De Conto v. Italy and 32 other States

On March 3, 2021, Italian youth filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights against 33 countries. The applicant, a 20-year-old woman living in a small town in northern Italy, near the Dolomites mountains, claims she has suffered from psychological disorders from an early age. She submits that global warming showed its effects in her living area in October 2018 through "Storm Vaia," an unusually severe wind and rainstorm that felled around 20 million trees. The applicant also refers to forest fires and heat waves as climate impacts which affect her. She maintains that the distress linked to global warming has worsened her psychological state. Relying on Articles 2, 8, 13 and 14, she complains that the 33 States parties to the Convention which are also parties to the 2015 Paris Agreement (including Turkey, Switzerland, Portugal, Austria, Norway and France) have not taken sufficient measures to implement the latter. She complains about a violation (i) of the positive obligations of States under Articles 2 and 8 to protect the environment; (ii) of Article 14, since the harmful effects of global warming would hit the younger generations harder; (iii) of article 13, alleging that the domestic remedies would not be effective since she would be forced to lodge a complaint in the courts of 33 States, a burden which it would be impossible for her to bear because of her young age and limited financial resources. The complaint alleges that the respondents have violated human rights by failing to take sufficient action on climate change, and seeks an order requiring them to take more ambitious action. The case is similar to Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Other States. The Court unanimously ruled the case inadmissible in its decision of 7 May 2025. Confirming its previously established case law from the Duarte Agostinho case, the Court held that the applicant was under Italy's territorial jurisdiction and that there was no basis to find that the other respondent states had exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction. It underlined that the applicant did not submit any specific arguments on the subject of extraterritorial jurisdiction. The complaint against all states other than Italy was therefore declared inadmissible based on lack of jurisdiction. With respect to the complaint against Italy, the Court reiterated the relevant principles on victim status in the climate-change context established in the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz case, which had established a high threshold for victim status. As the medical certificates submitted by the applicant did not suggest that her medical conditions could be linked to her exposure to the adverse effects of climate change and none of the documents mentioned states of severe anxiety, the Court could not conclude whether she was subject to a high intensity of exposure to the adverse effects of climate change or whether there had been a pressing need to ensure her individual protection from the harm which the effects of climate change may have had on the enjoyment of her human rights. There had been insufficient substantiation in respect of her allegations. Therefore, the applicant's complaint under Article 8 of the Convention was declared inadmissible as being incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention. Her complaint under Article 2 was declared inadmissible for the same reason due to a lack of substantiation. In relation to the applicant's other complaints, the Court held that these complaints either did not meet the admissibility criteria or did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.