Case Law Database
Soubeste v. Austria et. al.
| Date of Application: | Sat, 01 Jan 2022 |
|---|---|
| Date of Decision: | Tue, 26 Nov 2024 |
| Decision Making Body: | European Court of Human Rights |
| Law Applied: | European Convention on Human Rights |
| Keywords: | Right to life, family, privacy, equality |
| Full Case Details - Download Full Judgment (pdf) |
Soubeste and others v. Austria and 11 other states (2024) 31925/22 (ECHR)
At Issue: Whether the rights of young citizens have been affected by climate change due to the Energy Charter Treaty.
Summary: Five young European citizens allege that their right to life, right to be free of inhuman or degrading treatment, right to respect for their private and family life and right not to be subjected to discrimination have been adversely affected by extreme meteorological events which are directly linked to climate change and the consequences of which they have personally experienced. They contend, in particular, that the climate change that affects them is driven, to a large extent, by fossil energy industry and that the 1994 Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), ratified by all twelve Respondent States, protects investors in that sector from regulatory changes and gives them access to exorbitant remedies through investor-State dispute settlement mechanisms, thereby inhibiting the Respondent States from taking immediate measures against climate change and making it impossible for them to attain goals enshrined in Article 2 of the 2015 Paris Agreement.
In a letter to the Court dated 9 July 2024, the applicants informed the Registry that they no longer intended to pursue their applications since most of the respondent States either had withdrawn or had declared their intention to withdraw from the Energy Charter Treaty and requested the Court to strike their applications out of its list of cases.
In a committee decision of 26 November 2024, the Court decided to join the applications due to the similar subject matter of the applications and strike the case out of its list, since it considered that it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications.
Summary provided courtesy of the Sabin Centre
Court documents:
- Summary of the legal arguments
- The Court’s decision putting an end to the case is available here.
Related CRC articles
- 2. Right to non-discrimination (CRC Article 2)
- 6. Right to life, survival and development (CRC Article 6)
- 16. Right to privacy, family, home, communications and reputation (CRC Article 16)
- 24. Right to health, healthcare, and a healthy environment (CRC Article 24)
The applicants rely on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.
Involvement of children in hearings
- Written presentation
The matter did not proceed to a hearing. The legal submissions were made by the lawyers in consultation with the young litigants.
Intergenerational rights
In the summary of the legal arguments:
"34. ... The Applicant is, because of [his] age, expected to experience a greater interference with [his] rights under the ECHR than upon older generations. There is no justification for this disproportionate prejudicial effect. Therefore, the Respondent States have breached Article 14, read in conjunction with Articles 2 and 8."
Future generations
In the summary of the legal arguments:
In relation to positive substantive obligations in the ECT context:
"44. Further, the existence and content of the overriding obligation is supported by, inter alia: (i) the objectives and emissions reduction obligations recognised in Article 2 and 4(2) of the UNFCCC, and Articles 2(1)(a) and 4 of the Paris Agreement; (ii) States’ duties to adopt a precautionary approach in the face of serious and irreversible environmental harm; (iii) States’ duties to preserve the natural environment for future generations and ensure the sustainable use of natural resources (“the principle of sustainable development”); (iv) States’ duties to prevent transboundary environmental harm."
Outcome of decision for the applicants
- Relief sought by applicants PARTIALLY granted
On May 30, 2024, the decision for the EU to withdraw from the ECT was adopted by the European Council. By the end of June, ten countries (including five - France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom - targeted by the complaint) had officially notified their withdrawal from the ECT, with others announcing their intention to withdraw. Therefore, the plaintiffs decided, in light of the progress made, to withdraw their complaint from the ECHR. However, they reserve the right to take further legal action against states that do not withdraw from the Energy Charter Treaty or other climate-damaging investment protection treaties. (https://www.exitect.org/the-case)
Did outcome of decision develop the law
- No
Involvement of NGO/law firm in application
Paris
Age range of litigants
- 13-17
- 18-25
Number of children or youth involved
4