- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Humane Being v. the United Kingdom
Humane Being v. the United Kingdom
Geography
International
Year
2022
Document Type
Litigation
About this case
Filing year
2022
Status
Closed (inadmissible, no merits)
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) → Other (Global)Suits against governments (Global) → Human Rights (Global) → Other (Global)
Principal law
International Law → European Convention on Human Rights
At issue
Whether factory farming violates human rights due to the risks of the climate crisis, future pandemics and antibiotic resistance.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
Summary
On July 26, 2022, the NGO Humane Being filed an application to the European Court of Human Rights in the first case challenging factory farming in the UK. The application alleges that the UK Government is in breach of their obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention for failing to address the risks of the climate crisis, future pandemics and antibiotic resistance created by factory farming. This application poses novel climate arguments focusing on the danger of agricultural methane emissions, and highlighting soy feed consumption in UK factory farming as a key driver of deforestation in the Amazon basin. The application also cites for the first time before the ECHR the ruling of the Brazilian Supreme Court in PSB et al v Brazil (on Climate Fund), which recognized the Paris Agreement as a human rights treaty. Given the urgency of the case and other pending climate cases before the ECHR, an application has been made for the case to be assessed on a priority basis.
In January 2023, the case was declared inadmissible pursuant to procedure which does not involve a public decision. The Court found that the applicants were not sufficiently affected by the alleged breach of the Convention or the Protocols thereto to claim to be the victims of a violation within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. Accordingly, these complaints are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a).
Topics mentioned most in this case Beta
See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more
Group
Topics
Risk
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Finance