European Union

CRIN would like to express our profound gratitude to our external reviewers for their insightful comments on a draft of this report. Any errors or inaccuracies remaining in the report are CRIN’s.

This report is provided for educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. CRIN does not accept liability for any loss, damage, cost or expense incurred or arising by reason of any person using or relying on information in this report. CRIN encourages personal and educational use of this publication and grants permission for its reproduction in this capacity where proper credit is given in good faith.

All CRIN content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial No Derivatives 4.0 licence. No material produced by CRIN may be modified unless consent is given in writing. No material produced by CRIN may be re-used for commercial gain unless consent is given in writing.

List of abbreviations

I. Legal protections

A. How are environmental rights protected within European Union law?

European Union ("EU") primary law does not expressly refer to a standalone right to a healthy environment. However, the environment is recognised as an essential value to be protected by all 28 EU member states ("Member States") and as a matter of EU competence.¹ Article 3(3) of the Treaty on European Union ("TEU") establishes that one of the core objectives of the EU is achieving a high degree of environmental protection and improving the quality of the environment in line with sustainable development.² The EU must integrate environmental protection into all EU policies and actions, as outlined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ("CFR") and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU").³

To that end, the EU has a shared competence on environmental law as shown by Articles 4(2)(e) and 191 to 193 TFEU.⁴ Most of the EU's environmental legislation is adopted in the form of directives, regulations, and decisions in areas where it has competence, particularly concerning cross-border matters such as climate change, chemicals legislation, biodiversity, pollution control and waste management. However, the EU's scope for action in environmental policy is limited by the principle of subsidiarity, the principle of proportionality, and the requirement for unanimity in the Council in certain fields such as land use, quantitative water resource management, and energy policy illustrated in the TFEU, Article 192.⁵ In addition, Member States may adopt more stringent protective environmental measures based on their specific national circumstances or new scientific data provided that the measures do not hinder the EU's internal market as demonstrated in the TFEU, Articles 36, 114 and 193.⁶

Thus, rights and obligations related to environmental protection are embedded in principles and primary and secondary legislation, which are then implemented and enforced by the Member States. The Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") plays an important role in interpreting and advancing these rights.

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Articles 11 and 191-193 of the TFEU define the EU's objectives for EU environmental policy, which explicitly refer to the protection of human health, responsible natural resource use and the protection and improvement of environmental quality.⁷ Additionally, the EU's environmental policy is shaped by the precautionary principle, which is one of the foundations of the high level of protection pursued by the Community policy on the environment, the principle of prevention and rectifying pollution at source seen in Articles 191 and 192 of the TFEU, and on the ‘polluter pays’ principle implemented by the Environmental Liability Directive.⁸ These principles have played an important role in the development of case law regarding the division of power between the EU and its constituent Member States.

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Article 37 of the CFR reflects the principle of ensuring a high level of environmental protection and improvement of the environment's quality and is integrated into EU legislation.⁹ This formulation is a principle rather than a subjective right, which can be enforced against the EU or national authorities in performance of their functions.¹⁰ In June 2021, the European Parliament “consider[ed] that the right to a healthy environment should be recognised in the EU Charter and that the EU should take the lead on the international recognition of such a right.”¹¹ Although discussions on this matter have occurred at the EU level, formal recognition of the right to a healthy environment in the CFR has not yet been achieved to date.¹²

The Aarhus Convention and Environmental Procedural Rights

The Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the "Aarhus Convention"), to which the EU and its Member States are Parties, safeguards environmental procedural rights: the right of access to environmental information held by public authorities, public participation in decision-making, and the right to access to justice concerning environmental issues.¹³ Although the Convention does not specifically mention children, Article 1 articulates its objective as ensuring these environmental rights to "contribute to the protection of every person of present and future generations to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being" (emphasis added).¹⁴ The provision under Article 1 underscores the commitment of each Party to guarantee these rights as a means of safeguarding the environment for both current and future generations.¹⁵ The relevance of the Convention to the particular needs and rights of children has started to be incorporated in the Decisions and Outcomes of the different meetings of the Parties to the Convention, noting, for example, their vulnerable situation as well as the barriers that children face when accessing justice for their environmental rights and the threats faced by youth and children environmental defenders.¹⁶

The EU has implemented the Convention by several instruments including the Environmental Information Directive (2003/4/EC), the Public Participation Directive (2003/35/EC), and Regulation (EC) N° 1367/2006 concerns the implementation of the Aarhus Convention in the EU’s institutions.¹⁷ The latter was amended in October 2021 by Regulation (EU) 2021/1767 to enhance public scrutiny of EU environmental actions by NGOs and the public, significantly expanding the decisions eligible for internal review.¹⁸

EU Secondary Legislation – Regulations, Directives, Policies and Action Programmes

The EU adopts multiannual Environmental Action Programmes with specific goals and legislative proposals on different areas of environmental concern. There are also horizontal strategies and policies, which cut across different environmental subject areas, at EU-wide level.

Recently, the environment has taken centre stage in European policy making with the adoption of the European Green Deal, which has served as an umbrella for environmental legislative action in Europe in particular in advancing laws to combat climate change.¹⁹ Furthermore, the EU has adopted directives and regulations to implement its environmental policies in the policy areas where it has competence. These areas include air and water quality, waste management, biodiversity preservation, management of harmful chemicals and climate change.

Notably several regulations and directives include environmental procedural rights. For instance, the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Ambient Air Quality Directive (2008/50/EC) include provisions regarding environmental procedural rights.²⁰ The Environmental Impact Assessment’ (EIA) Directive (2011/92/EU) mandates the evaluation of the environmental impact of both public and private projects and builds on public participation in the decision-making of projects that may affect the environment.²¹ Similarly, the Seveso III Directive (2012/18/EU) provides for access to justice in cases of acts and omissions in the context of prevention of major accidents involving dangerous substances.²²

The European Commission should follow the Better Regulation guidelines and toolbox, which requires consideration of the impact on specific groups’ human rights (e.g. children) and on the environment both in the preparation of new initiatives and proposals and in the management and evaluation of existing legislation.²³

Specific Provisions Related to Children

The CFR states that children have “the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being”.²⁴ While no specific provisions regarding environmental rights for children were identified in secondary EU law, all EU Member States are parties to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child ("UNCRC").²⁵ The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which monitors the implementation of the UNCRC, affirmed that children have the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, which is implicit in the UNCRC, in its General Comment No. 26 (2023) on children’s rights and the environment with a special focus on climate change.²⁶ Given that all EU Member States have ratified the UNCRC and that obligations arising from EU membership should not conflict with Member States’ obligations derived from their domestic constitutions and international human rights commitments, the EU is obliged to comply with the UNCRC principles and provisions, at least in the context of matters that are within the EU's competence.²⁷ The UNCRC is discussed in further detail later in this report.

B. Has EU Law been applied by the European Court of Justice with regards to environmental issues?

The CJEU (or "the Court") – which comprises the Court of Justice ("CJEU") and General Court ("GC") – has established a history of extensive case law regarding environmental protection. EU case law has developed both the precautionary principle and procedural environmental rights, partly through the interpretation of the Aarhus Convention and its implementation within the EU, as well as environmental impact assessments.²⁸

The Court plays a role in shaping environmental law by enforcing directives and regulations related with the protection of the environment, such as the Habitats, Environmental Impact Assessment, and Wild Birds directives, often addressing complex technical or novel questions.²⁹ The Court also rules on infringement proceedings brought against Member States about environmental concerns regarding, for instance, implementation of directives into national law.³⁰

Summaries of judgments of the CJEU, the GC and the Civil Service Tribunal related to EU environmental policy are available in the digest of case-law.³¹

CJEU case law specifically addressing environmental children rights or their right to a healthy environment could not be identified. While CJEU case law does not tend to focus explicitly on children, it upholds the application of relevant principles such as sustainability, precaution, and long-term and high level of environmental protection. Below are some notable cases on environmental protection. Although these cases do not explicitly reference children's environmental rights, they nonetheless contribute to the protection of the environment and the rights of all persons:

• In Case C-72/95, Kraaijeveld v Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland (1996), the CJEU ruled that individuals have the right to challenge administrative decisions concerning environmental matters under EU law.³² The case affirmed the principle that EU law allows individuals to bring legal actions to protect their environmental rights.

  ---

• Case C-176/03, Commission v Council (2005) was a landmark ruling in which the CJEU held that the EU had the power to take measures in criminal law to ensure compliance with environmental protection provisions.³³ The judgement expanded the scope of EU environmental law, enabling more stringent enforcement for environmental offences. On a similar note, in the Ship-Source Pollution Case C-440/05, the CJEU emphasised that, while the EU has the power to require Member States to adopt criminal penalties for serious environmental offences, the determination of the nature and level of these penalties remains within the Member States' competence.³⁴

  ---

• In Case C-243/15 Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Obvodný úrad Trenčín (2016) the Slovakian Supreme Court requested the CJEU to issue a preliminary ruling about whether an environmental association can participate in administrative proceedings to challenge a decision to derogate from a system of environmental protection.³⁵ The Supreme Court reasoned that because the procedure relates to a species protected by the Habitats Directive, it fell within the scope of EU law, and therefore, the Aarhus Convention should be interpreted to ensure effective judicial protection.

  ---

• In Case C-237/07 Janecek (2007) the applicant sought the development of an air quality action plan for their municipality due to the violation of EU-mandated air quality limits.³⁶ In response to a national court's inquiry, the CJEU determined that the applicant had standing to make this request, given that their health was impacted by the air pollution.

  ---

• Case C-441/17 Commission v Poland (Białowieża Forest) (2018) involved the protection of the Białowieża Forest, a UNESCO World Heritage site.³⁷ The CJEU ruled that Poland's logging activities in the forest were illegal under EU law. The decision was significant for the conservation of natural habitats and biodiversity, impacting future generations' right to a healthy environment.

  ---

• Case C-375/21 Sdruzhenie "Za Zemyata - dostap do pravosadie" and Others (2023) is in the context of the Bulgarian government granting a derogation to emit SO2 to a state-owned coal plant, the CJEU ruled derogations to pollute above legal limits cannot be granted in areas that are already significantly polluted.³⁸ The ruling said public authorities have a duty to consider the cumulative pollution that people are exposed to.

  ---

• Case C-215/06 Commission v Ireland (2008) was about the failure of Ireland to fulfil obligations under the EIA Directive 85/337/EEC.³⁹ This case emphasises the fundamental objective of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive, which requires that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment must undergo a development consent process, including an assessment of their environmental impacts, before consent is granted.

  ---

• Case C-227/01 Commission v Spain (2004) involved Spain's failure to assess the environmental impact of the project for a Valencia-Tarragona railway line, as required under the EIA Directive 85/337/EEC.⁴⁰ The Court addressed the issue of "project splitting", where large projects are divided into smaller ones to bypass the requirements of the EIA Directive. The Court ruled that such practices are not allowed under EU law.

  ---

• Case C-416/10 Križan and Others (2013) was referred for a preliminary ruling from Slovakia.⁴¹ The case revolved around several key issues such as public participation in the decision-making process, the construction of a landfill site, application for a permit, the validity of the decision authorising the landfill site, and the assessment of the environmental impact of the project. The Court interpreted Directive 96/61/EC, which concerns integrated pollution prevention and control ("IPPC"), as mandating that the public should have early access to a decision from the start of a project’s authorisation process. The Court further clarified that national authorities may not deny such access by citing the protection of commercial or industrial information confidentiality. This holds true especially while all options remain viable during the authorisation procedure.

