development at the international level which explicitly recognised “the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right”. All the Contracting States had voted in favour of this Resolution. The common ground could also be seen in the European Climate LawFootnote ¹⁷⁷, which contained the agreement as to the minimum emissions reductions that had to be made and which was far more ambitious than the reductions envisaged by Switzerland.

334. As scientific developments had shown, there was now no doubt as to the catastrophic implications of climate change and the real urgency of taking the necessary measures to address it. This had been recognised in the UNFCCC. However, since its adoption, the urgency had increased significantly, as recognised in the need for and adoption of the Paris Agreement. The scientific consensus now was that there remained very little time, if any, to prevent catastrophic temperature increases. Accordingly, in the applicants’ view, in construing and applying Convention rights, the Court had to have regard to this scientific consensus: that climate change had existential implications for life on Earth, that there was a real risk of exceeding critical further thresholds known as “tipping points”, and that significant climate change mitigation measures had to be taken as a matter of extreme urgency to avoid the most catastrophic impacts, even if all impacts could no longer be avoided.

335. Although the applicants could agree that adaptation was also crucial, it was not an answer to what Switzerland should have done to mitigate climate change. Even with adaptation measures, there would be increases in heat-related mortality overall, and with increasing temperatures, the potential for adaptation was increasingly limited.Footnote ¹⁷⁸

336. It was widely recognised internationally that averting climate change was an inherent part of the obligation on States to protect human rights.Footnote ¹⁷⁹ This had also been recognised at the national level by the domestic courts. Were the Court to decide that those domestic courts had been wrong in their analysis that the failure of States and corporate entities to take sufficient measures to mitigate climate change engaged (and indeed on the facts of those cases, violated) Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention, that would amount to a significant setback in tackling climate change. The risks associated with such a setback could not be adequately averted by a possible reliance by the Court on the fact that under Article 53 of the Convention, domestic courts were entitled to go beyond what was required by the Convention.

(a) Preliminary remarks

337. The Government pointed out that global warming was one of the most important challenges for humanity. It had already created effects in different regions of the world and would certainly be felt even more in the future. There was therefore urgency to put in place, and effectively apply, a series of measures to tackle climate change and to limit its effects to the maximum possible extent. Only collective action by the States, combined with the individual effort of citizens, could provide a durable solution to the effects of global warming. Switzerland, as an Alpine State particularly affected by climate change, had already recognised the problem of global warming and had taken various measures to address it. However, it was important to note that globally Switzerland's contribution to GHG emissions was only some 0.1%.

338. While the Government accepted that in democratic societies the public legitimately sought to put pressure on the authorities to address climate change, they were of the view that the system of individual application under the Convention was not the appropriate means to do that given, in particular, the principle of subsidiarity. The democratic institutions in the political system of Switzerland provided sufficient and appropriate means to address concerns relating to climate change, and a “judicialisation” of the matter at the international level would only create tension from the perspective of the principle of subsidiarity and the separation of powers. In any event, the Court could not act as a supreme court for the environment, given, in particular, the evidentiary and scientific complexity of the matter. In the present case the Court could examine the facts relating to climate change only up to 5 May 2020, which was the date of the final domestic court decision in the applicants’ case, since the period after that date had not been examined by the domestic courts.

339. Moreover, the present case could only be relevant in so far as Articles 6 and 13 were concerned in relation to a complaint that the domestic courts had not examined the merits of the applicants’ complaint (owing to their failure to meet the admissibility requirements). However, as regards Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention the Court could not act as a first-instance court concerning climate-change issues.

(b) Victim status

(c) Applicability of the relevant Convention provisions

346. The Government maintained that the applicants had not established a causal link between the alleged omissions of Switzerland and the interferences with their Articles 2 and 8 rights. Global warming was a global phenomenon and only resolute action by all States, combined with changes in behaviour on the part of private actors and all citizens, could make it possible to find lasting solutions to this immense challenge. GHG emissions were caused by the community of States and different States emitted different GHG emissions. Given Switzerland's current low GHG intensity, the omissions imputed to Switzerland were not of such a nature as to cause, on their own, the suffering claimed by the applicants and to have serious consequences for their lives and private and family life. There was therefore not a sufficient link between polluting emissions and the respondent State to raise the question of its positive obligations under Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention.

(d) Merits

351. The Government argued that in a technical and complex area such as climate change, the State needed to have a wide margin of appreciation and the Court's scrutiny should be limited to verifying that there had not been a manifest error in the assessment by the State. As for the factors to be taken into account in this context, the Government stressed that global warming posed unprecedented questions and challenges of a high degree of complexity. The problem also included difficult social and technical issues. Its treatment required the study of scientific data and a risk assessment. The choice of the best means to combat global warming was delicate and should take into account many different, even competing, interests. Measures to protect the climate could also restrict fundamental rights and individual freedoms. It was therefore necessary to find the most appropriate solutions after balancing all the interests at stake. Operational choices required setting priorities, including in the allocation of resources. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the definition and choice of the measures to be taken, the range of which was wide, fell within the competence of national governments and parliaments as well as, in the case of Switzerland, within a system of direct democracy and choice of the people. This all spoke in favour of according a wide margin of appreciation to the State in the present case.

352. As regards the principle of harmonious interpretation of the Convention, the Government were of the view that it could not be used to fill an alleged gap in the international legal framework in relation to climate change and – as the applicants in reality wanted – to circumvent the mechanism established under the Paris Agreement by seeking to establish an international judicial control mechanism to review the measures to limit GHG emissions. Indeed, when negotiating the Paris Agreement, the parties had decided not to create a binding mechanism of control of States’ commitments. Thus, the applicants could not seek for such a mechanism to be established under the Convention, particularly since not all the parties to the Paris Agreement were parties to the Convention, which risked creating inequality between them should issues regulated by the Paris Agreement be subject to judicial control under the Convention. It followed that the issues of climate change would be better addressed under international instruments other than the Convention.

353. However, if the Court considered that it should take some international instruments on climate change into account, all these instruments were the result of negotiations between sovereign States and provided for a collective objective and individual obligations, leaving various aspects of the matter to the discretion of the States. This was, in particular, the case for the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement.

354. The Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm were not of direct relevance for the present case given that it did not concern transboundary harm. Similarly, the European Climate Law was not relevant as Switzerland was not a European Union member State and, in any event, that document post-dated the domestic courts’ decisions. As regards the developments under UN General Assembly Resolution 76/300, the Government stressed that this was not a legally binding document. The same was the case for Recommendation CM/Rec(2022)20 (cited above) and the current work being carried out by the Council of Europe in the field of climate change.

355. In this context, noting that the Convention did not guarantee the right to a healthy environment, the living-instrument doctrine did not allow the Convention to be interpreted in a way that undermined the basic principles of the system, such as the principle of subsidiarity. The living-instrument doctrine could not be invoked to justify a radical change in the Court's case-law which would disregard the situation prevailing in the High Contracting Parties. It was in this light that the evolutive interpretation of the fundamental rights at the national level in the field of climate change (notably in the Netherlands, Ireland, France and Germany) should be viewed.

