Engels and Others v. Germany

Follow-up case to Germany's Federal Constitutional Court’s judgment regarding the Climate Protection Act, where the Court had ordered the legislator to amend the act to comply with the environmental targets. The applicants complain that the CP Act amendments are insufficient to meet the targets agreed upon at COP 21. They alleged that the version of the Federal Climate Change Act in question did not satisfy the State’s positive obligations under Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention to put in place a legislative and administrative framework that effectively protected them from serious adverse effects on their lives and health arising from the harmful effects and risks caused by climate change. They further argued that the Federal Climate Change Act had an advance interference-like effect on the future exercise of their freedoms guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, as the irreversible depletion of the remaining CO2 budget would require radical restrictions on the exercise of those freedoms in the future. In its Committee decision of 28 August 2025, the Court declared the application inadmissible. Regarding the complaint under Article 8 European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the Court held that even though the applicants referred to specific circumstances prevailing at their places of residence in Germany, the submissions were of a generalised nature. It was not apparent that they were exposed to the adverse effects of climate change, or were at risk of being exposed at any relevant point in the future, with a degree of intensity giving rise to a pressing need to ensure their individual protection. The applicants also failed to demonstrate that they had specific vulnerabilities or that exceptional circumstances existed in relation to the adverse effects of climate change to which they were at risk of being exposed to in the future. As (a) a high intensity of exposure of the applicant to the adverse effects of climate change; and (b) a pressing need to ensure the applicant’s individual protection are two key criteria for victim status in the context of complaints concerning harm or risk of harm resulting from alleged failures by the State to combat climate change (as established in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others), the complainants did not attain victim status. Their complaint under Article 8 was therefore declared incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the ECHR. As regards the complaint under Article 2 ECHR, the Court considered that the applicants’ submissions did not reveal that they were exposed to a “real and imminent” risk to their lives such as to trigger the applicability of Article 2 ECHR. This complaint was therefore declared incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the ECHR.