  ---

• Case C-127/02 Waddenvereniging and Vogelsbeschermingvereniging (2004) addresses the concept of a "plan" or "project" and assesses the potential implications of these on a protected site.⁴² One of the key activities examined in this context was mechanical cockle fishing. The judgement reached a significant conclusion: an activity such as mechanical cockle fishing is encompassed within the definition of "plan" or "project" as per Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. This interpretation implies that if a project has the potential to undermine any of the conservation objectives of the site, it is likely to exert a significant impact on that site.

  ---

• Case C-418/04 Commission v Ireland (2007), also known as the Wild Bird Case, revolved around Ireland’s failure to meet its obligations under Directive 79/409/EEC, commonly referred to as the "Birds Directive".⁴³ This directive is primarily concerned with the conservation of wild birds. The Court emphasised that under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, any plan or project can only be authorised after the national authorities have confirmed that it will not negatively impact the integrity of the site. This ruling underscored the importance of environmental considerations in planning and development projects.

The conservation of biodiversity, waste management, water protection, and the prevention of climate change have been recognised by the CJEU as pursuing an objective of general interest restricting basic rights, with a view to protecting the environment.⁴⁴

Right to a Healthy Environment

While the CJEU has not explicitly ruled on a general and autonomous right to live in a healthy environment as a fundamental right under EU law, it has handed down judgments related to environmental protection and the health of individuals. Environmental procedural rights enable the advancement of the protection of the right to a healthy environment in the EU. Nevertheless, the recognition of a specific right to a healthy environment varies among Member States at the national level and some countries may offer more explicit legal protection for this right within their national legal systems. For instance, Article 45 of the Spanish Constitution provides for a "right to enjoy an environment suitable for the development of the person as well as the duty to preserve it". In some Member States, constitutional law cases at national level have addressed these principles. A notable example is the landmark Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands case in which the Dutch Supreme Court relied on its domestic constitution to apply and expand environmental human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (the "Convention" or "ECHR") to the context of climate change.⁴⁵

Environmental Procedural Rights

The CJEU has upheld procedural rights of both individuals and environmental non-governmental organisations ("ENGOs") in the light of the Aarhus Convention and its implementing regulation. It has clarified that ENGOs are included in the definition of the "public concerned" in Case C-570/13 - Gruber.⁴⁶ The CJEU has also addressed the concept of "information relating to the environment" as well as the grounds for refusal of public access to environmental information.⁴⁷

In Case C-873/19 Deutsche Umwelthilfe v Germany (2022), the CJEU ruled that an environmental association – which is in principle entitled to bring an action under national law – has standing under Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention to challenge an EU-vehicle type approval if it meets the conditions under national law to bring legal proceedings.⁴⁸ The judgement also clarified the conditions on which devices of emissions control systems can be justified.

In Case C-197/18, Wasserleitungsverband Nördliches Burgenland, the CJEU ruled that directly concerned individuals, either natural or legal persons, would have standing and therefore, the right to challenge inadequate Nitrate Action Programmes in their national courts.⁴⁹ This case law is relevant to challenging EU-mandated plans, programmes and other areas of environmental concern, such as air pollution.

In Case C-565/19 – Armando Carvalho, the "People Climate Case", the Court declared that an action for annulment against several EU acts associated with greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions was not admissible, due to the lack of individual concern.⁵⁰ This case, often referred to as the People’s Climate Case, was brought by ten families from Europe, Kenya, and Fiji, along with a Swedish association representing the indigenous Sami youth (Sáminuorra) who are disproportionately impacted by climate change.

C. Has the concept of intergenerational equity been applied by the European Court of Justice?

Sustainable development is a fundamental aspect of environmental policy within the EU, which incorporates intergenerational equity as an aspect of its definition (i.e., "without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs").⁵¹ Moreover, the Aarhus Convention recognises the importance of the environmental rights of every person in present and future generations, a principle which has been incorporated into the environmental laws of the EU and its Member States.⁵²

Although the CJEU has not explicitly referred to the concept of intergenerational equity in its judgments, its decisions have often reflected the underlying principles of sustainability and the consideration of long-term consequences, emphasising the importance of protecting the environment, conserving natural resources, and ensuring that Member States take measures that promote the well-being of current and future generations.

D. What legislation is in place to regulate environmental protection? Are there any proposals for legal reforms currently under review by the European Union?

There are a multitude of EU laws relating to the environment. Some of the main horizontal pieces of environmental legislation include:

• Directive 2000/60/EC (The Water Framework Directive)⁵³ – aims to protect and enhance the EU's water resources, reduce pollution and promote sustainable water use. It establishes a framework for the protection and improvement of the quality and quantity of waters in the EU. This is based on the principles of integrated river basin management and the participation of the public in the decision-making process.

  ---

• Directive 2003/87/EC (EU Emission Trade System Directive)⁵⁴ – sets emissions based on a 'cap and trade' system aiming to reduce GHG emissions. It covers emissions from more than 10,000 heavy energy-using installations and airlines operating between these countries, and maritime transport from 2024.

  ---

• Directive 2004/35/EC (Environmental Liability Directive)⁵⁵ – outlines the liability of operators who cause environmental damage and sets forth measures to ensure that they bear the cost of restoring the environment, promoting the "polluter pays" principle in environmental protection within the EU.

  ---

• Directive 2008/50/EC (the Ambient air quality and clearer air Directive)⁵⁶ – sets air quality goals with ambitious, cost-effective targets for health and the environment, outlines assessment methods, mandates corrective actions for non-compliance and ensures public transparency.

  ---

• Directive 2008/56/EC (the Marine Strategy Framework Directive)⁵⁷ – protects the marine environment across the EU. It does so by setting the framework on marine environmental policy, procedures and practices to achieve a "Good Environmental Status" for EU marine waters.

  ---

• Directive 2008/98/EC (the Waste Framework Directive)⁵⁸ – outlines the EU's framework for managing waste. Its primary focus is to promote waste prevention, recycling, and reuse to reduce the environmental impact of waste. It sets out key principles and establishes targets and standards for waste management and recycling to handle waste effectively and sustainably.

  ---

• Directive 2009/147/EC (the Birds Directive) and Directive 92/43/EEC (the Habitats Directive)⁵⁹ – establish the Natura 2000 network of protected areas. They aim to protect the most seriously threatened habitats and species across Europe.

  ---

• Directive 2010/75/EU (the Industrial Emissions Directive)⁶⁰ – sets environmental standards for industrial activities in the EU, with a focus on reducing emissions and ensuring sustainable practices. Amongst other things, it imposes emission limits, and mandates permits for industrial installations to uphold these standards.

  ---

• Directive 2011/92/EU (the Environmental Impact Assessment or EIA Directive)⁶¹ – defines the Environmental Impact Assessment process, requiring assessments for projects with significant environmental effects before authorisation. It covers various public and private projects listed in Annexes I and II, such as airports, nuclear installations, roads, and waste treatment plants.

  ---

• Directive 2001/42/EC (the Strategic Environmental Assessment 'SEA' Directive)⁶² – requires an environmental assessment of certain plans and programmes that could significantly impact the environment. This pertains to plans and programmes developed for particular sectors, including agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste management, water management, telecommunications, tourism, urban and rural planning, and land use. These plans and programmes provide the framework for approving development projects under the EIA Directive, which, unlike the SEA Directive, requires assessment at project level.

  ---

• Directive 2022/2464/EU (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive ("CSRD")) and Directive 2014/95/EU (the Non-Financial Reporting Directive ("NFRD"))⁶³ – require 'large' and listed companies to disclose information on their impacts on the people and the planet and their risk and opportunities arising from social and environmental issues.

  ---

• Directive 2024/1760 (Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive or "CSDDD")⁶⁴ – sets mandatory due diligence obligations on large companies (EU and non-EU companies) and regarding the actual and potential adverse impacts on environmental, climate and human rights of their own operations and their business partners. It also sets out penalties and civil liability rules for infringement. It will be translated into domestic legislation over the next two-three years, initially applying only to the largest companies and thereafter to slightly smaller ones.

  ---

• Directive (EU) 2024/1203 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on the protection of the environment through criminal law and replacing Directives 2008/99/EC and 2009/123/EC, commonly known as the "Ecocide Directive."⁶⁵ The Directive entered into force on 20 May 2024, and Member States have two years to transpose the new rules into their national legal systems. This Directive aims to enhance the effectiveness of its predecessor (Directive 2008/99/EC) by updating definitions of environmental crimes and expanding the scope to new categories of environmental offences to include activities such as illegal timber trade, depletion of water resources, serious breaches of certain texts of the EU chemicals legislation, and pollution caused by ships.⁶⁶ Additionally, it provides for "qualified offences" (such as large-scale forest fires or widespread pollution of air, water, and soil) that result in the destruction of ecosystems, making them comparable to ecocide. The topic of "ecocide" is discussed in further detail under its own section, later in the report.

There are also a number of product or sector-specific pieces of legislation, including Directive 2012/19/EU (the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive);⁶⁷ Directive 2019/904/EU (the Single Use Plastics Directive);⁶⁸ Directive 2006/66/EC (the Batteries Directive);⁶⁹ Directive 1999/31/EC (the Landfill Directive);⁷⁰ Directive 94/62/EC (The Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive);⁷¹ Directive 2011/65/EU (the Restriction of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment or “RoHS 2” Directive);⁷² Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals ("REACH");⁷³ and Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on the Classification, Labelling and Packaging of substances and mixtures ("CLP Regulation").⁷⁴ The revision of the CLP Regulation was approved in December 2023 by the EU co-legislators.⁷⁵ Among other provisions, they agreed on the addition of new hazard classes including for endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), on minimum label formatting rules to increase the readability of labels, as well as rules on voluntary digital labelling and related technical requirements.⁷⁶

In the realm of climate-related regulations, several key directives are Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 (the European Climate Law) that crystallises the EU's objective of becoming climate neutral by 2050;⁷⁷ Regulation EU 2018/841 (the LULUCF Regulation),⁷⁸ Regulation (EC) 1005/2009 (the EU Ozone Regulation)⁷⁹ and Regulation (EU) 517/2014 (the F-gas Regulation),⁸⁰ which sets limits on the sale within the EU of fluorinated gases, which have a potent greenhouse effect when released into the atmosphere.

Strategies and Policies

The European Green Deal is the EU's ambitious policy commitments to achieve net zero by 2050, emphasising environmental protection and sustainability in the EU's economic growth strategy, which entails the adoption and review of several policies in this regard.⁸¹ It was presented in 2019 and approved in 2020, as the new 2019-2024 EU mandates started. Fit for 55, adopted later in 2023, is the suite of legislative changes that were introduced to practically achieve the policies set out in the EU Green Deal.⁸²

Fit for 55 specifically aims to reduce net GHG emissions across Europe by at least 55% by 2030. Both the European Green Deal and the Fit for 55 Package translate the goals set out in the European Climate Law, including a 55% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, compared to 1990 levels.⁸³

However, the Green Deal is not legally binding per se and is also being questioned and potentially rebranded as a result of the 2024 EU elections and new Commission mandate, shifting towards a “clean industrial deal” while non-governmental organisations (“NGOs”) are advocating for the Green Deal to survive.

The Biodiversity Strategy for 2030,⁸⁴ Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability⁸⁵ and Farm to Fork Strategy⁸⁶ are examples of other umbrella strategies adopted pursuant to the European Green Deal that may entail further legislative action in the years ahead. The Zero Pollution Action Plan,⁸⁷ another deliverable of the European Green Deal, recognises that children are a vulnerable group particularly affected by pollution, especially by harmful lead pollution. This plan therefore sets out ambitions for the Commission to explore a global initiative with international partners to end informal recycling of used lead acid batteries.

The EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child provides for a number of policy and action commitments of the European Commission to strengthen the mainstreaming of children’s rights across all relevant EU policies.⁸⁸ The strategy proposes targeted actions across six thematic areas. Each area defines one priority for the EU action in the coming years. Key actions by the European Commission in Area 1 "Participation in political and democratic life: An EU that empowers children to be active citizens and Member of Democratic societies" include creating space for children to engage as active participants in the European Climate Pact. This includes opportunities for children to make pledges, become Pact Ambassadors and participate in sustainable climate, energy, and environmental education through the Education for Climate Coalition, empowering them to be agents of change in the implementation of the Climate Pact and the European Green Deal. The strategy is discussed in further detail in section 19 of this Report.

Finally, it is worth noting the Commission Recommendation on developing and strengthening integrated child protection systems in the best interest of the child (2024), which invites Member States to establish obligations for all relevant actors in the relevant sectors, such as business and environment, and to take measures to protect children from the impact of climate change and environmental hazards on their rights, such as involving them in decision-making and by including child-protective and child-sensitive approaches in their climate change adaptation and mitigation plans.⁸⁹ The Recommendation also calls on Member States to implement specific solutions to reduce impacts of climate change on children, including by adopting a child rights-based approach to climate change-induced migration and displacements.⁹⁰

Proposals for Legal Reforms

Following the publication of the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability, in October 2020, the European Commission promised different actions in the chemical realm, amongst which there is an expected review of the REACH regulation.⁹¹ While it is not clear when the review will be proposed (indicatively in the second semester of 2025), some aspects that may be in review include the revision of the substance's registration requirements and the introduction of a mixture assessment factor.

Other initiatives envisaged are the European Commission's proposal for a Regulation on the safety of toys, which will repeal Directive 2009/48/EC on toy safety, and the European Chemical Agency's ("ECHA") proposal for a restriction of forever pollutants (or PFAs).⁹² These legislative proposals will have an impact on children given the specific risk that toxic chemicals pose to children's health. The European Commission's proposal for a new regulation on the sustainable use of plant protection products, which included EU-wide targets to reduce by 50% the use and risk of chemical pesticides by 2030, was discarded.⁹³

E. What are the EU policies which might have a direct or indirect impact on how children can be impacted/exposed to hazardous chemicals?

EU policies related to the exposure of children to hazardous chemicals primarily fall under the broader framework of chemicals regulation, labour protection, environmental protection, and consumer safety.

REACH Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals) is the cornerstone of EU chemical regulation, setting rules on the production and use of chemicals in the EU.⁹⁴ It aims to ensure a high level of protection for human health and the environment. Under REACH, exposure assessments are carried out to determine the risks associated with chemical substances. Exposure scenarios are developed, considering various uses of the chemicals. Special attention should be given to vulnerable groups, including children, and therefore, exposure scenarios should consider potential exposure of children when assessing chemical risks. In practice, children's specificities are not sufficiently considered.

Specific restrictions and authorisation of certain chemicals may be adopted under REACH. For example, ECHA is supporting the European Commission to prepare a restriction proposal for the use of hazardous substances in childcare articles (Article 68(2), REACH).⁹⁵ The restriction would aim at protecting children from exposure to carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic for reproduction substances in childcare articles (such as car seats, bibs, and baby changing mats).

CLP Regulation (EC) 2024/2865 (Classification, Labelling, and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures) is another crucial regulation that provides harmonised rules for the classification and labelling of hazardous chemicals.⁹⁶ Among other provisions, it includes child-specific labelling requirements to ensure that products with hazardous chemicals are appropriately labelled to protect children from harm.

Biocidal Products Regulation (EU) 528/2012 ("BPR") regulates the placing on the market and use of biocidal products, which include substances intended to control harmful organisms.⁹⁷ The BPR aims to ensure the safe use of biocidal products and protect human health and the environment. It requires that particular consideration and attention is paid to vulnerable groups, including the foetus, infants and children when assessing acute and chronic health effects of biocidal products, effects on human health and for exposure assessment. The BPR explicitly requires packaging of biocidal products not to be attractive to children under Article 69.

The EU Regulation concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market No 1107/2009 addresses the authorisation of plant protection products (pesticides) in the EU.⁹⁸ To protect vulnerable groups, it requires that approval of active substances should not be granted if there is evidence of unacceptable effects on human health, including effects on children and foetuses shown in Articles 4, 13 and Annex II. Moreover, Article 12 of the Directive establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides No 2009/128 also aims to better protect vulnerable groups, including children and foetuses, by minimising or prohibiting the use of pesticides in certain specific areas, such as public parks and gardens, sports and recreation grounds, school grounds and children’s playgrounds and in the close vicinity of healthcare facilities.⁹⁹

The Toy Safety Directive 2009/48/EC, sets safety requirements for toys placed on the market within the EU, including on chemicals found in toys, and is self-evidently related directly to children's wellbeing.¹⁰⁰ This Directive includes a generic ban on carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic substances (CMRs), specific restrictions on certain substances, such as heavy metals and allergenic fragrances, that may be present in toys, and sets specific limit values for chemicals used in toys intended for children. This Directive will likely be repealed in the near future as the proposal for a new regulation for Toy Safety is currently being negotiated and will indicatively be adopted in 2025. As it stands, the Commission proposal suggests generically banning - along with CMRs - known and suspected endocrine disruptors, respiratory sensitisers and substances toxic to a specific organ from toys.¹⁰¹

In terms of food safety legislation, there are various EU regulations. Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 on pesticides sets maximum residue limits for pesticides and other chemicals in food products, including those commonly consumed by children.¹⁰²

Various EU directives regulate specific consumer products more broadly, that may include specific safety requirements and chemical restrictions aimed at protecting children. For instance, Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on cosmetic products requires specific assessment for cosmetic products intended for use on children under certain age limits (mostly under 3 years old), and specific wording for products intended to be used on children, as well as use restrictions.¹⁰³

Protection of young people at work Directive EC 94/33/EC requires employers to assess and implement measures to protect young people from specific risks such as the exposure to chemical agents as shown in Articles 6(1) and 7(1).¹⁰⁴ Article 7(2) prohibits the employment of young people for work involving harmful exposure to agents that are toxic, carcinogenic, can cause inheritable genetic damage, harm the foetus, or chronically affect human health.

Regarding safe levels of exposure, these are determined based on scientific assessments conducted during the registration and evaluation process under REACH.¹⁰⁵ Exposure limits, acceptable daily intake levels, and other benchmarks are established considering potential exposure pathways, duration, and the toxicity of the chemical. Although, theoretically, the principle is to minimise exposure to hazardous chemicals as much as reasonably achievable, the evaluation processes are lengthy and the assessment methods often fall short in truly considering vulnerable groups.¹⁰⁶

When considering standards, thresholds or benchmarks in the context of environmental harms and children's protection, EU regulations may set specific rules that apply to children to address their particular vulnerabilities. For example, REACH, the CLP and BPR require that the risks of chemicals be assessed for vulnerable populations.¹⁰⁷ However, as mentioned above, the establishment of certain concentration thresholds are often conditioned to very strict age limits (i.e., under 3 years old), thus neglecting children above that age. The European Food Safety Authority should also take into account the specific needs of children when setting safety thresholds for food contaminants. Special provisions may be made to ensure that children are adequately protected, which can include stricter limits on certain chemicals or the prohibition of hazardous substances in products specifically intended for children. However, the existing assessment methods (e.g., risk-based approaches) have been repeatedly criticised as inefficiently assessing the dangers chemicals can pose to human health and the environment, falling short in considering children’s specific vulnerabilities, and ending up overestimating the authorised exposure limits.¹⁰⁸ For example, the latest state of science shows that the dose does not make the poison, and even at very low levels, children’s health can be severely impacted by the exposure to hazardous chemicals, for instance to endocrine disrupting chemicals.¹⁰⁹ To better reflect the available scientific studies, several decision makers, scientists and other stakeholders have supported the revision of the chemicals legislation, including reviewing assessment methods and approaches under the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability.¹¹⁰

F. Is the European Union equipped with a pollutant release and transfer register?

Regulation (EC) No 166/2006, known as the E-PRTR Regulation, establishes the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register ("E-PRTR") as a publicly accessible electronic database at the EU level.¹¹¹ The E-PRTR offers free public access to environmental data from industrial facilities across EU Member States, as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and Serbia.

The E-PRTR Regulation defines a "pollutant" as a "substance or a group of substances that may be harmful to the environment or to human health on account of its properties and of its introduction into the environment."¹¹² The Regulation covers 91 key pollutants listed in its Annex II, including heavy metals, pesticides, GHG and dioxins. In accordance with the E-PRTR Regulation, the E-PRTR includes information on:

• releases of pollutants referred to in Article 5(1)(a) of the E-PRTR Regulation that must be reported by the operators of the facilities carrying out the activities listed in Annex I; ¹¹³

  ---

• off-site transfers of certain waste referred to in Article 5(1)(b)¹¹⁴ of the E-PRTR Regulation and of pollutants in waste water referred to in Article 5(1)(c)¹¹⁵ of the E-PRTR Regulation, that must be reported by the operators of the facilities carrying out the activities listed in Annex I;

  ---

• releases of pollutants from diffuse sources referred to in Article 8(1) of the E-PRTR Regulation, where available.¹¹⁶

  ---

Annex I to the E-PRTR covers 65 economic activities that encompass the following sectors:¹¹⁷

In terms of criminal liability, the EU has adopted the Environmental Crime Directive ("ECD").¹¹⁸ The ECD seeks to enhance compliance with environmental protection laws by complementing the existing administrative sanction system with criminal law penalties. Article 3 thereof contains a list of environmental offences that Member States must criminalise if they are unlawful and committed intentionally or with serious negligence. The specific powers, procedures and enforcement mechanisms employed by the competent national authorities are governed by national law.

In December 2023, the Council presidency and European Parliament negotiators reached a provisional agreement on a new proposed EU law that would replace the ECD.¹¹⁹ The main principle governing the ECD and the new proposed legislative framework is that Member States can establish jurisdiction over offences committed in whole or in part within their territory. Although there could be an extraterritorial aspect such as the criminalisation of conduct involving a citizen of a Member State, irrespective of the location of the offence. This stems from Member State’s national legislation transposing the ECD rather than from EU law per se. Consequently, the EU generally does not provide for extraterritorial jurisdiction for criminal liability for environmental issues.

The Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) establishes a framework of environmental liability based on the polluter pays principle.¹²⁰ Under Article 2(1) of the ELD, "environmental damage" is defined as:

• damage that has significant adverse effects on reaching or maintaining the favourable conservation status of such habitats or species;

  ---

• damage that significantly adversely affects the ecological, chemical, or quantitative status or the ecological potential of the waters concerned, or the environmental status of the marine waters concerned; or

  ---

• land contamination that creates a significant risk of human health being adversely affected as a result of the direct or indirect introduction, in, on or under land, of substances, preparations, organisms or microorganisms.

  ---

Nevertheless, the ELD contains references to the European territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies or the territory of a Member State. Consequently, it appears that the ELD does not require Member States to assert civil liability beyond their own Member States borders.