356. As regards the substance of the State's obligations, Switzerland had put in place an adequate legislative and administrative framework aimed at ensuring a reduction of GHG emissions and was committed to adapting this framework depending on the evolution of the situation, scientific discoveries and political and legal developments. The series of measures put in place at the domestic level were compatible with the objective of the Paris Agreement.

357. The Government further explained that the various actions taken at the domestic level demonstrated the desire to be within the range indicated by the IPCC to contribute to stabilisation of global warming at 1.5°C. The adoption of the net-zero emissions target by 2050 would be used as the starting-point for the development of a long-term climate strategy. The fact that the new CO2 Act had been rejected in a referendum did not mean that Switzerland was not committed to tackling climate change or that its NDC had changed. In fact, citizens had not rejected the idea of the necessity of combating global warming but rather the proposed means to do so. Moreover, the Federal Council had envisaged a series of measures aimed at finding other solutions. In any event, it was within the State's margin of appreciation to find the best means to address climate change and Switzerland and its population were best placed to find the appropriate solutions. Since Switzerland had fulfilled, and had undertaken to fulfil, fully its commitments under the Paris Agreement, it had not exceeded and would not exceed its margin of appreciation.

358. The Government also argued that Switzerland had met its international objective under the Kyoto Protocol (to reduce GHG emissions between 2013 and 2020 by an average of 15.8% compared to 1990) by, in particular, reducing its emissions by an average of 11%. Moreover, at the national level, the objective set out in the existing CO2 Act (20% by 2020 compared to 1990) had only been negligibly missed (19% GHG reduction). In this connection, however, it was important to bear in mind that the costs of reducing GHG emissions in Switzerland were high as the only sectors where reductions could be made were the housing and transport sectors, which required longer periods of conversion.

359. The Government were of the view that the assessments relating to the Swiss mitigation measures on which the applicants had relied – notably by the CAT, Climate Analytics and Rajamani et al. (2021) (see paragraph 325 above) – had been based on subjective hypotheses and could not be taken as suggesting that the pathway set by the State could not be achieved. In particular, the CAT's classification of countries into categories was debatable, and the methodology unclear. The CAT itself had acknowledged that there was no single, agreed framework for what constituted a fair contribution to global efforts. And some studies used other methodologies. As regards Climate Analytics, its analysis did not propose a statistical range in their projections and the modelling was practically linear, with a starting-point in 2020 and an end point in 2030. It was not clear how Climate Analytics had accurately calculated a modelled pathway for 1.5°C warming. Climate Analytics had analysed the rejected amendments to the CO2 Act, however, there was a new law that would be subject to a popular vote in 2023. Climate Analytics had not taken into account bilateral agreements into which Switzerland had entered with other countries concerning mitigation measures and had suggested reductions in GHG emissions which would have put a disproportionate strain on the domestic system. For its part, the study of Rajamani et al. (2021) had been based on considerations of various principles of international environmental law and was therefore partially subjective and also suggested measures which would have placed a disproportionate strain on the domestic system.

360. In any event, there was no established methodology to determine a country's carbon budget or a country's “fair share”.Footnote ¹⁸⁰ Switzerland had not determined a specific carbon budget, although its national climate policy could be considered as being close to an approach of establishing a carbon budget. Swiss climate policy was based on the relevant internal assessmentsFootnote ¹⁸¹, and through its NDCs Switzerland had determined its carbon reduction targets and was on a clear trajectory to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. The Swiss NDC reflected its fair share through the principles of: responsibility (having regard to the low global contribution to GHG emissions), capacity to contribute to the resolution of the problem of climate change, and the potential to bear the financial burden of measures to reduce GHG emissions.

361. The adaptation measures were also important in this context, particularly since Switzerland could not prevent global warming through its own efforts alone. Switzerland had put in place various effective adaptation measures. Thus, the mortality rates linked to heat had been much lower in 2018 and 2019 when compared to the period between 2003 and 2015. There had been various initiatives at the cantonal and federal level to raise awareness about the risks posed by global warming and heatwaves.

362. The legislative and decision-making process concerning the development of measures to reduce Switzerland's GHG emissions had been characterised by openness and total transparency. There had also been the systematic inclusion of surveys and scientific studies as well as very broad participation of all interested stakeholders. A referendum on the matter had also been organised. The system of direct democracy in Switzerland was not a threat to minorities but rather a means of their integration and protection.

363. The above-noted efforts at the domestic level had been in line with the principles set out in the Aarhus Convention, although it had only later come into force as regards Switzerland (1 June 2014) and did not provide for such details as the necessity to have scientific studies when engaging public participation. Public participation and information had also been ensured by other means, notably through the Consultative Body on Climate Change (Organe consultatif sur le changement climatique) and the National Centre for Climate Services, as well as on the basis of the principle of transparency in the work of the administration.

364. In so far as the applicants relied on the principle of precaution, this principle had not been established as an uncontroversial rule of international law and had in fact been relied upon by the Court only in a rather specific context in the Tătar case (cited above). While the Government accepted that the precautionary principle could shed some light on the positive obligation of States under Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention, it considered that this principle was too vague to properly guide the decision-making process. In any event, Switzerland had never relied on scientific uncertainty in order to delay the adoption of measures in the field of climate change. Similarly to the principle of precaution, the principle of intergenerational solidarity had not been established as a rule of international law and was, in any event, irrelevant in the present case.

365. In sum, the Government argued that Switzerland had complied with its obligations under Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention and that the applicants’ complaints should be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

(a) The Government of Austria

366. The Government of Austria considered it important to clarify the nature of the Paris Agreement. They stressed that only some provisions of the Agreement were legally binding (Articles 2-4) while others were recommendations. The Paris Agreement provided that each State could autonomously define its intent to reduce emissions as regards quantity and means, on the basis of the respective national circumstances (the concept of “self-differentiation”). Moreover, the obligations under Articles 2 to 4 of the Agreement were obligations of conduct, and not of result. The Agreement did not provide for legal sanctions for non-achievement of the reduction goals or for non-compliance with the NDCs. In the intervening Government's view, the present application represented an attempt to make the Paris Agreement justiciable and, de facto, to introduce the possibility for an application under the Convention in relation to the Agreement, which would not be in line with the very nature and purpose either of the Convention mechanism or the Paris Agreement. There was no room to establish the right to a healthy environment under the Convention and, in any event, it was not possible to do so under the Paris Agreement. Moreover, as to any relevance of the precautionary principle, it was not a universal principle under customary international law.

