Fliegenschnee and Others v. Austria

Three Austrian nationals and the environmental organization Global 2000 filed their case with the ECtHR in 2023 after having exhausted the available domestic remedies. For the domestic case, see the domestic case entry. The applicants allege that the Federal Minister for Digital and Economic Affairs’ refusal to ban the sale of solid fossil fuels from 2025 and of fossil fuels used in aviation from 2040, or to take other equally effective measures to mitigate the effects of climate change, constitutes a violation of their rights under Article 2 (right to life) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). One of the applicants, Ms. Jasansksy, who is a farmer, additionally alleges a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) as her livelihood was in danger because of droughts caused by climate change affecting her crops. On December 11, 2025, the ECtHR published its unanimous decision, taken on November 18, 2025 by the Fourth Section of the Court. The Court found, with respect to the applicants’ allegations under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, that Article 2 would only come into play where there exists a serious, real, and sufficiently identifiable threat to an individual’s life. This threshold is also essential for individual applicants to satisfy the particularly stringent victim-status requirements applicable to climate change mitigation claims, as articulated in KlimaSeniorinnen (para. 488). The Court considered it doubtful that Article 2 was engaged on the facts of this case and therefore proceeded to examine the application exclusively under Article 8. Regarding the individual applicants, the Court observed that they had not provided concrete information outlining how they were personally affected, nor had they submitted evidence substantiating the health conditions they invoked. Consequently, they did not satisfy the victim-status criteria formulated in KlimaSeniorinnen, and their complaints were declared inadmissible. The Court rejected the argument advanced by the second applicant, aged 28, that the mere fact of being young, and thus exposed to climate change impacts over a longer future period, placed her health at risk within the meaning of the Convention. It also dismissed the first applicant’s reliance on a heart condition, noting that the requisite evidentiary basis had not been provided. With respect to the fourth applicant, an environmental organization incorporated under Austrian law, the Court applied the representative-standing criteria for associations established in KlimaSeniorinnen. It accepted that recognition under Austrian domestic law demonstrated that the organization was validly constituted, entitled to act within that jurisdiction, and mandated, through its statutes, to work on environmental protection. However, the Court questioned whether it satisfied the remaining elements of the KlimaSeniorinnen test, namely whether its statutory purposes included the defense of human rights in the environmental context and whether it represented individuals affected within Austria. The Court considered these aspects unresolved, as no substantive documentation regarding the association’s membership or statutes had been submitted. It left the issue open because the application would in any event have been inadmissible on other grounds. The Court reiterated that Article 8 does not guarantee a right to the specific measure sought by the applicants, namely a prohibition on the sale of fossil fuels. It stressed that, in light of the subsidiarity principle and the broad margin of appreciation afforded to States in determining how to pursue their climate objectives, Article 8 cannot be interpreted as obliging a State to adopt any particular mitigation measure under a sectoral legal framework of an applicant’s choosing (para. 33). Furthermore, the Court held that the applicants had failed to adequately demonstrate how Austria had neglected to establish an appropriate regulatory regime. Although the government acknowledged that existing policies were insufficient to ensure compliance with its 2030 greenhouse gas reduction targets, the Court considered this insufficient for the applicants to substantiate their claims. It also noted that the applicants had not pursued available domestic remedies beyond requesting action from the Federal Ministry, nor had they argued that effective remedies were lacking. The Court also addressed the third applicant’s reliance on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, concerning the right to property. As a farmer, she claimed that climate-change-induced droughts threatened her property. The Court observed that it had not previously applied Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the climate context and that existing case law did not support its applicability (para. 37). It added that, even assuming the provision could apply to climate-related impacts, the third applicant would not meet the victim-status requirement.