It is noteworthy that certain EU legislative measures with extraterritorial outreach, that may not fall strictly under the category of traditional environmental law, are nevertheless associated with environmental considerations. Those include, among others:

• The CSRD and the NFRD.¹²¹ These directives required large and listed companies to disclose information on their impacts on people and the planet and their risk and opportunities arising from social and environmental issues.

  ---

• The SFDR requires providers of financial services and proprietors of financial products to evaluate and publicly share information related to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors.¹²²

  ---

• Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism.¹²³ This imposes an emissions tariff on imports of goods at high risk of carbon leakage from countries outside the EU Emissions Trading System.¹²⁴ This would mean, for example, that an EU steel manufacturing company that outsources its “dirty work” in China will be responsible for additional tariffs on importing that product into Europe.

  ---

From an international law perspective, a recent development may impact future developments in the EU in the context of extraterritorial jurisdiction for environmental issues related to children's rights. Particularly, in Sacchi et al v. Argentina et al, the CRC assessed a communication by 16 children from different regions of the world, brought against Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany and Turkey.¹²⁵ Thus, most of the petitioners live outside the territory and region of the respondent states. The children claimed that the respondent states (Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany and Turkey) were violating UNCRC obligations by causing and perpetuating the climate crisis through a failure to make their best effort to fight climate change.¹²⁶

In five separate, but almost identical decisions, the Committee found the claims inadmissible based on the lack of exhaustion of domestic legal remedies, allegedly returning the "legal battle for the climate […] to national courts".¹²⁷ Nevertheless, even though the CRC issued decisions limited to admissibility, this covered the global responsibility of states to address climate change. In particular, the Committee found that "the collective nature of the causation of climate change does not absolve the State party of its individual responsibility that may derive from the harm that the emissions originating within its territory may cause to children, whatever their location".¹²⁸ The Committee also based this finding on the principle of CBDR, article 47 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts and paragraph 8 of the accompanying Commentary, the preamble and article 3 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ("UNFCCC"), as well as the Preamble and articles 2 and 4 of the Paris Agreement.

II. Accessing courts

A. How can environmental cases be brought before the European Court of Justice?

European Court of Justice

The CJEU is divided into two courts, the CJEU and the GC. The CJEU deals with requests for preliminary rulings from national courts, actions for annulment and appeals. The GC deals with actions for annulment brought by individuals, companies and EU Member State governments.¹²⁹

The CJEU has identified an obligation on Member States and national courts to apply EU law in full within their sphere of competence and to protect the rights conferred on citizens by that law.¹³⁰ The CJEU has also identified an obligation on these parties to disapply any provisions of national law which conflict with EU law.¹³¹

There are five types of cases which can be brought before the CJEU:¹³² (1) References for preliminary rulings; (2) Actions for failure to fulfil obligations; (3) Actions for annulment; (4) Actions for failure to act; and (5) Actions for damages (and Appeals to these cases rejected at first instance). While each of these types of cases may involve environmental law, two in particular are more relevant for individuals or groups seeking to enforce their environmental rights (albeit there remain difficulties in bringing such environmental cases before the CJEU discussed more below): actions for annulment and actions for failure to act.

Actions for Annulment

Actions for annulment involve an applicant seeking the annulment of a measure that has been taken by an institution, body, office or agency of the EU.¹³³ Such a measure would typically be a legislative measure, such as a regulation, a directive or a decision.¹³⁴ Therefore, an action for annulment is not intended to be used to challenge a measure taken by an individual Member State at national level.¹³⁵

An action for annulment can be taken by three types of applicant, as follows:¹³⁶

• Privileged Applicants: includes Member States, the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission. These applicants can bring an action for annulment "purely in the interests of legality, without proving any particular interest", significantly distinguishing them from the other types of applicants.

  ---

• Semi-Privileged Applicants: includes the European Central Bank and the European Court of Auditors. These applicants can only bring an action for annulment to "protect their own prerogatives".

  ---

• Non-Privileged Applicants: All natural or legal persons may bring an action for annulment.¹³⁷ This includes individuals, including children, as well as companies and regional or local governments. However, for a non-privileged applicant to bring an action for annulment, they must prove that the act that they are challenging is either addressed to them or, if it is not addressed to them, it is of direct and individual concern to them. A non-privileged applicant may also bring an action for annulment against a regulatory act that is of direct concern to them and does not entail implementing measures.¹³⁸ The standing requirements for a non-privileged applicant will be addressed in more detail below.

There is a defined list of grounds for annulment that the applicant may raise.¹³⁹ It is important to note that the role of the Court in an action for annulment is to determine whether the act or measure in question is legal and not to determine whether the act or measure was the correct one to take.¹⁴⁰ The Court is not supposed to replace the decision with what it believes to be the correct decision; it is there to ensure the act or measure was permitted within the legal framework in which it was made. In simple terms, the Court will not review the merits of the measure, but only concerns itself with the legality of the measure. The possible grounds for annulment are explained below.

Lack of Competence

This ground involves a dispute over the legal basis for the act that is in question. It can relate to the EU's external competence or the internal division of competences between different EU institutions. This review of competence can also relate to delegated and implementing acts whereby the exercise of the delegated power or implementing acts is reviewed to assess whether they went beyond their legal basis.¹⁴¹

Infringement of an Essential Procedural Requirement

An essential procedural requirement is a rule that aims to ensure that an act is carried out with the required care. Compliance with a procedural requirement may influence the content of the act.¹⁴² If the Court feels that the decision may have been substantively different in the absence of the alleged infringement of the procedural requirement, then this will lead to an annulment of the act.¹⁴³ If the content of the decision would likely remain the same, then the Court will be less inclined to find that an essential procedural requirement has been breached. A substantial procedural defect is required before an act can be annulled and an annulment will not be ordered if the aims of the provision were still achieved in spite of the existence of the procedural defect.¹⁴⁴

Infringement of the Treaties

The Treaties include the TEU, the Treaty on the TFEU and the CFR.¹⁴⁵ Infringement of any Rule of Law relating to the Application of the Treaties; and this covers other elements of EU law which are not included in the Treaties but relate to their application. It includes international agreements concluded by the EU¹⁴⁶ (or by the Member States before the European Economic Community Treaty),¹⁴⁷ rules of customary international law,¹⁴⁸ rules of secondary implementing law where the contested act implemented it and general principles of EU law¹⁴⁹ such as the principles of proportionality,¹⁵⁰ legitimate expectations,¹⁵¹ equal treatment¹⁵² and effective judicial protection.¹⁵³

Misuse of Powers

An EU institution is typically granted powers to be carried out in order to achieve certain objectives. If the powers are used to carry out acts which are outside these objectives, then this may be a misuse of powers. This ground involves the Court reviewing whether the actual outcome of the act in question goes beyond the objectives for which the power was granted to the EU institution.¹⁵⁴ This is known as an objective test. There is no presumption of a misuse of powers. The applicant must prove that the act in question was adopted for purposes which go beyond the scope of the objectives.¹⁵⁵

While the Court is limited to carrying out a legal evaluation of the act, as opposed to a political or economic evaluation, it may raise the first two grounds for annulment – lack of competence or an infringement of an essential procedural requirement – of its own motion (i.e. even if the parties fail to raise those arguments).¹⁵⁶ The other grounds for annulment must be raised by the parties.¹⁵⁷ If they are not raised by the parties, the Court may not consider them in assessing the legality of the contested act.

If an action for annulment is deemed well founded, the Court shall declare the contested act to be void from the point in time in which the act was carried out.¹⁵⁸ This is known as the ex tunc effect (i.e., from the outset). However, the Court may limit the effects of declaring an act null and void, by declaring that some of the effects of the act will not be nullified retrospectively.¹⁵⁹

A declaration of nullity arising from a successful action has a general binding effect for all EU institutions, Member States and legal and natural persons. This is known as the erga omnes effect (i.e., towards everyone). However, if an action is unsuccessful, other parties may still take their own action against the act which was the subject of the previous unsuccessful action but will have to meet standing requirements.¹⁶⁰

Actions for Failure to Act

Actions for a failure to act involve a review of the lawfulness of a failure of an institution, body, office or agency of the EU to take a particular course of action. This type of challenge does not apply to measures taken which are different to those which the complainant desired. It is taken where there is a failure to take a decision or an act. The subject of this type of challenge is a failure to take a decision or an act, as opposed to an adoption of a measure different to that which the complainant desired. Such a challenge can necessarily only be taken after the institution has been called on to act and failed to do so. If a failure to act is found to be unlawful, the institution in question must end the failure to act by taking appropriate measures. Such an action can be heard by the CJEU or the GC, and the same criteria as an action for annulment apply.

Actions for Damages

Actions can be brought for damage caused by an act or conduct of an EU Institution if (a) the claimant has suffered damage; (b) the European institutions or their agents have acted illegally under European law; and (c) there is a direct causal link between the damage suffered by the claimant and the illegal act of the European institutions or their agents. An action for damages before the Court may be brought only where the liability of the Union is implicated. There is no requirement to have taken an action for annulment, for example – it is an independent legal remedy.

The European Court of Human Rights

The ECtHR is an international court that was established under the Convention.¹⁶¹ The primary function of the ECtHR is to ensure the Convention is observed by the parties to it. The ECtHR hears and rules on individual (including groups of individuals, companies or NGOs)¹⁶² or State applications that allege violations of the Convention by other parties to the Convention. Any applications against third States or individuals will be deemed inadmissible.¹⁶³

There are two stages involved in cases brought before the ECtHR: the admissibility stage and the merits stage. The admissibility stage involves a preliminary examination of the case to determine whether it is eligible for examination by the ECtHR. At the merits stage a full examination of the complaint is conducted wherein the respondent will be given notice of the case and invited to make written observations. The Applicant may also submit written observations. The Court will then decide whether it is appropriate to hold a public hearing in the case. The ECtHR will deliver judgement after the examination of the case and potential hearing have concluded.¹⁶⁴

The judgments of the ECtHR are binding on the parties concerned. The Council of Europe monitors the execution of judgments to ensure they are followed by the parties concerned. The Council of Europe will liaise with the Member State concerned to decide how the judgement should be executed and to prevent similar violations of the Convention in the future. This may involve the payment of fines or amendments to legislation.¹⁶⁵

The Convention is an international treaty under which the Member States of the Council of Europe promise to secure fundamental civil and political rights of their citizens and everyone within their jurisdiction. The Convention protects a range of rights, including the right to life, the right to respect for private and family life, freedom of expression and the right to an effective remedy. The Convention also prohibits a number of items including torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment and discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.¹⁶⁶

The Convention does not include any explicit right to a healthy environment. However, the ECtHR has been called on in cases regarding environmental matters on the basis that certain rights enshrined in the Convention may be undermined by the existence of harm to the environment and exposure of humans to environmental risks.¹⁶⁷ For example, Article 8 of the Convention provides for the right of every person to respect for their home, family and private life. Article 8 has been successfully invoked in cases involving environmental concerns.¹⁶⁸ However, the ECtHR has made clear that Article 8 is not violated every time that environmental interference occurs. Rather, it is only engaged where the environmental interference in question directly affects the individual's home, family or private life.¹⁶⁹

For example, in Atanasov v Bulgaria, the ECtHR ruled that Article 8 "does not protect the general deterioration of the environment, but rather requires a certain degree of direct effect on the applicant".¹⁷⁰ In that case, Article 8 was not violated in circumstances where pollution arising from a tailings pond for a copper mine did not engage the Applicant's Article 8 rights as the tailings pond was located one kilometer away from the Applicant and four kilometers away from his farmlands with "no evidence that his land was significantly affected and no potential for a sudden release of dangerous materials".¹⁷¹ Furthermore, as per Hatton v United Kingdom, in the Court's review of Member States acting within their margin of appreciation, the ECtHR has stated that environmental protection should be taken into consideration and it would not be appropriate for the Court "to adopt a special approach in this respect by reference to a special status of environmental human rights".¹⁷²