(b) The Government of Ireland

367. The Government of Ireland recognised the severity of the threat facing the global community as a result of climate change and the imperative for urgent action to address that threat. However, they considered that the response should be an effective global response and that the Court could not engage in a form of law-making and regulation which would bypass the role of the democratic process and institutions in the response to climate change. The intervening Government further argued that any notion of jurisdiction in this context should be territorial. They also considered that an association could not claim victim status under Articles 2 and 8 by reason of a risk to life and health, and that the age factor could not be sufficient to regard a group of applicants as victims in relation to climate change. Furthermore, the intervening Government pointed to the high threshold necessary for Articles 2 and 8 to apply in this context. They also submitted that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and the wide margin of appreciation, the Court's main role in environmental claims was the procedural assessment of the decision-making process and only in “exceptional circumstances” should the Court proceed to a substantive assessment of environmental policy.

368. While the intervening Government accepted that the Convention should be interpreted in harmony with other norms of international law, they suggested that the current state of international law under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement should serve to inform the limits of the scope of obligation arising under the Convention. The Convention should be interpreted in line with, and in the light of, these specialised international instruments which were the more pertinent reference points in the field. The interpretation adopted by one or more domestic courts – particularly where it went beyond the settled case-law of this Court – could not be regarded as setting the standard under the Convention.

369. In sum, the intervening Government were of the view that the present application sought to create a far-reaching expansion of the Court's case-law on the admissibility and merits of Articles 2 and 8, that it sought to bypass the democratic process through which climate action should take place if it was to be legitimate and effective and that the application was inconsistent with the dedicated international framework governing climate change to which the Contracting Parties were committed.

(c) The Government of Italy

370. The Government of Italy considered it important to stress that the Court's jurisdiction was primarily territorial. In their view, the “special” circumstances of a given case did not, as such, imply extraterritorial jurisdiction, nor was the “living instrument” principle of interpretation applicable to Article 1 of the Convention. Furthermore, in order to claim victim status as regards environmental damage and risk, the applicants would have to show that they were directly affected, and mere conjecture of a violation would not suffice. In order for Article 2 to apply, life should be put at risk, and from the perspective of Article 8 the adverse effects of environmental pollution should attain a certain minimum level of seriousness. In any event, in difficult and technical spheres, the State enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation.

(d) The Government of Latvia

371. The Government of Latvia were of the view that the international consensus on the need to tackle climate change created a very wide margin of appreciation for the States in the determination of what the appropriate balance of the competing interests should be. The choice of means and terms within which they ought to be implemented belonged to the State concerned. The principle of subsidiarity underpinning the Convention system was of particular importance, especially in the context of a possible application of Article 46 of the Convention. In the present context the Court's jurisdiction should be territorial and any developments at the international level should not be interpreted as extending that jurisdiction. While the intervening Government agreed that the relevant international instruments on climate change should be taken into account by the Court in determining the scope of States’ obligations under the Convention, the Court could not establish an autonomous right for individuals to request that States adopt specific actions and measures or policies to tackle climate change, as such a right did not exist in the international instruments in question.

(e) The Government of Norway

372. The Government of Norway stressed that Norway was deeply committed to reducing national emissions and contributing to the global long-term target set out in Article 2 of the Paris Agreement. However, establishing climate and energy policy should be predominantly a political and democratic exercise. The Convention was not an instrument for the protection of collective interests, and the Court was not a supervisor of society-wide policy decisions. There was no legal basis for the expansion of the territorial, personal, and material scope of the obligations under the Convention in the present context as that would run counter to the principle of subsidiarity and the State's margin of appreciation. In particular, there was no basis to extend the notion of territorial jurisdiction in the present climate context, or to call into question the Court's rejection of the “cause and effect” notion of jurisdiction. The various international instruments on climate change had no bearing on the interpretation of the Convention. They rather reflected the fact that the sovereign States retained their competence in the field of climate change. This was also evidenced by the fact that the Council of Europe member States were actually negotiating to decide whether they wished to introduce enforceable rights pertaining directly to the environment and climate. In any event, at present, the right to a healthy environment was not recognised as a rule of customary international law. When adopting UN General Assembly Resolution 76/300, Norway had made it clear that that Resolution had provided for a political recognition and that it had not had any legal effect.

(f) The Government of Portugal

373. The Government of Portugal recognised the urgency of climate change but stressed that it was for the States to take the initiative and put in place the relevant strategies to tackle climate change. With respect to the Convention requirements for establishing victim status, the intervening Government stressed the necessity for the applicants to provide evidence to show that they were directly affected by the measure complained of in the context of climate change. Thus, as regards the applicants belonging to a particular age group, they would need to demonstrate that: (a) there was an actual inaction on the part of the authorities, (b) such an inaction or omission actually affected differently distinct groups or segments of the population, and (c) this inaction amounted to a failure to afford effective protection against the effects of climate change. Moreover, as regards the applicability of Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention in the context of the environment, the measure complained of should reach a minimum threshold of severity. There should therefore be a real and imminent risk to life or health, or a direct and serious effect on an applicant's right to respect for his or her private and family life or home. The intervening Government also stressed that the Paris Agreement essentially established procedural obligations and the substantive obligation was only for the States to take appropriate measures to achieve the aims pursued. However, the Paris Agreement established no sanctioning or enforcement mechanism, and it was therefore questionable whether the Court had jurisdiction or competence to intervene in this context.

(g) The Government of Romania

374. The Government of Romania submitted that climate change represented a global challenge that required international reaction. It was by definition a transboundary challenge, and coordinated action – particularly at the EU level – was needed to effectively supplement and reinforce national policies. As regards the applicability of the Convention in relation to complaints concerning climate change, applicants needed to demonstrate the existence of a direct and immediate link between the effect on their rights and the impugned situation. Moreover, the violation complained of needed to reach a certain level of severity. In any event, the Convention system did not recognise the possibility of lodging actio popularis complaints and the Convention could not be expanded to cover the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. The intervening Government also considered it important that the Court should take into account the fact that national jurisdictions had often dealt with cases pertaining to climate change, in accordance with national and international standards related to the domain of environmental law. However, the Court should be mindful of its subsidiary role and the States’ margin of appreciation. In the intervening Government's view, it was highly debatable whether a State or any other entity could be held directly responsible today – individually and separately from other entities – for the cumulative consequences of a process which had started more than a hundred years ago.

(h) The Government of Slovakia

375. The Government of Slovakia agreed that there was a real urgency to the need to implement a series of effective measures to combat global warming and to minimise its effects. In their view, nowadays it was commonly accepted that human rights and the environment were interdependent even to the point that it was suggested that environmental rights belonged to a “third generation of human rights”. However, the Convention rights were not specifically designed to provide for a general protection of the environment as such. Given the global nature of the threat posed by climate change and its effects, it was not possible to interpret the concept of victim status under Article 34 of the Convention so as to cover every potentially vulnerable group. It would therefore be inappropriate, and could lead to an inaccurate outcome, if the Court were to try to deduce from statistical data the existence of a particular risk to a group or if it were to otherwise generalise the effects of climate change, such as global warming. The States should have a wide margin of appreciation when addressing the issues relating to climate change.

