- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Ecodefense & Others v. Russia
Ecodefense & Others v. Russia
Geography
International
Year
2023
Document Type
Litigation
About this case
Filing year
2023
Status
Pending
Geography
International
Court/admin entity
International Courts & Tribunals → European Court of Human Rights
Case category
Suits against governments (Global) → GHG emissions reduction and trading (Global)
Principal law
International Law → European Convention on Human Rights
At issue
Whether Russia's climate change policies are violating the applicants' human rights.
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Summary
In 2023, Russian NGOs Ecodefense and Moscow Helsinki Group as well as 18 individual applicants filed a case with the European Court of Human Rights, alleging that Russia’s climate change policies are in breach of their human rights. This came after the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation denied the domestic application. For more on the domestic case, see the domestic case entry.
In their application to the ECtHR, the applicants argue that Russia’s climate policy foresees a rise in GHG emissions until 2030 and only a minimal decline after that, which the applicants argue violates their rights to life, health, home and family life (Articles 2 and 8 ECHR). The applicants also argue that there has been a breach of the right to an effective remedy (Article 13 ECHR) and that, in relation to youth applicants and Indigenous applicants, Russia has violated the protection against discrimination in conjunction with the enjoyment of the right to life and health (Article 14 taken in conjunction with Articles 2 and 8 ECHR). The applicants also argue that the Russian Government’s interference with their right to bring this case before the Court amounts to a violation of Article 34 ECHR.
In December 2025, the Co-Chairman of Ecodefense sent a letter to the Court drawing attention to the fact that it has not yet been communicated despite having been filed two years ago. The letter urged the Court to prioritize the case and also drew attention to the personal reprisals faced by some of the applicants like loss of citizenship or being labelled a "foreign agent". It thus called on the Court to meaningfully ensure applicants' Article 34 rights.