For environmental concerns to fall within the scope of Article 8 of the Convention, the ECtHR has identified that the adverse effects on the environment must reach a minimum threshold.¹⁷³ This minimum threshold can be said to be actual interference with the applicant's private space and a certain level of severity.¹⁷⁴ In Fadeyeva v Russia, the Court set out that "there would be no arguable claim under art.8 if the detriment complained of was negligible in comparison to the environmental hazards inherent to life in every modern city".¹⁷⁵ This was repeated in the case of Hardy and Maile v United Kingdom, a case where it was also held that the assessment of the minimum threshold to be reached in respect of environmental pollution is relative and depends on the context of the case, including "the intensity and duration of the nuisance and its physical or mental effects".¹⁷⁶

In principle, it is possible for a case to be made under Article 8 where a public body refuses to take enforcement or remedial action in the face of compelling evidence of continuing pollution.¹⁷⁷ The ECtHR has also found that competent authorities may be required to take steps to mitigate the effects of pollution.¹⁷⁸

In the case of Duarte Agostinho, the applicants complained that the Member States concerned were failing to comply with their positive obligations under Article 2 (right to life) and Article 8 (respect for private and family life) of the Convention, read in light of their undertakings under the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change.¹⁷⁹ The Applicants also alleged a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), contending that, because of their age, global warming particularly affects them and the interference with their rights is greater than the case of older generations.¹⁸⁰ The ECtHR ruled that this case was inadmissible as the applicants had failed to exhaust the remedies available to them in domestic legislation.

In a similar case before the ECtHR, Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland, the Court ruled on the issue of state action (or inaction) on climate change in finding that Article 8 (right to privacy) of the Convention contains a right to protection by the State from the impacts of climate change on lives, health, well-being and quality of life.¹⁸¹ The Court held that it was imperative to determine the specific severity and magnitude of the individual applicant's adverse consequences in each instance. Because none of the individual applicants had successfully done so, the Court held that they did not have standing as individuals.¹⁸² However, the association of which these individuals were members did have standing and met the newly established conditions to associations’ standing set by the Court: (a) being lawfully established in the jurisdiction in question or have the legal capacity to act there; (b) being capable of demonstrating that it is dedicated to the defence of the human rights of its members or other affected individuals within the jurisdiction in question, whether through collective action or otherwise, and (c) being capable of demonstrating that it is genuinely qualified and representative to act on behalf of members or other affected individuals within the jurisdiction who are subject to specific threats or adverse effects of climate change on their lives, health, or well-being, as protected under the Convention.¹⁸³

Another case on the issue of State action on climate change, Carême v France, was declared inadmissible on the basis that the Applicant had moved away from France and could no longer claim victim status under the Convention.¹⁸⁴

These three cases are revisited later in this report. Numerous other ongoing cases had been adjourned pending a ruling on the aforementioned cases and are now under consideration (e.g., Engels v. Germany (no. 46906/22) and Soubeste and 4 other applications v. Austria and 11 other States (nos. 31925/22, 31932/22, 31938/22, 31943/22, and 31947/22)).

B. What rules of standing apply in environmental cases?

Standing Requirements for Non-Privileged Applicants in an Action for Annulment

As noted above, a non-privileged applicant (i.e. a regular individual) may bring an action for annulment against an act addressed to them or, if it is not addressed to them, it is of direct and individual concern to them.¹⁸⁵ They may also take an action for annulment against a regulatory act that is of direct concern to them and does not involve implementing measures.¹⁸⁶ There is a time limit within which an action for annulment needs to be taken. Such an action must be brought within two months of the publication or notification of the contested measure and the deadline cannot be extended, although if an act was neither published nor notified, the deadline runs from the date the applicant gained knowledge of it by other means.¹⁸⁷ To take this action, it must be lodged at the Registry of the GC within the prescribed period.¹⁸⁸

Where an act is addressed directly to a non-privileged applicant, it is relatively straightforward to establish that they have standing to take an action for annulment. It can be more difficult to establish the standing of a non-privileged applicant where the act is not addressed to them.

Standing Requirements for Non-Privileged Applicants in an Action for Failure to Act

Natural and legal persons may take actions for failure to act, but they must be directly and individually concerned by the failure to act.¹⁸⁹ Furthermore, to bring this type of an action, the institution in question must first be called on to act. If the institution has not defined its position on the call to act within two months, then an action for failure to act may be taken.¹⁹⁰

What is Direct Concern?

Direct Concern arises where the EU act directly affects the legal situation of the person who brings the challenge.¹⁹¹ It can also arise where an act of the EU institution leaves no discretion to those addressed by the act as being responsible for its implementation.¹⁹² In other words, the implementation of the act is automatic with no room for subsequent implementing measures or rules to be made by the body or authority addressed by the EU act. In such a scenario, the EU act may be said to directly impact certain individuals.¹⁹³ An example of this might be an EU regulation, which has direct effect in Member States without need for transposing legislation.

What is Individual Concern?

Individual concern arises where an act of the EU institution affects a person due to certain characteristics that are peculiar to that person or due to circumstances which distinguish them from all other persons. Where these characteristics or circumstances distinguish a person in the same way that the persons to whom the EU act in question is addressed are distinguished from others, individual concern can be said to arise.¹⁹⁴ Commentators have noted that this requirement of individual concern amounts to a "particularly strict requirement" which "extensively curtails the ability of natural or legal persons to bring an action for annulment".¹⁹⁵

What is a Regulatory Act that is of Direct Concern to an Applicant which does not Entail Implementing Measures?

The concept of a regulatory act is not defined in the TFEU. However, it has been defined in case law as "all acts of general application apart from legislative acts” which have not been adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure or the special legislative procedure within the meaning of paragraphs 1 to 3 of Article 289 TFEU.¹⁹⁶ Therefore, a regulatory act must be one of general application that is not directed at a specific body or person, or group of bodies or persons. Furthermore, it must not be a legislative act in order to fall under this heading, i.e. it must not have been adopted under a legislative procedure. For example, it cannot be a regulation or directive of the European Parliament, but it could be a Commission regulation or decision, which are considered to be non-legislative acts of general application.¹⁹⁷

The European Court of Human Rights

There are certain requirements to be satisfied for a case to be deemed admissible by the ECtHR:

• All domestic remedies must have been exhausted by the applicant. This means that prior to going to the ECtHR, applicants must have pursued their case through the courts of the relevant country up to the highest possible level. This allows the country involved the opportunity to address the alleged violation of the Convention at national level.

  ---

• Allegations made must concern one or more of the rights identified in the Convention.

  ---

• Applications must be lodged within four months of the last decision in the case, which will typically have been made by the highest court in the country concerned.

  ---

• The applicant must be personally and directly affected by the alleged violation of the Convention and must have suffered a significant disadvantage.¹⁹⁸

While the ECtHR is yet to rule on the issue of Member State climate change action, it has deemed two such cases inadmissible. The case of Humane Being was taken by an NGO and relied on Articles 2, 3 and 8 in alleging that the United Kingdom had failed to regulate and take all reasonable steps to safeguard against the risks of factory farming.¹⁹⁹ Separately, the case of Plan B. Earth was taken by an NGO and four individuals who relied on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture), 8 (respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in alleging that the United Kingdom had failed to take practical and effective measures to combat the threat of man-made climate change.²⁰⁰ In both cases, the Court ruled the claim inadmissible on the basis that the applicants were not sufficiently affected by the alleged breach of the Convention.

C. Do these rules of standing differ when children are the complainants and if so in what way?

There is no distinction in the rules of standing for neither the CJEU nor the ECtHR where children are the complainants. No commonly used formal definition of "child" could be identified in any of the EU Treaties, legislation or caselaw.²⁰¹ While most EU instruments define a child as a person aged under 18, some instruments do use a broader definition with varying rights defined for children in certain instances whether they are aged 15, 18 or 21.²⁰² Where instruments defer to national law in determining who is a child, the definition which is most often adopted is that contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child which sets out that a child is any person under the age of 18.²⁰³ The ECtHR does not define a child, but Article 1 of the Convention seeks to secure rights under the Convention for 'everyone' within its jurisdiction.²⁰⁴ Ultimately, children are holders of rights rather than objects of protection.²⁰⁵

While a significant number of cases concerning children's rights are initiated by parents or other legal representatives of children, there is no bar on children themselves making applications to either Court. The Council of Europe has set guidelines on a child-friendly justice system to "ensure that justice is always friendly towards children", including guidance for lawyers and judges alike.²⁰⁶ For example, the guidelines state that children should have the right to their own legal representation in their own name in proceedings where there could be a conflict of interest between the child and their parents.²⁰⁷ The guidelines also set out that judges should "respect the right of children to be heard in all matters that affect them or at least to be heard when they are deemed to have a sufficient understanding of the matters in question".²⁰⁸ Furthermore, due weight should be given to the child's views "in accordance with his or her age and maturity".²⁰⁹

It is worth noting that, while there is no difference to the rules of standing where children are complainants, this does not always benefit the child applicant. It has been highlighted that children are "differently and more acutely relevant for their 'affection' from environmental damage and climate change impact".²¹⁰ Children are disproportionately affected by climate change on a number of grounds, as today's actions have a delayed impact sometimes decades down the road, meaning that over their lifetime children of today are more likely than adults to suffer from the actions, or failures to act, that are the subject of challenge before the CJEU or ECtHR.²¹¹ While attempts have been made to argue this point, the requirement of 'individual' interest has so far limited the standing of children seeking to enforce their environmental rights.²¹²

The Working Group of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention noted the challenges faced by children when accessing justice for their environmental rights, including those related with standing, and “encouraged Parties to consider the implementation challenges of the Convention regarding youth and children by adopting specific rules of standing concerning youth and children individuals and organisations [...]”.²¹³

D. What is the burden and standard of proof for allegations of personal injury as a result of exposure to hazardous chemicals?

CJEU

As noted above under action for damages, Article 340 of the TFEU states that "[i]n the case of non-contractual liability, the Union shall, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, make good any damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties". According to Article 268, the CJEU shall have jurisdiction relating to such a claim. Therefore, there is a right at EU law for an individual to seek damages in the event of an annulment action or a failure to act, however the individual must be able to show that:²¹⁴

The cumulative nature of those conditions means that if one of them is not satisfied, the EU cannot incur non-contractual liability and the burden of proof lies with the individual.²¹⁵

A "sufficiently serious" breach of a rule of law is one where the breach implies that the institution concerned "manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits set on its discretion". The factors to be taken into consideration are the complexity of the situation to be regulated, the degree of clarity and precision of the law breached, and the measure of discretion left by that rule to the EU institution.²¹⁶ Therefore, there is a high bar to be met on the part of an individual in order to prove that an EU institution has incurred liability for damages.