(a) Questions of causation

424. As indicated above, the specificity of climate-change disputes, in comparison with classic environmental cases, arises from the fact that they are not concerned with single-source local environmental issues but with a more complex global problem. In the context of human rights-based complaints against States, issues of causation arise in different respects which are distinct from each other and have a bearing on the assessment of victim status as well as the substantive aspects of the State's obligations and responsibility under the Convention.

425. The first dimension of the question of causation relates to the link between GHG emissions – and the resulting accumulation of GHG in the global atmosphere – and the various phenomena of climate change. This is a matter of scientific knowledge and assessment. The second relates to the link between the various adverse effects of the consequences of climate change, and the risks of such effects on the enjoyment of human rights at present and in the future. In general terms, this issue pertains to the legal question of how the scope of human rights protection is to be understood as regards the impacts arising for human beings from an existing degradation, or risk of degradation, in their living conditions. The third concerns the link, at the individual level, between a harm, or risk of harm, allegedly affecting specific persons or groups of persons, and the acts or omissions of State authorities against which a human rights-based complaint is directed. The fourth relates to the attributability of responsibility regarding the adverse effects arising from climate change claimed by individuals or groups against a particular State, given that multiple actors contribute to the aggregate amounts and effects of GHG emissions.

426. The Court will address these issues in turn in paragraphs 427 to 444 below.

(b) Issues of proof

427. One of the key features of climate-change cases is the necessity for the relevant court to engage with a body of complex scientific evidence. In the context of environmental cases, as regards general principles on the standard and burden of proof, the Court has held as follows (see Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 79, ECHR 2005-IV):

428. A mere allegation that the State failed to comply with certain domestic rules and environmental or technical standards is not in itself sufficient to ground the assertion that the applicant's rights have been affected in a manner giving rise to an issue under the Convention (compare, for instance, Fägerskiöld v. Sweden (dec.), no. 37664/04, 26 February 2008, and Ivan Atanasov v. Bulgaria, no. 12853/03, § 75, 2 December 2010). Nevertheless, the Court attaches importance to the fact that the situation complained of breached the relevant domestic law (see, for instance, Yevgeniy Dmitriyev v. Russia, no. 17840/06, § 33, 1 December 2020). Moreover, in some cases, the Court may need to have regard to the relevant international standards concerning the effects of environmental pollution when ascertaining whether the rights of an individual have been affected (see, for instance, Oluić v. Croatia, no. 61260/08, § 60, 20 May 2010; Hardy and Maile v. the United Kingdom, no. 31965/07, § 191, 14 February 2012; and Thibaut v. France (dec.), nos. 41892/19 and 41893/19, § 42, 14 June 2022).

429. The Court also relies on studies and reports by relevant international bodies as regards the environmental impacts on individuals (see Tătar, cited above, § 95). As regards climate change, the Court points to the particular importance of the reports prepared by the IPCC, as the intergovernmental body of independent experts set up to review and assess the science related to climate change, which are based on comprehensive and rigorous methodology, including in relation to the choice of literature, the process of review and approval of its reports as well as the mechanisms for the investigation and, if necessary, correction of possible errors in the published reports. These reports provide scientific guidance on climate change regionally and globally, its impact and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigationFootnote ¹⁸⁸.

430. Lastly, the Court attaches particular importance to the findings of the domestic courts and other competent authorities in establishing the factual circumstances of the case (see, for instance, Taşkın and Others, cited above, § 112). As a general rule, where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is not the Court's task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and it is for the latter to establish the facts on the basis of the evidence before them. However, it reiterates in this connection that, while sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and cautious about taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, the Court is nevertheless not bound by the findings of domestic courts and may depart from them where this is rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case. It is the Court's function to review the reasoning adduced by domestic judicial authorities from the point of view of the Convention and to determine whether the national authorities have struck a fair balance between the competing interests at stake (see Pavlov and Others, cited above, § 76, with further references).

(c) Effects of climate change on the enjoyment of Convention rights

431. In recent times there has been an evolution of scientific knowledge, social and political attitudes and legal standards concerning the necessity of protecting the environment, including in the context of climate change. There has also been a recognition that environmental degradation has created, and is capable of creating, serious and potentially irreversible adverse effects on the enjoyment of human rights. This is reflected in the scientific findings, international instruments and domestic legislation and standards, and is being recognised in domestic and international case-law (see paragraphs 173, 176, 225 and 236-267 above).

432. The findings of the IPCC reports noted in paragraphs 107 to 120 above have not been challenged or called into doubt by the respondent or intervening States. It should also be noted that the clear indications as regards the adverse effects of climate change, both existing and those associated with an overshoot of 1.5°C global temperature rise, noted by the IPCC, have been shared by many environmental experts and scientists intervening as third parties in the present proceedings before the Court (see, for instance, paragraphs 392-393, 397, 399, 404-405 and 406 above).

433. Moreover, the IPCC findings correspond to the position taken, in principle, by the States in the context of their international commitments to tackle climate change. They also underpin the general policy aims in the respondent State in terms of the urgency of addressing climate change and its adverse effects on the lives, health and well-being of individuals (see paragraphs 84-102 above)Footnote ¹⁸⁹. This also includes the activities of the environmental bodies – such as the FOEN – which follow climate-change developments and regularly issue alerts as to the adverse effects which climate change creates for individuals. Moreover, the respondent Government in the present case, as well as the many third-party intervener Governments, have not contested that there is a climate emergency (see paragraphs 337, 367 and 373-375 above).

434. The Court cannot ignore the above-noted developments and considerations. On the contrary, it should be recalled that the Convention is a living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions, and in accordance with developments in international law, so as to reflect the increasingly high standard being required in the area of the protection of human rights, thus necessitating greater firmness in assessing breaches of the fundamental values of democratic societies (see Demir and Baykara v. Turkey [GC], no. 34503/97, § 146, ECHR 2008). Indeed, an appropriate and tailored approach as regards the various Convention issues which may arise in the context of climate change, required for the reasons set out in paragraph 422 above, needs to take into account the existing and constantly developing scientific evidence on the necessity of combating climate change and the urgency of addressing its adverse effects, including the grave risk of their inevitability and their irreversibility, as well as the scientific, political and judicial recognition of a link between the adverse effects of climate change and the enjoyment of (various aspects of) human rights.

435. As the Court has already recognised, Article 8 is capable of being engaged because of adverse effects not only on individuals’ health but on their well-being and quality of life (see paragraph 514 below) and not only because of actual adverse effects but also sufficiently severe risks of such effects on individuals (see paragraph 470 below). The Court has already established that Article 8 may apply in environmental cases whether the pollution is directly caused by the State or whether State responsibility arises from the failure to regulate private industry properly (see, for instance, Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 98, ECHR 2003-VIII). It has also held that the duty to regulate not only relates to actual harm arising from specific activities but extends to the inherent risks involved (see, for instance, Di Sarno and Others v. Italy, no. 30765/08, § 106, 10 January 2012). In other words, issues of causation must always be regarded in the light of the factual nature of the alleged violation and the nature and scope of the legal obligations at issue.

