CAN Europe and the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) intervened in the case of Müllner v. Austria to support the claims of the plaintiff. In this case, an Austrian citizen argues that, by failing to adequately reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, Austria has violated his rights to life and private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights. CAN Europe has supported the plaintiff’s arguments that fundamental human rights require European countries to adopt much deeper and immediate emissions cuts. This landmark case could play a decisive role to determine whether citizens can have access to top European courts in climate cases.
The specific case of M. Müllner
The plaintiff suffers from multiple sclerosis, an autoimmune neurodegenerative disease of the central nervous system. He also suffers from temperature sensitivity, meaning that his specific disease symptoms worsen with increase of external temperatures. His disease is robbing him of motor function a little more every year, but heat is why he cannot go outside on summer afternoons. It is undisputed that climate change is making heat waves longer, more extreme and more frequent. M. Müllner therefore says that, because of its inadequate climate policies, Austria violated Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to a private and family life) of the European Court of Human Rights as it failed to protect him from the adverse impacts of the climate crisis on his life and health.
The role of CAN Europe and GLAN as third party interveners
The purpose of a third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights is to provide the Court with information to assist it in reaching its decision. CAN Europe and GLAN jointly submitted their written observations in December 2024. Several elements were raised in support of the applicants’ arguments, including that the European Union’s 2030 climate target (which directly influences Austria’s climate policies) is inadequate to stay within the temperature limit of 1.5°C which would significantly improve the applicant’s overall well-being.
In Strasbourg, a landmark case for access to justice before the European Court of Human Rights
The case of M. Müllner comes a few months after the landmark ruling of Klimaseniorinnen v. Switzerland, in which the European Court of Human Rights found that Switzerland had violated human rights due to its inadequate climate policies. This ruling also sets new rules for standing before the European Court of Human Rights when challenging climate policies. Standing means the right of a person to bring a lawsuit or make a legal claim in court: if there is no standing, the doors of the Court remain shut. The Klimaseniorinnen ruling makes a distinction for requests brought by associations (such as NGOs) or individuals.
Regarding associations, the European Court of Human Rights has recognised their important role for the effective defense of individuals’ interests. In the climate context, as long as associations fulfil some criteria, they will find the doors of the Court open and will be able to defend their claim. These criteria include the requirement to demonstrate that the concerned associations represent individuals who are subject to threats or adverse effects of climate change.
On the other hand, individuals face much tougher challenges to get standing before the European Court of Human Rights. The Court insists that individuals must show that they are personally and directly affected (“high intensity of exposure to the adverse effects of climate change”). In addition, the Court requires there to be a pressing need for individual protection that cannot be provided otherwise, such as by adaptation measures. The Court insists that “the threshold for fulfilling these criteria is especially high”. The case of M. Müllner is the first where those criteria will be tested since the Klimaseniorinnen case. As such, and given how he is directly affected by climate change, it will be decisive to understand if those criteria can ever be met.
In Luxembourg, accessing EU courts in climate cases remains challenging
The situation is somehow even worse before the other high European court, the Court of Justice of the European Union (located in Luxembourg). Its doors are shut for both individuals and NGOs when it comes to challenging climate legislation. In the past, CAN Europe supported the ‘People’s Climate Case’ in which the plaintiffs argued that the EU’s older target to reduce domestic greenhouse gases emissions by 40% by 2030, as compared to 1990 levels, was insufficient to avoid dangerous climate change and threatened plaintiffs’ fundamental rights. The Court rejected this case and held the plaintiff’s claims inadmissible on standing grounds for failing to demonstrate that they were individually impacted by Europe’s climate policy. The Court indeed requires to demonstrate a direct relationship between the legal act or state omission and the applicants’ particular situation, something which is extremely difficult in the context of climate change despite increasing impacts on human rights. It is therefore almost impossible for individuals and NGOs to challenge the EU climate laws directly before the EU Court.
In 2024, GLAN and CAN Europe’s brought another climate case to the Court of Justice of the European Union, using the Aarhus Regulation – a procedure which allows NGOs to judicially challenge administrative acts, but not laws directly. In this case, we put forward similar arguments as those contained in the third party intervention just filed in the case of M. Müller. We are calling on the Commission to revise the greenhouse gas emissions it has authorised Member States to emit between now and 2030, as set out in their annual emissions allocations under the Effort Sharing Regulation. The current levels authorised by the Commission are contrary to environmental law because the level of climate ambition is insufficient to protect fundamental human rights.
It remains to be seen whether the new standards for access to justice set out in the Klimaseniorinnen judgement from the European Court of Human Rights could ultimately improve access to justice in climate cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union. While this ruling does not bind EU courts, it could serve as a persuasive precedent. Rulings in the Müllner case and in the case of CAN Europe and GLAN against the European Commission are expected in the course of 2025.