ECtHR

Several successful applications have been made to the ECtHR in relation to exposure to hazardous chemicals. There are a number of means by which the ECtHR may find that the rights of the applicant have been infringed. These include failures to:

• Provide a mechanism whereby an applicant may obtain information about the risks to them arising from the activity in question (Article 8);²¹⁷

  ---

• Ensure that the applicants receive essential information enabling them to assess the risks to their health and lives (Article 8);²¹⁸

  ---

• Take reasonable and appropriate measures to ensure adequate protection of applicants and to inform applicants of the risk to their health and lives in circumstances where the national government knew, or ought to have known, of the dangers arising from exposure to asbestos (Articles 2 and 8);²¹⁹

  ---

• Strike a fair balance between the interest of a Spanish town's economic well-being in having a waste treatment plant and the applicant's enjoyment of their right to respect for their home and their private and family life.²²⁰ Similarly, the ECtHR found, in Fadeyeva v Russia, that Russia had failed to strike a fair balance between the interests of the community and the applicant’s effective enjoyment of her right to respect for her home and her private life in circumstances where a steel plant had been authorised in the middle of a densely populated town.²²¹ As the toxic emissions from the plant exceeded the safe limits as set out by domestic legislation, the authorities had established that a certain area around the plant should be free of any dwelling, but the domestic legislation had not been implemented in practice (Article 8).²²²

Arising from these decisions, it is clear that a causal link between the activity alleged to give rise to the exposure and the personal injury suffered, typically a medical condition, is required. A failure to demonstrate a causal link between the activity complained of and the alleged subsequent medical condition will result in the rejection of an application.

This also applies to situations other than those involving hazardous chemicals. For example, in Smaltini v Italy the applicant failed to demonstrate a causal link between polluting emissions and their illness.²²³ Moreover, in Calancea v Moldova, the ECtHR found that it had not been demonstrated that the strength of an electromagnetic field created by a high-voltage line had attained a level capable of having a harmful effect on the applicants' private and family sphere.²²⁴

The Working Group of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention noted the challenges faced by children when accessing justice for their environmental rights, including those related with the burden of proof, and “encouraged Parties to consider the implementation challenges of the Convention regarding youth and children by [...] reversing the burden of proof [...]”.²²⁵

E. What limitation periods apply in environmental cases?

There are no limitation periods which apply specifically to environmental cases brought before the CJEU and the ECtHR. However, there are general limitation periods which will apply to all cases.

For an environmental case taken by way of action for annulment to be admissible in the CJEU, the case must be brought within two months of the publication or notification of the contested measure and the deadline cannot be extended, although if an act was neither published nor notified, the deadline runs from the date the applicant gained knowledge of it by other means.²²⁶ Other procedural deadlines may apply depending on whether the act concerned must be published in the Official Journal of the European Union – that adds 14 days to the 2 months. In general, 10 days is also added by a procedural rule of the Court "on account of distance".²²⁷

Where an action for failure to act is concerned, the action is deemed admissible only when the body concerned has failed to define its position within two months of a call to act.²²⁸ Upon expiry of this two-month period, the action may be brought within a further period of two months.²²⁹

For an environmental case to be admissible in the ECtHR, the application must be lodged within four months of the last judicial decision in the case.²³⁰ As noted above, this is typically a decision of the highest court in the country concerned. Where a limitation period restricts an applicant's access to a court in respect of a medical condition, the ECtHR has found that in cases where it can be scientifically proven that a person could not have known that he or she was suffering from a certain disease, that fact should be taken into account in calculating the limitation period.²³¹

The Working Group of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention noted the challenges faced by children when accessing justice for their environmental rights, including those related with limitation periods, and “encouraged Parties to consider the implementation challenges of the Convention regarding youth and children by [...] explicitly relaxing limitation periods for youth and children [...]”.²³²

F. Is legal aid available from the European Union in environmental cases? If so, under what circumstances?

The EU does not provide legal aid directly in environmental cases. Legal aid in the EU is primarily a matter of national law and is provided by individual Member States. The availability, criteria, and procedures for legal aid in environmental cases can vary from one Member State to another.

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe ("UNECE") Convention on Access to Information, the Aarhus Convention – to which the EU is a signatory - provides broad rights to the public to review decisions on access to information, and to review the substantive or procedural legality of any decision, act or omission by public authorities and private individuals relating to the environment.²³³ Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention concerns access to justice and enshrines various important rights in respect of legal review of environmental decision-making. Article 9(5) states:²³⁴

"In order to further the effectiveness of the provisions of this article, each Party shall ensure that information is provided to the public on access to administrative and judicial review procedures and shall consider the establishment of appropriate assistance mechanisms to remove or reduce financial and other barriers to access to justice."

Therefore, although this has not been declared to be a right to legal aid in environmental cases – and the majority of litigation in respect of Aarhus has concerned costs being not prohibitively expensive – it could be suggested that there is an obligation on parties to the Aarhus Convention to ensure that assistance mechanism such as legal aid are provided to parties in appropriate environmental cases.

While the EU itself does not directly provide legal aid, it encourages Member States to ensure that their national legal systems incorporate the principles of the Aarhus Convention, which may include provisions for legal aid or cost-effective mechanisms for environmental cases. The specific mechanisms for accessing legal aid and the eligibility criteria for individuals or organisations seeking legal aid in environmental cases are determined by national laws and regulations in each Member State.

A right to legal aid is also referred to in the following provisions:

• Article 6(3)(c) of the Convention, which guarantees the right to legal assistance where the defendant has insufficient means to pay for legal assistance, and to get free legal aid when the interest of justice so requires.²³⁵

  ---

• Article 47 of the CFR, which stipulates that legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice.²³⁶

  ---

• Directive 2003/8/EC of the European Council, which was introduced to improve access to justice in cross-border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid to promote the application of legal aid in cross-border disputes for persons who lack sufficient resources where aid is necessary to secure effective access to justice.²³⁷

Belgium²³⁸ – the Belgian system provides legal aid financed by the federal government and lawyers are appointed to applicants from a list drawn up by the bar association. Depending on the financial situation of the applicant, legal aid may be granted partially or completely free of charge. The Belgian legal system also contains provisions to provide persons with insufficient resources with 'free of charge' procedures which means they do not have to pay court costs. There are no specific legal aid provisions for NGOs or other legal entities although they may benefit from 'free of charge' procedures in certain circumstances.

Ireland²³⁹ – it is possible to get legal aid in Ireland for a planning and environmental case, but there are stringent requirements for qualification. Firstly, legal aid is only available to natural persons and not to corporate bodies. Secondly, in most circumstances, the merits of an applicant’s case will be assessed before they are granted legal aid. Thirdly, an applicant for civil legal aid in Ireland will be means tested and, to qualify, the person must have an annual disposable income of less than €18,000 per annum and disposable assets of less than €100,000.

Netherlands²⁴⁰ – the legal aid system applies to natural persons and is available to persons of limited means but may require payment of a personal contribution. Legal aid may include representation by a lawyer in litigation. Lawyers are paid a fixed fee according to the type of case. The fixed fee may be insufficient to cover the actual costs of procedures by those providing legal aid.

Spain²⁴¹ – Spanish law provides access to legal aid for natural persons, public interest associations and certain registered foundations who can demonstrate a lack of sufficient economic resources to initiate litigation. Not-for-profit organisations are entitled to legal aid if they meet certain criteria.

Italy²⁴² – Legal aid is available for environmental claims in Italy. Legal aid is granted to natural persons who have an annual income of less than €11,493 (adjusted every two years for inflation). Legal aid in Italy has also been extended to cover entities or associations that do not operate for profit or engage in economic activities and that have an annual income of less than €11,493.

France²⁴³ – Legal aid is available for all types of proceedings in France, including civil and enforcement proceedings (which would cover planning and environmental claims). However, it is subject to complex financial nationality, residence and admissibility criteria. For example, the financial criteria are €11,262 for full legal aid and €16,890 for partial legal aid for a single person. France has a pro bono public interest federation called France Nature Environnement. It has links with 3,500 environmental associations in France.

The Working Group of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention noted the challenges faced by children when accessing justice for their environmental rights, including those related with the costs of litigation, and “encouraged Parties to consider the implementation challenges of the Convention regarding youth and children by [...] providing legal aid [...]”.²⁴⁴

III. Remedies

A. What remedies can the European Court of Justice impose in environmental cases?

Proceedings Before the CJEU

Under the Treaties, the CJEU can impose remedies in the context of the following proceedings:²⁴⁵

Preliminary Rulings: National courts in the EU can seek CJEU guidance on questions of interpretation and/or validity of EU law matters, including environmental cases. This ensures consistent application and interpretation of EU law across Member States.

Infringement Proceedings: These occur when a Member State fails to comply with EU law, including EU environmental law. The European Commission or another EU Member State can initiate legal action. If the Member State is at fault, it must rectify the issue or face potential financial penalties.

Actions for Annulment: The GC and the CJEU can annul EU acts violating superior EU legal rules, including EU environmental laws. This includes legislative acts, acts of the Council, Commission, European Central Bank, European Parliament, and acts of bodies, offices, or agencies of the Union. Any natural or legal person may institute proceedings against these acts under certain circumstances.

Actions for Failure to Act: If an EU institution, body, office, or agency fails to act in violation of the Treaties, Member States and other EU institutions may bring an action before the CJEU. Any natural or legal person may complain to the Court if an EU institution, body, office, or agency has failed to address to that person any act other than a recommendation or an opinion.

Regulation 1367/2006 on the Application of the Provisions of the Aarhus Convention

The objective of Regulation 1367/2006 is to contribute to the implementation of the obligations arising under the UNECE Convention on the Aarhus Convention, by laying down rules to apply the provisions of the Convention to the EU institutions and bodies.²⁴⁶

In accordance with Article 10 thereof, any non-governmental organisation shall be entitled to make a request for internal review to the EU institution or body that adopted the administrative act or, in the case of an alleged administrative omission, should have adopted such an act, on the grounds that such an act or omission contravenes environmental law.²⁴⁷ The EU institution or body shall consider any such request unless it is manifestly unfounded or clearly unsubstantiated.²⁴⁸

Pursuant to Article 12(1) of Regulation 1367/2006, the non-governmental organisation which made the request for internal review may institute proceedings before the ECJ in accordance with the relevant provisions of the TFEU.²⁴⁹

Additionally, where the EU institution or body fails to act, the non-governmental organisation or other members of the public that made the request for internal review may institute proceedings before the ECJ in accordance with the relevant provisions of the TFEU.²⁵⁰

B. What remedies have courts ordered in environmental cases to date?

In environmental cases to date, the Court has:

C. Can European authorities intervene to limit or stop the activities suspected to damage health or the environment?

The European Environment Agency ("EEA") is an agency of the EU that provides information on the environment to help the EU and the Member States develop and implement environmental policies.²⁵⁵ While the EEA does not have authority to directly intervene, it plays a crucial role in monitoring and providing information that can influence regulatory actions. Moreover, it develops and coordinates the European Environment Information and Observation Network (Eionet) – a partnership network of EEA and its member and cooperating countries.²⁵⁶

As described earlier, the ECHA is an agency of the EU responsible for the implementation of the REACH Regulation,²⁵⁷ the CLP Regulation,²⁵⁸ the Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR)²⁵⁹ and the Prior Informed Consent Regulation (PIC).²⁶⁰ While ECHA does not have authority to directly intervene, it assesses the safety of chemicals and can recommend restrictions or bans on substances that pose risks to human health or the environment. It also maintains a database providing information on chemicals and their safe use.