436. In sum, on the basis of the above findings, the Court will proceed with its assessment of the issues arising in the present case by taking it as a matter of fact 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.

(d) The question of causation and positive obligations in the climate-change context

437. In its case-law relating to adverse effects arising from environmental harm, the Court has often merged the assessment of the questions of victim status and the applicability of Article 8 (see, for instance, Hardy and Maile v. the United Kingdom, no. 31965/07, §§ 187-92, 14 February 2012). It has also not articulated the issue of causality in specific terms. This is linked with the following circumstances. First, the applicability of Article 8 – as indicated above – is triggered not only by actual damage to the health or well-being of an applicant but by the risk of such effects, where such risks present a sufficiently close link with the applicant's enjoyment of his or her rights under Article 8. Secondly, the complaints in such cases have concerned alleged failures by the authorities to comply with positive obligations directed at the avoidance or reduction of harm. Thirdly, such obligations have been formulated in terms of a duty to take measures to ensure the effective protection of those who might be endangered by the risks inherent in the harmful activity (see paragraph 538 below).

438. The notion of measures to ensure effective protection as far as positive obligations are concerned may vary considerably from case to case, depending on the gravity of the impact on an applicant's Convention rights and the extent of any burden the obligation would impose on the State. Nonetheless, certain factors relevant for the assessment of the content of those positive obligations on States in the context of environmental harm have been identified by the Court (see paragraphs 538-539 below). In any event, for a State's positive obligations to be engaged there has to be evidence of a risk meeting a certain threshold. There must be a relationship of causation between the risk and the alleged failure to fulfil positive obligations.

439. In the context of climate change, the particularity of the issue of causation becomes more accentuated. The adverse effects on and risks for specific individuals or groups of individuals living in a given place arise from aggregate GHG emissions globally, and the emissions originating from a given jurisdiction make up only part of the causes of the harm. Accordingly, the causal link between the acts or omissions on the part of State authorities in one country, and the harm, or risk of harm, arising there, is necessarily more tenuous and indirect compared to that in the context of local sources of harmful pollution. Furthermore, from the perspective of human rights, the essence of the relevant State duties in the context of climate change relates to the reduction of the risks of harm for individuals. Conversely, failures in the performance of those duties entail an aggravation of the risks involved, although the individual exposures to such risks will vary in terms of type, severity and imminence, depending on a range of circumstances. Accordingly, in this context, issues of individual victim status or the specific content of State obligations cannot be determined on the basis of a strict conditio sine qua non requirement.

440. It is therefore necessary to further adapt the approach to these matters, taking into account the special features of the problem of climate change in respect of which the State's positive obligations will be triggered, depending on a threshold of severity of the risk of adverse consequences on human lives, health and well-being. This will be developed in detail in the Court's assessment of victim status and the applicability of the relevant Convention provisions (see paragraphs 478-488 and 507-520 below) and in the determination of the content of the States’ positive obligations in this context (see paragraphs 544-554 below).

(e) The issue of the proportion of State responsibility

441. The respondent Government raised an issue concerning the proportion of the respondent State's contributions to global GHG emissions and the capacity of individual States to take action and to bear responsibility for a global phenomenon that requires action by the community of States (see paragraph 346 above). Such arguments have been examined and rejected by the domestic courts in some national climate-change cases (see paragraphs 253 and 257 above).

442. For its part, the Court notes that while climate change is undoubtedly a global phenomenon which should be addressed at the global level by the community of States, the global climate regime established under the UNFCCC rests on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities of States (Article 3 § 1). This principle has been reaffirmed in the Paris Agreement (Article 2 § 2) and endorsed in the Glasgow Climate Pact (cited above, paragraph 18) as well as in the Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan (cited above, paragraph 12). It follows, therefore, that each State has its own share of responsibilities to take measures to tackle climate change and that the taking of those measures is determined by the State's own capabilities rather than by any specific action (or omission) of any other State (see Duarte Agostinho and Others, cited above, §§ 202-03). The Court considers that a respondent State should not evade its responsibility by pointing to the responsibility of other States, whether Contracting Parties to the Convention or not.

443. This position is consistent with the Court's approach in cases involving a concurrent responsibility of States for alleged breaches of Convention rights, where each State can be held accountable for its share of the responsibility for the breach in question (see, albeit in other contexts, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, cited above, §§ 264 and 367, and Razvozzhayev v. Russia and Ukraine and Udaltsov v. Russia, nos. 75734/12 and 2 others, §§ 160-61 and 179-81, 19 November 2019). It is also consistent with the principles of international law relating to the plurality of responsible States, according to which the responsibility of each State is determined individually, on the basis of its own conduct and by reference to its own international obligations (see ILC, Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, Commentary on Article 47, paragraphs 6 and 8). Similarly, the alleged infringement of rights under the Convention through harm arising from GHG emissions globally and the acts and omissions on the part of multiple States in combating the adverse effects of climate change may engage the responsibility of each Contracting Party, subject to it having jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention (see Duarte Agostinho and Others, cited above). Indeed, given that the Article 1 jurisdiction is principally territorial, each State has its own responsibilities within its own territorial jurisdiction in respect of climate change.

444. Lastly, as regards the “drop in the ocean” argument implicit in the Government's submissions – namely, the capacity of individual States to affect global climate change – it should be noted that in the context of a State's positive obligations under the Convention, the Court has consistently held that it need not be determined with certainty that matters would have turned out differently if the authorities had acted otherwise. 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 (see, among many other authorities, O'Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, § 149, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, § 124, 18 September 2014, with further references). In the context of climate change, this principle should also be understood in the light of Article 3 § 3 of the UNFCCC according to which States should take measures to anticipate, prevent or minimise the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects.

(f) Scope of the Court's assessment

445. The Court has repeatedly stressed that no Article of the Convention is specifically designed to provide general protection of the environment as such (see Kyrtatos v. Greece, no. 41666/98, § 52, ECHR 2003-VI (extracts), and Cordella and Others, cited above, § 100). To that effect, other international instruments and domestic legislation are more adapted to dealing with such protection.

446. At the same time, the Court has often dealt with various environmental problems deemed to affect the Convention rights of individuals, particularly Article 8 (see Hatton and Others, cited above, § 96). It has, however, explained that in contrast with actio popularis type of complaints – which are not permitted in the Convention system (see paragraph 460 below) – 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 (see, for instance, Di Sarno and Others, cited above, §§ 80-81).

