Müllner v. Austria

After having exhausted all national remedies available, with the final decision from the Austrian Supreme Court communicated to the parties on October 12, 2020, on March 25, 2021, an Austrian citizen with a temperature-dependent form of multiple sclerosis (MS) filed a case against the Austrian government for violations of his human rights for failing to set effective climate measures to reduce GHG emission and ultimately contrast the effect of climate change. In the filing, the petitioner alleges facts, including that most MS patients suffer from Uhthoff’s syndrome, which is a temperature-dependent sensitivity. The sensitivity causes patients like the petitioner to lose more muscular control as temperatures go up. The petitioner alleges that through inaction on the climate crisis, the Austrian government has violated his constitutional right to family and private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and has allowed foreseeable risks to his right to life under Article 8 and 13 of the ECHR. The petitioner also alleges that he has no effective remedy available in the Austrian legal system, which is a violation of his rights under Article 13 of the ECHR. This is because Austrian law does not provide an opportunity to challenge administrative omissions and legislative inaction on the climate crisis, and no administrative body or court is obliged to hear his claims on the merits. Despite the above, the petitioner did try all national court remedies before the Constitutional Court, but the case was dismissed. In the Application, the claimant is also requesting for the case to be treated as expedite proceedings under Rule 41, given its extreme urgency and the profound threats to the physical and psychological integrity of the petitioner. On 18 June 2024, the Government of Austria was given notice of the application alongside questions from the Court to the Parties, some of them referencing the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland judgment. At the same time, the Court decided to grant the case priority status under Rule 41 of the Rules of the Court owing to the importance and urgency of the issues raised and the alleged deterioration of Mr Müllner’s health through global warming.