The European Ombudsperson investigates complaints about maladministration in EU institutions and bodies, including cases related to environmental matters.²⁶¹ They can play a role in ensuring transparency and accountability in decision-making processes.²⁶² The Ombudsperson can request information from EU institutions and bodies, officials and other staff of said institutions and bodies and the Member States' authorities.²⁶³ If the European Ombudsperson does not obtain the assistance requested, they inform the European Parliament, which takes appropriate action.²⁶⁴ The European Ombudsperson collaborates with relevant institutions to address complainant concerns. If maladministration is confirmed, recommendations are given to the institution, which has three months to respond.²⁶⁵ If the recommendations are rejected, the Ombudsperson can submit a special report to the European Parliament.²⁶⁶ The complainant is then informed of the inquiry's outcome, the institution's opinion, and any personal recommendations.²⁶⁷

The European Commission has the authority to take legal action against EU member states that fail to comply with EU environmental law.²⁶⁸ This could involve taking cases to the ECJ.²⁶⁹ The Commission primarily identifies infringements by its own means, by monitoring the Member States' adherence to deadlines for transposing EU environmental directives, conducting studies to ensure proper incorporation of legal obligations into national law, and evaluating reports from Member States on the implementation of EU environmental legislation.²⁷⁰ Additionally, any individual can submit a complaint to the Commission regarding any measure (law, regulation, or administrative action) or the absence thereof, which they deem incompatible with EU environmental law.²⁷¹

IV. Civil and political rights

Freedom of peaceful assembly

A. How is children’s right to engage in peaceful assembly, including protests, protected by the European Union?

The right to legally engage in peaceful assembly is effectively an extension of the child's right to express themselves (which is discussed in further detail below), but also attracts additional EU protections specific to it. As a general starting point, the EU recognises and protects children’s right to engage in peaceful assembly, including protests, as part of their broader commitment to children’s rights.

Under EU law, Article 12 of the CFR provides that everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association at all levels, in particular in political, trade union and civic matters. Under Council law, Article 11(1) of the Convention guarantees the right to freedom of assembly and association subject to the restrictions of Article 11(2).

The ECtHR has explicitly asserted the right of children to attend gatherings in a public space. As the Court noted in Christian Democratic People’s Party v. Moldova, it would be contrary to the parents’ and children’s right to freedom of assembly to prevent them from attending events, in particular in the specific context of that legal decision, to protest against government policy on schooling.²⁷²

Article 15 of the UNCRC specifically recognises the right of children to freedom of peaceful assembly.²⁷³ The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights also maps the minimum age requirements concerning the rights of the child in the EU, including the right to peaceful assembly.²⁷⁴

These EU initiatives and legal frameworks recognise the right of children to engage in peaceful assembly. However, the specific laws and regulations regarding children’s participation in peaceful assembly and protests can vary by country within the EU.

B. Are there any legal limitations on the right of children to engage in peaceful assemblies?

At an EU-level, there are no specific legal limitations on children's rights to engage in peaceful assemblies, as opposed to broader legal limitations that apply to all European citizens. As discussed above, the Convention and its Articles entrench the right to freedom of expression, information, assembly and association.

Despite the existence of such rights at EU-level, there are Member States that have domestic legislation that impose age restrictions on the right to engage in and organise a peaceful assembly. For example, in the Czech Republic, an assembly can only be organised by a citizen, someone over 18 years old, and in France, there are restrictions on persons under the age of 16 to organise and participate in peaceful assemblies.²⁷⁵ In addition to age-restrictions, some Member States have imposed other limitations on the right of peaceful assembly. In Belgium a new offence under proposal ("maliciously undermining the authority of the state") appears to be targeted towards the rights of climate activists of all ages.²⁷⁶ In a similar manner, Germany has imposed numerous bans on climate protests in multiple cities including the city of Stuttgart; banning all unannounced sit-ins by climate activists from July 2023.²⁷⁷ Aside from cities, German villages have also been the subject of climate protest restriction. The German energy corporation RWE published plans to expand the coal mine Garzweiler II, which forced many residents to sell their land and leave the village of Lützerath.²⁷⁸ This was met with much opposition; local supporters occupying the land following evictions (until 2018), and a huge protest rally in early 2023 where thousands of supporters, including Greta Thunberg, were met with police force (batons, dogs and pepper spray) and arrested.²⁷⁹

Case Study: Fridays for Future

Fridays for Future is a youth-led and organised global climate strike movement that started in August 2018, when 15-year-old Greta Thunberg began a school strike for climate in Sweden.²⁸⁰ In the three weeks leading up to the Swedish election, she sat outside the Swedish Parliament every school day, demanding urgent action on the climate crisis.

Her actions inspired students across the globe to strike for climate action. Participants of the movement – predominantly children – engage in various organised activities, such as attending protests, organising school strikes, and advocating for policies to mitigate climate change. The main goal is to raise awareness and push governments and organisations to take urgent and meaningful steps to address the climate crisis.

There have been instances where students participating in the "Fridays for Future" climate protests have been arrested in various countries within the European Union.²⁸¹

It is important to note that a directive was published in April 2024 which places minimum requirements for all Member States regarding the protections of persons engaged in public participation (peaceful assemblies).²⁸² This directive prohibits Member States from regressing the level of safeguarding for all individuals engaged in public participation from manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings, which includes children.²⁸³ However, it does not apply to criminal proceedings or arbitrations. This could lead Member States to enact criminal rather than civil legislation, targeting climate activists to avoid the protections provided to individuals under the Directive.²⁸⁴ Whereas the UNCRC provides that the minimum age for criminal responsibility is 14, there would remain a window for younger children to be held criminally liable under such a strategy.²⁸⁵

Freedom of expression

A. How is children’s right to freedom of expression protected by the European Union?

Legal Framework – International Level

The UNCRC, which has been ratified by all EU 27 Member States, recognises the right of all children to be heard and have their views taken seriously in accordance with their age and maturity (Article 12).²⁸⁶ The Committee on the Rights of the Child has identified child participation as one of the four fundamental and general principles of the UNCRC, the others being the right to non-discrimination, the right to survival and development and the primary consideration of the child’s best interests.²⁸⁷ Article 12 thus not only establishes a key right in and of itself but should also be considered in the interpretation of all other rights.²⁸⁸ The views of children must be taken seriously and given proper consideration when decisions are made.²⁸⁹ Article 12 further stresses that participation procedures and mechanisms should be in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.²⁹⁰ Moreover, Article 13 explicitly recognises the child’s right to freedom of expression, which includes seeking, receiving and imparting information and ideas of all kinds.²⁹¹

Legal Framework – EU Level

The promotion and protection of children's rights is one of the key objectives embedded in Article 3(3) of the TEU.²⁹² Article 24 of the CFR recognises that children are entitled to "protection and care as is necessary for their well-being".²⁹³ It also recognises children’s right to express their views freely and according to their age and maturity.²⁹⁴

Under EU law, the right to freedom of expression includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers, as illustrated by Article 11 of the CFR.²⁹⁵ Under The Council of Europe ("Council") law, freedom of expression is guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention and may be limited only when prescribed by law, in pursuit of one of the legitimate aims listed in Article 10 (2) and when necessary in a democratic society.

Freedom of expression also encompasses a child's right to be heard. Article 24 of the CFR states that: "Children (…) may express their views freely. Such views shall be taken into consideration on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity".²⁹⁶ The right to be heard is reflected in various legislative acts. Under Article 21 of the Brussels IIa Regulation (recast), children capable of forming their own views have the right to be provided with a genuine and effective opportunity to express their views, either directly or through a representative or an appropriate body.²⁹⁷

Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)2 on the participation of children and young people under the age of 18, which was adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 28 March 2012, sets out general principles and calls on Member States to protect children’s right to participate through legal, financial and practical measures, to raise awareness and training opportunities regarding participation and to create spaces for participation in all spheres.²⁹⁸

EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child

The Strategy, which is not legally binding per se, was formally adopted on 24 March 2021 and proposed a series of targeted actions across six thematic areas, each one defining the priorities for EU action in the coming years.²⁹⁹ Thematic area 1 is the child's participation in political and democratic life. Children were consulted on the strategy with the help of the leading child rights organisations and should be involved in the implementation and monitoring of the strategy.

Under the EU Strategy on the rights of the child, the Commission committed to:³⁰⁰

• “establish, jointly with the European Parliament and child rights organisations, an EU Children’s Participation Platform, to connect existing child participation mechanisms at local, national and EU level, and involve children in the decision-making processes at EU level;

  ---

• create space for children to become active participants of the European Climate Pact through pledges or by becoming Pact Ambassadors [and] involving schools in sustainable climate, energy and environment education [...];develop and promote accessible, digitally inclusive and child friendly versions and formats of the CFR and other key EU instruments;

  ---

• develop and promote guidelines on the use of child friendly language in documents and in stakeholders’ events and meetings with child participants;

  ---

• include children within the Fundamental Rights Forum of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights and the Conference on the future of Europe;

  ---

• conduct child-specific consultations for relevant future initiatives; and

  ---

• strengthen expertise and practice on child participation among Commission staff and the staff of EU agencies, including on child protection policies and safeguarding policies”.³⁰¹

B. Are there any legal limits or restrictions on the right to freedom of expression that specifically apply to children?

Most restrictions curtailing children's freedom of expression rights are justified with the aim of reducing a child's exposure to potential harm. There is some EU case law that considers issues in relation to children’s freedom of expression and the limitations placed upon this right. Some examples include:

• D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic:³⁰² This case concerned the alleged discrimination of Roma children in their access to education. The ECtHR found that the Czech Republic had violated Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) by placing Roma children in special schools for children with mental disabilities, without adequate justification or safeguards. The Court held that this practice had a lasting impact on the children’s personal development and limited their opportunities to exercise their right to freedom of expression and information.

  ---

• Folgerø and Others v. Norway:³⁰³ This case concerned the right of parents to ensure the education of their children in conformity with their religious and philosophical convictions. The ECtHR found that Norway had violated Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 by imposing a compulsory subject on ethics, religion and philosophy in public schools without providing an adequate possibility of exemption for parents who objected to some of the content of the subject. The Court noted that the subject had an impact on the children’s right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as well as their right to freedom of expression and information.

  ---

• Sahin v. Germany:³⁰⁴ In this case, the mother prohibited all contact between the applicant and his four-year-old daughter born out of wedlock. The German regional court decided that granting the father access to his daughter would be harmful to the child because of the serious tensions between the parents, among other issues, without hearing from the child on whether she wanted to continue seeing her father. On the question of hearing the child in court, the ECtHR referred to the expert’s explanation before the regional court in Germany. After several meetings with the child, her mother and the applicant, the expert considered that the process of questioning the child could have entailed a risk for her, which could not have been avoided by special arrangements in court. The ECtHR found that, in these circumstances, the procedural requirements implicit in Article 8 of the Convention – to hear a child in court – did not amount to obliging the direct questioning of the child on her relationship with her father.

Digital world

Children's right to expression is also restricted and regulated in the digital space, often alleging the need to protect them from harmful or inappropriate information, such as violence, pornography, hate speech or radicalisation.

Some examples of current restrictions are:

• General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)³⁰⁵ – requires the use of verification of age and parental consent.

  ---

• Audio-visual Media Services Directive (AVMSD)³⁰⁶ – requires the adoption of 'appropriate measures' to protect children online.

  ---

• European Digital Identity Framework (2024)³⁰⁷ – aims to strengthen age verification methods through a framework of certification and interoperability. To be implemented by Member States by 2026.

  ---

• European Parliament³⁰⁸ – the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) adopted a report which endorses the Commission's efforts to create age assurance systems that prioritise privacy. The report proposes a digital minimum age of 16 across the EU for access to social media, video sharing platforms, and artificial intelligence companions, unless consent is granted by parents, and a minimum age of 13 for access to any social media.