447. While the Court has on occasion referred to “the right of the people concerned … to live in a safe and healthy environment” (see Tătar, cited above, § 112, and Di Sarno and Others, cited above, § 110), this language cannot be understood without regard to the distinction that must be made between, on the one hand, the rights protected under the Convention and, on the other hand, the weight of environmental concerns in the assessment of legitimate aims and the weighing-up of rights and interests in the context of the application of the Convention. In this latter context, the Court has, for instance, in the context of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 held as follows (see Turgut and Others v. Turkey, no. 1411/03, § 90, 8 July 2008):

448. It is also from this dual perspective of the Court's engagement with environmental issues – namely, ensuring the protection of Convention rights and having due regard for environmental concerns in the assessment of legitimate aims and the weighing-up of rights and interests in the context of the application of the Convention – that the relevance of the recent international initiatives for the recognition of the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment (see, in particular, UN General Assembly Resolution 76/300, and Committee of Ministers Recommendation CM/Rec(2022)20, both cited above) should be understood from the perspective of the Convention. It is therefore not for the Court to determine whether the general trends regarding the recognition of such a right give rise to a specific legal obligation (see paragraph 372 above concerning the arguments raised by the intervening Norwegian Government). Such a development forms part of the international-law context in which the Court assesses Convention issues before it (see Demir and Baykara, cited above, § 76), notably as regards the recognition by the Contracting Parties of a close link between the protection of the environment and human rights.

449. The Court is mindful of the fact that in a context such as the present one it may be difficult to clearly distinguish issues of law from questions of policy and political choices and, therefore, of the fundamentally subsidiary role of the Convention, particularly given the complexity of the issues involved with regard to environmental policy-making (see Dubetska and Others v. Ukraine, no. 30499/03, § 142, 10 February 2011). It has stressed that national authorities have direct democratic legitimation and are in principle better placed than an international court to evaluate the relevant needs and conditions. In matters of general policy, or political choices, on which opinions within a democratic society may reasonably differ widely, the role of the domestic policy-maker is given special weight (see Hatton and Others, cited above, § 97).

450. However, this does not exclude the possibility that where complaints raised before the Court relate to State policy with respect to an issue affecting the Convention rights of an individual or group of individuals, this subject matter is no longer merely an issue of politics or policy but also a matter of law having a bearing on the interpretation and application of the Convention. In such instances, the Court retains competence, albeit with substantial deference to the domestic policy-maker and the measures resulting from the democratic process concerned and/or the judicial review by the domestic courts. Accordingly, the margin of appreciation for the domestic authorities is not unlimited and goes hand in hand with a European supervision by the Court, which must be satisfied that the effects produced by the impugned national measures were compatible with the Convention.

451. It follows from the above considerations that the Court's competence in the context of climate-change litigation cannot, as a matter of principle, be excluded. Indeed, given the necessity of addressing the urgent threat posed by climate change, and bearing in mind the general acceptance that climate change is a common concern of humankind (see paragraphs 420 and 436 above), there is force in the argument put forward by the UN Special Rapporteurs that the question is no longer whether, but how, human rights courts should address the impacts of environmental harms on the enjoyment of human rights (see paragraph 379 above).

(g) Relevant principles regarding the interpretation of the Convention

452. The well-established case-law principles regarding the interpretation of the Convention as an international treaty have been summarised by the Court in Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary ([GC], no. 18030/11, §§ 118-25, 8 November 2016, with further references) and Slovenia v. Croatia ((dec.) [GC], no. 54155/16, § 60, 18 November 2020).

453. The Court must address the concerns expressed by the respondent Government about the harmonious and evolutive interpretation of the Convention in the light of the developing rules and principles of international environmental law (see paragraphs 352 and 355 above). In the view of the respondent Government, supported by most of the intervening Governments, the principles of the harmonious and evolutive interpretation of the Convention should not be used to interpret the Convention as a mechanism of international judicial enforcement in the field of climate change and to transform the rights enshrined in the Convention into rights to combat climate change (see paragraphs 366, 368, 371-373 and 375 above).

454. The Court reiterates that it only has the authority to ensure that the Convention is complied with. This is the instrument which the Court is entrusted to interpret and apply. The Court does not have the authority to ensure compliance with international treaties or obligations other than the Convention. Thus, the Court has acknowledged that while other instruments can offer wider protection than the Convention, it is not bound by interpretations given to similar instruments by other bodies, having regard to possible differences in the content of the provisions of other international instruments and/or possible differences in the role of the Court and the other bodies (see Caamaño Valle v. Spain, no. 43564/17, §§ 53-54, 11 May 2021, with further references).

455. Nevertheless, the interpretation and application of the rights provided for under the Convention can and must be influenced both by factual issues and developments affecting the enjoyment of the rights in question and also by relevant legal instruments designed to address such issues by the international community. The Court has consistently held that the Convention should be interpreted, as far as possible, in harmony with other rules of international law (ibid.). Moreover, a failure by the Court to maintain a dynamic and evolutive approach would risk rendering it a bar to reform or improvement (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, § 167, 17 January 2023).

456. The Court cannot ignore the pressing scientific evidence and the growing international consensus regarding the critical effects of climate change on the enjoyment of human rights (see paragraph 436 above). This consideration relates, in particular, to the consensus flowing from the international-law mechanisms to which the member States voluntarily acceded and the related requirements and commitments which they undertook to respect (see Demir and Baykara, cited above, §§ 85-86; compare Guberina v. Croatia, no. 23682/13, § 92, 22 March 2016), such as those under the Paris Agreement. The Court must bear these considerations in mind when conducting its assessment under the Convention (see paragraphs 445-451 above).

457. At the same time, the Court must also bear in mind its subsidiary role and the necessity of affording the Contracting States a margin of appreciation in the implementation of policies and measures to combat climate change, as well as the need to observe appropriate respect for the prevailing constitutional principles, such as those relating to the separation of powers.

(a) Victim status/locus standi (representation)

458. There are, in general, three possible approaches in the Court's case-law to examining the existence of victim status under Article 34 of the Convention. It may be examined as a separate preliminary issue in the case (see, for instance, S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, §§ 53-58, ECHR 2014 (extracts)); it may be examined in the context of an assessment of the applicability of the relevant Convention provision (see, for instance, Greenpeace e.V. and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 18215/06, 12 May 2009); or it may be considered to be “closely bound up with” the issues to be considered on the merits and thus joined to the examination of the complaint on the merits (see, for instance, Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 27765/09, § 111, ECHR 2012).

459. For the sake of methodological clarity, and having regard to the fact that the issue of victim status is one of the salient issues of the climate-change cases, the Court finds it necessary at this point to elaborate on the general principles concerning victim status separately. However, given the close link between victim status and the applicability of the relevant Convention provisions (see paragraphs 513 and 519 below), whether the applicants have victim status in the present case will be examined together with the Court's assessment of the applicability of Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention.

(b) Applicability of the relevant Convention provisions

506. Similarly to what was observed above concerning victim status (see paragraph 458 above), the issue of applicability of the relevant Convention provisions may be examined separately as an issue of admissibility or in the context of the examination of the complaint on the merits (compare, for instance, Budayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 15339/02 and 4 others, § 146, ECHR 2008 (extracts), and M. Özel and Others v. Turkey, nos. 14350/05 and 2 others, § 171 in fine, 17 November 2015). For the sake of methodological clarity, the Court will elaborate on the general principles concerning applicability separately (see the approach adopted in paragraph 459 above).

(a) General principles

538. To a great extent the Court has applied the same principles as those set out in respect of Article 2 when examining cases involving environmental issues under Article 8, notably by affirming that:

1. (a) The States have a positive obligation to put in place the relevant legislative and administrative framework designed to provide effective protection of human health and life. In particular, States have an obligation to put in place regulations geared to the specific features of the activity in question, particularly with regard to the level of risk potentially involved. They must govern the licensing, setting-up, operation, security and supervision of the activity and must make it compulsory for all those concerned to take practical measures to ensure the effective protection of the citizens whose lives might be endangered by the inherent risks (see, for instance, Jugheli and Others, cited above, § 75; Di Sarno and Others, cited above, § 106; and Tătar, cited above, § 88).

2. (b) The States also have an obligation to apply that framework effectively in practice; indeed, regulations to protect guaranteed rights serve little purpose if they are not duly enforced and the Convention is intended to protect effective rights, not illusory ones. The relevant measures must be applied in a timely and effective manner (see Cuenca Zarzoso v. Spain, no. 23383/12, § 51, 16 January 2018).

3. (c) In assessing whether the respondent State complied with its positive obligations, the Court must consider whether, in the manner of devising and/or implementing the relevant measures, the State remained within its margin of appreciation. In cases involving environmental issues, the State must be allowed a wide margin of appreciation (see Hardy and Maile, cited above, § 218, with further references), in particular with regard to the substantive aspect (see Hatton and Others, cited above, § 100).

4. (d) The choice of means is in principle a matter that falls within the State's margin of appreciation; even if the State has failed to apply one particular measure provided for by domestic law, it may still fulfil its positive duty by other means. An impossible or disproportionate burden must not be imposed on the authorities without consideration being given, in particular, to the operational choices which they must make in terms of priorities and resources (see Kolyadenko and Others, cited above, § 160, and Kotov and Others v. Russia, nos. 6142/18 and 13 others, § 134, 11 October 2022).

5. (e) While it is not in the Court's remit to determine what exactly should have been done, it can assess whether the authorities approached the matter with due diligence and gave consideration to all competing interests (see Mileva and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43449/02 and 21475/04, § 98, 25 November 2010).

6. (f) The State has a positive obligation to provide access to essential information enabling individuals to assess risks to their health and lives (see Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, §§ 57-60, Reports 1998-I, developing López Ostra v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 55, Series A no. 303-C; see, further, McGinley and Egan v. the United Kingdom, 9 June 1998, §§ 98-104, Reports 1998-III, and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, §§ 157-69, ECHR 2005-X).

7. (g) In assessing whether the respondent State complied with its positive obligations, the Court must consider the particular circumstances of the case. 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 (see Kolyadenko and Others, cited above, § 161, and Brincat and Others, cited above, §§ 101-02).

539. In environmental cases examined under Article 8 of the Convention, the Court has frequently reviewed the domestic decision-making process, taking into account that the procedural safeguards available to the individual will be especially material in determining whether the respondent State has remained within its margin of appreciation (see, for instance, Flamenbaum and Others v. France, nos. 3675/04 and 23264/04, § 137, 13 December 2012). In this context, the Court has had particular regard to the following principles and considerations:

1. (a) The complexity of the issues involved with regard to environmental policy-making renders the Court's role primarily a subsidiary one. The Court must therefore first examine whether the decision-making process was adequate (see Taşkın and Others, cited above, §§ 117-18);

2. (b) The Court is required to consider all the procedural aspects, including the type of policy or decision involved, the extent to which the views of individuals were taken into account throughout the decision-making procedure, and the procedural safeguards available (see Hatton and Others, cited above, § 104).

3. (c) In particular, a governmental decision-making process concerning complex issues such as those in respect of environmental and economic policy must necessarily involve appropriate investigations and studies in order to allow the authorities to strike a fair balance between the various conflicting interests at stake. However, this does not mean that decisions can only be taken if comprehensive and measurable data are available in relation to each and every aspect of the matter to be decided (ibid., § 128). What is important is that the effects of activities that might harm the environment and thus infringe the rights of individuals under the Convention may be predicted and evaluated in advance (see Hardy and Maile, cited above, § 220, with further references).

4. (d) The public must have access to the conclusions of the relevant studies, allowing them to assess the risk to which they are exposed (see Tătar, cited above, § 113, with further references). Moreover, in some instances, relying on the Aarhus Convention, the Court has noted the obligation that in the event of any imminent threat to human health or the environment, whether caused by human activities or owing to natural causes, all information which could enable the public to take measures to prevent or mitigate harm arising from the threat and which is held by a public authority be disseminated immediately and without delay to members of the public who may be affected (see Di Sarno and Others, cited above, § 107).

5. (e) The individuals concerned must have an opportunity to protect their interests in the environmental decision-making process, which implies that they must be able to participate effectively in relevant proceedings and to have their relevant arguments examined, although the actual design of the process is a matter falling within the State's margin of appreciation (see, for instance, Flamenbaum and Others, cited above, § 159).

540. It is with these principles in mind that the Court will proceed by identifying the content of the State's positive obligations under Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention in the context of climate change (see paragraphs 292 and 537 above) However, given the special nature of the phenomenon as compared with the isolated sources of environmental harm previously addressed in the Court's case-law, the general parameters of the positive obligations must be adapted to the specific context of climate change.

(b) The States’ positive obligations in the context of climate change

(c) Application of the above principles to the present case

(a) Victim status

590. In order to claim to be a “victim” in the context of an alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention, and to complain of alleged procedural shortcomings under that provision, it is normally sufficient that the applicant was affected as a party to the proceedings brought by him or her before the domestic courts. This is true for individuals (see, for instance, Balmer-Schafroth and Others v. Switzerland, 26 August 1997, § 26, Reports 1997-IV, and Çöçelli and Others v. Türkiye, no. 81415/12, §§ 39-40, 11 October 2022) and for associations (see, for instance, Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others, cited above, § 36, and Yusufeli İlçesini Güzelleştirme Yaşatma Kültür Varlıklarını Koruma Derneği, cited above, § 40, with further references).

591. Where the locus standi of an applicant has been denied at the domestic level (see, for instance, Bursa Barosu Başkanlığı and Others v. Turkey, no. 25680/05, §§ 114-16, 19 June 2018), including in instances where the applicant was not recognised as possessing an interest in bringing an action, and where the applicant complains of a lack of access to a court or of another procedural deficiency in that respect, the matter of victim status may more appropriately be examined in the context of the assessment of the applicability of Article 6 to the dispute in question (see, for instance, Asselbourg and Others, cited above; Folkman and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 23673/03, 10 July 2006; Sarl du Parc d'Activités de Blotzheim v. France, no. 72377/01, §§ 18-20, 11 July 2006; and Association Burestop 55 and Others, cited above, §§ 52-60).

592. In the present case, the Government challenged the standing/victim status of all the applicants as regards the substantive Convention provisions (Articles 2 and 8), whereas they did not challenge the victim status of applicants nos. 2-5 under the procedural provisions (Articles 6 and 13) (see paragraphs 341 and 345 above).

593. Having regard to the fact that the issue of victim status under Article 34 is, in any event, a matter that goes to the Court's jurisdiction and which the Court examines of its own motion (see Fedotova and Others, cited above, § 88), the issue of the victim status of the applicants under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention will be examined by joining it to the assessment of the applicability of that provision.

(b) Applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(a) General principles

626. In the present case, an issue under Article 6 § 1 arises in relation to the requirement of access to a court. The relevant general principles concerning this matter are as follows (see Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-79, 5 April 2018):

627. It should also be reiterated that Article 6 does not go so far as to guarantee a remedy allowing a Contracting State's laws as such to be challenged before a national authority on the grounds of being incompatible with the Convention or to equivalent domestic legal norms (see Berger-Krall and Others, cited above, § 322, with further references, and paragraph 600 above). Furthermore, the Court has also accepted, albeit in another context, that maintaining the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary is a legitimate aim as regards limitations on the right of access to a court (see A. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35373/97, § 77, ECHR 2002-X).

628. The relevant principles concerning limitations on the right of access to a court reflect the process, inherent in the Court's task under the Convention, of striking a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see Fayed, cited above, § 65 in fine). It thus remains to be determined, on the facts of the particular case, whether there has been a disproportionate limitation on the right of access to a court (see Association Burestop 55 and Others, cited above, §§ 71-72).

(b) Application of the above principles to the present case

629. At the outset, the Court reiterates that the right of access to a court includes not only the right to institute proceedings but also the right to obtain a determination of the dispute by a court. This flows from the fact that the right of access to a court must be “practical and effective”, not theoretical or illusory (see, for instance, Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others, cited above, § 86).

630. In the present case, the applicant association's legal action was rejected, first by an administrative authority, the DETEC, and then by the domestic courts at two levels of jurisdiction, without the merits of its complaints being assessed (see paragraphs 28-31, 34-42 and 52-63 above). There was therefore a limitation on the right of access to a court and the Court must assess whether the manner in which the limitation at issue operated in the present case restricted the applicant association's access to a court in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right was impaired (see paragraphs 626 to 628 above).

631. As regards the legitimate aim pursued by the limitation at issue, in so far as the decisions of the domestic courts sought to distinguish the issue of individual protection from the relevant democratic processes and general challenges to legislation, thereby preventing actio popularis complaints, it should be reiterated that the Court has previously accepted that maintaining the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary is a legitimate aim as regards limitations on the right of access to a court (see paragraph 627 above). Moreover, as already discussed in paragraphs 596 and 627 to 628 above, Article 6 § 1 does not require the provision of access to a court as regards challenges to the state of domestic legislation, or for actio popularis complaints.

632. However, and as the last step of the relevant test, it remains to be seen whether the limitation on the applicant association's right of access to a court, to the extent that the proceedings did not fall outside the scope of Article 6, was proportionate, namely whether there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the legitimate aim sought to be achieved (see paragraph 626 above).

633. In this connection, it should be reiterated that the action which the applicant association instituted at the domestic level could be seen as being hybrid in nature. In its main part, it clearly concerned issues pertaining to the democratic legislative process and falling outside the scope of Article 6 § 1, but it also concerned issues pertaining specifically to alleged failures in the enforcement of the existing domestic law affecting the protection of the rights defended by the applicant association. Some of the claims thus raised issues going to the lawfulness of the impugned governmental actions or omissions, alleging adverse effects on the right to life and the protection of physical integrity, which are enshrined in the domestic law, notably in Article 10 of the Constitution (see paragraphs 615-617 above).

634. To the extent that it was seeking to vindicate these rights in the face of the threats posed by the allegedly inadequate and insufficient action by the authorities to implement the relevant measures for the mitigation of climate change already required under the existing national law, this kind of action cannot automatically be seen as an actio popularis or as involving a political issue which the courts should not engage with. This position is consistent with the reasoning set out in paragraph 436 above as regards the manner in which climate change may affect human rights and the pressing need to address the threats posed by climate change.

635. The Court is not persuaded by the domestic courts’ findings that there was still some time to prevent global warming from reaching the critical limit (see paragraphs 56-59 above). This was not based on sufficient examination of the scientific evidence concerning climate change, which was already available at the relevant time, as well as the general acceptance that there is urgency as regards the existing and inevitable future impacts of climate change on various aspects of human rights (see paragraph 436 above; see also paragraph 337 above as regards the respondent Government's acceptance that there was a climate emergency). Indeed, the existing evidence and the scientific findings on the urgency of addressing the adverse effects of climate change, including the grave risk of their inevitability and their irreversibility, suggest that there was a pressing need to ensure the legal protection of human rights as regards the authorities’ allegedly inadequate action to tackle climate change.

636. The Court further notes that the domestic courts did not address the issue of the standing of the applicant association, an issue which warranted a separate assessment irrespective of the domestic courts’ position as regards the individual applicants’ complaints. The domestic courts did not engage seriously or at all with the action brought by the applicant association.

637. What is more, before resorting to the courts the applicant association, and its members, had raised their complaints before various expert and specialised administrative bodies and agencies, but none of them dealt with the substance of their complaints (see paragraph 22 above). Despite the fact that such an examination by the administrative authorities alone could not satisfy the requirements of access to a court under Article 6, the Court notes that, judging by the DETEC's decision, the rejection of the applicants’ complaint by the administrative authorities would seem to have been based on inadequate and insufficient considerations similar to those relied upon by the domestic courts (see paragraphs 28-31 above). The Court notes, furthermore, that individual applicants/members of the association were not given access to a court, and nor was there any other avenue under domestic law through which they could bring their complaints to a court. There were therefore no other relevant safeguards to be taken into account in its assessment of the proportionality of the limitation on the applicant association's right of access to a court (see paragraph 628 above).

638. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that, to the extent that the applicant association's claims fell within the scope of Article 6 § 1, its right of access to a court was restricted in such a way and to such an extent that the very essence of the right was impaired.

639. In this connection, the Court considers it essential to emphasise the key role which domestic courts have played and will play in climate-change litigation, a fact reflected in the case-law adopted to date in certain Council of Europe member States, highlighting the importance of access to justice in this field. Furthermore, given the principles of shared responsibility and subsidiarity, it falls primarily to national authorities, including the courts, to ensure that Convention obligations are observed.

640. In the present case, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.