The Organisation for Economic and Development's Declaration on a Trusted, Sustainable and Inclusive Digital Future also states the commitment to keeping children safe online by “combating illegal and harmful online content… protecting all children from online manipulation and abuse' and 'promoting a positive, age-appropriate and safe digital environment for children…”.³⁰⁹

Some examples of proposed but not yet adopted restrictions include:

• euCONSENT – a project which is building a browser-based interoperable age verification method.³¹⁰

  ---

• EU Code of Conduct – proposed to deal with age-appropriate design, using the Digital Services Act, AVMSD and GDPR as a basis. To be comparable to the UK's 'Children's Code'.³¹¹

  ---

• European Commission – has proposed a declaration on digital rights and principles for the digital decade and a regulation on preventing child sexual abuse, including online.³¹²

Practical limitations

Children in disadvantaged situations are not included in most child participation opportunities across Member States.³¹³ Children from privileged backgrounds often have more opportunities to be included in children and youth councils or parliaments.³¹⁴ In only 4 countries do the rules make sure that national councils include children from disadvantaged situations.³¹⁵ Young children, children with disabilities, and children who are Roma, refugees, and LGBTQI children do not get as many participation opportunities.³¹⁶ In at least 12 countries, some one-off opportunities to participate have involved children in disadvantaged situations, confirming their limited participation.³¹⁷

Freedom of association

A. How is children’s right to freedom of association protected by the European Union?

The right to freedom of association is protected under Article 11 of the Convention under the Council of Europe system, and Article 12 of the CFR under the EU system.³¹⁸ Children's right to freedom of association is protected internationally by Article 15 UNCRC, which all member states of the EU have ratified.³¹⁹

The EU has published its 'Strategy on the Rights of the Child and the European Child Guarantee' (discussed above), which, whilst not specifically mentioning the right to freedom of association, targets as a thematic area "participation in political and democratic life".³²⁰ The EU also recognises children's right to "express their views" and have those views "taken into consideration on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity".³²¹ Whilst this is tangential to freedom of association, it necessarily has some bearing on their right to engage with their areas of interest, which relates to some extent to their ability to associate with causes, movements and groups.

Similarly, the Council of Europe has published its 'Strategy for the Rights of the Child 2022-2027' and a Committee Recommendation to member States,³²² which recognises their right to freedom of association as a key article for one of the strategic objectives: “giving a voice to every child!”.³²³ It aims to innovate by "[e]nhancing child participation through technologies and in decisions related to the digital environment and technologies, in light of promising practices and mechanisms, including by facilitating exchanges between existing child participation mechanisms and institutions at different administrative levels (local, regional, national and European)."³²⁴

In the case of Christian Democratic People's Party v Moldova, although not related to environmental matters, the Court specifically referred to the right of the child to freedom of association. The Court found a breach of Article 11 of the Convention (the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association) and noted that one of the reasons given by the regional government as to the ban on the gatherings – that there were children present – was insufficient to justify imposing such a ban. The Court reasoned that it "would appear to be contrary to the parents' and the children's freedom of assembly to prevent them from attending such events".³²⁵ Although this pertains to freedom of assembly, freedom of association is inherently connected.

B. Are there any legal limits or restrictions on the right to association that specifically apply to children?

Maturity and Development as a Limiting Factor

Article 24 of the CFR qualifies children's rights with the phrase "in accordance with their age and maturity".³²⁶ This is reflected in the right to vote section too, as invariably, a child's ability to choose to associate with a certain group will depend to a degree on the level of their understanding and development.³²⁷ Inevitably, it also impacts each of the CFR rights as applied to children, as Article 24 is an overarching provision.³²⁸

Locus Standi as a Limiting Factor

There are certain admissibility requirements that must be met by the applicants in order for the ECtHR to deal with a matter. An applicant must have standing to have their application heard by the ECtHR, which is a procedural aspect of an application that can pose a barrier (as discussed earlier). Part of proving that an applicant has standing involves demonstrating that the applicant is a “victim” of a violation of one of the rights in the Convention by a Contracting Party. Further, if represented by an NGO, their appearance on behalf of an individual may be challenged by the respondent.

While this is a limitation that can affect anyone, it poses a particular issue for children not only for their status as a “victim” and the intergenerational perspective this necessitates, especially for environmental issues, but also for their ability to have an NGO represent their interests. The ECtHR has previously recognised, albeit not in the context of children's rights, that the “victim” requirement must be "interpreted in an evolutive manner in the light of the conditions in contemporary society."³²⁹ Indeed, this is the exact argument the applicants have made in the Norwegian Oil Licences case brought by Greenpeace Nordic, Young Friends of the Earth and six individuals.³³⁰ However, the ECtHR has yet to pronounce on the application, so the standing of the young people involved in the application is currently undetermined.

Access to information

A. How is children’s right to access information protected by the European Union?

Access to environmental information in the EU is largely provided for in Directive 2003/4/EC, or the AIE Directive, which was introduced on foot of the Aarhus Convention and provides for rights relating to requests for information on the environment.³³¹

The Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters

As set out above, the EU and its 27 Member States are parties to the Aarhus Convention. Article 4 of the Aarhus Convention provides the public with a right to request and to receive environmental information from public authorities.³³² The term “public authorities” covers the institutions of regional economic integration organisations which become a Party to the Convention, and therefore the provisions of the Aarhus Convention apply to the EU institutions, as well as to “privatised bodies having public responsibilities in relation to the environment and which are under the control of the aforementioned types of public authorities [...]”.³³³ Public authorities have one month after the submission of the request to provide the information requested under Article 4(2).³³⁴ Under Article 4(8), public authorities are allowed to charge a reasonable sum for providing the requested information. Under some circumstances these requests may be rejected (Article 4(3) and 4(4)).³³⁵

The Working Group of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention, with regards to access to information, called on parties to “identify and address the needs of different users, including children, youth and other groups in vulnerable situations, provide necessary guidance and adjustments to access to information procedures and establish effective user feedback mechanisms; [...] to strengthen public access to environmental information regarding radioactive substances, biocides, lead, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and other chemicals of emerging concern, and carbon and ammonia emissions, also taking into account consistently the needs of children, youth and other groups in vulnerable situations in relation to such access and the needs for information on transboundary effects of the mentioned emissions; [...] to develop a child-friendly version of the Aarhus Convention; [...] [and] to ensure that access to environmental information, including health-related information on pollution, is guaranteed in child-friendly formats”.³³⁶

The AIE Directive

Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on Public Access to Environmental Information (the "AIE Directive") was adopted with the aim to ensure that EU Law was compatible with the Aarhus Convention and has been transposed by all Member States.³³⁷ In a report on the effectiveness of the Directive, the following observations were made by the European Commission:³³⁸

• The application of the Directive has substantially improved access to environmental information on request.

  ---

• The emergence of an information society with an increased emphasis on wide access requires a shift from an approach dominated by information-on-request needs to an approach centred on active and wide dissemination using the latest technologies.

  ---

• This Directive was adopted to ensure that EU law was compatible with the Aarhus Convention and has been transposed by all Member States. The European Commission has stated that the Directive has substantially improved access to environmental information.

  ---

• The Directive is drafted to allow flexibility for Member States to determine the appropriate manner and means by which to actively disseminate environmental information and accommodate changes in technology. The Commission highlighted the existence of Member States that employ user-friendly technology, such as interactive maps giving environmental information on people's localities.

  ---

• The Commission called on all Member States "to make the widest possible use of the provisions on active dissemination."

  ---

The active dissemination of environmental information is a key factor in ensuring proper access for children and encouraging active participation in environmental matters. Article 7 of the AIE Directive deals with the dissemination of environmental information:

“Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that public authorities organise the environmental information which is relevant to their functions and which is held by or for them, with a view to its active and systematic dissemination to the public, in particular by means of computer telecommunication and/or electronic technology, where available. [...] Member States shall ensure that environmental information progressively becomes available in electronic databases which are easily accessible to the public through public telecommunication networks.”³³⁹

What is Environmental Information?

Article 2(1) of the AIE Directive defines environmental information broadly, as follows:³⁴⁰

Recital 10 of the AIE Directive also ensures that "environmental information" is interpreted in the widest possible manner, as follows:³⁴¹

"The definition of environmental information should be clarified so as to encompass information in any form on the state of the environment, on factors, measures or activities affecting or likely to affect the environment or designed to protect it, on cost-benefit and economic analyses used within the framework of such measures or activities and also information on the state of human health and safety, including the contamination of the food chain, conditions of human life, cultural sites and built structures in as much as they are, or may be, affected by any of those matters."

Systems which recognise a right to all information in possession of the public authorities have a significant advantage. For example, in Sweden and the Netherlands, where there is such a general right, the question of whether information is environmental information or not simply does not arise.³⁴²

Which Bodies are Covered?

At the discretion of individual Member States, the Directive applies to authorities with "responsibilities... relating to the environment", except for bodies acting in a judicial or legislative capacity.

Article 2(2) of the AIE Directive states the following:³⁴³

Formal Requirements

The Directive states no formal requirements for a request.

Conditions of Standing

Article 2(5) of the AIE Directive defines an 'applicant' for access to environmental information as “any natural or legal person requesting environmental information".³⁴⁴ There is no explicit restriction on age in the Directive and no explicit exclusion of children.

Free Information Model

The process for requesting environmental information varies in each Member State, as neither the AIE Directive nor the Aarhus Convention specify any particular mechanism. Therefore, the complexity of this process and its availability to children also varies in different Member States.³⁴⁵

Most freedom of information mechanisms generally involve a request in any form including email, post or a form to fill in in order to access information. Therefore, the ability of a child to make such a request is largely based on their own capacity to do so or the assistance of a parent/guardian.

The European Commission has said that "electronic technology is the key to implementing the objectives and provisions of the Directive".³⁴⁶ It also says that the means of technology used "must be easily accessible and not create further obstacles to provision of information".³⁴⁷

Article 7 of the AIE Directive provides for the active dissemination of at least the following environmental information:³⁴⁸

Shared Environmental Information System

Ministers decided to develop a Shared Environmental Information System ("SEIS") across the pan-European region to connect existing databases and make data more accessible at the Seventh Environment for Europe Ministerial Conference in Astana in 2011.³⁴⁹

According to the SEIS principles information should be:³⁵⁰

• Managed as close as possible to its source.

  ---

• Collected once and shared with others for many purposes.

  ---

• Readily available to easily fulfil reporting obligations.

  ---

• Easily accessible to all users.

  ---

• Accessible to enable comparisons at the appropriate geographical scale and the participation of citizens.

  ---

• Fully available to the general public and at national level in the relevant national language(s).

  ---

• Supported through common, free, open software standards.

  ---

These systems support the ideals of the free information model and could improve to an extent the ability of children to access information without the need for making a formal request. It is significant that the UNECE, in their recommendations on the more effective use of electronic information tools, referenced children in stating that parties to the Aarhus Convention should:³⁵¹

"Take the necessary measures to reduce and remove social, financial, legal, procedural and technological barriers that restrict public access to environmental information through telecommunications networks, such as high connection costs and poor connectivity, and a lack of computer literacy; enhance the inclusive use of digital technologies and electronic information tools to promote the exercise of their rights under the Convention by groups and communities in vulnerable situations, such as children, older persons, women in some societies, migrants, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples, persons with low literacy skills or facing language barriers, ethnic or religious minorities, economically disadvantaged groups and persons without feasible access to the Internet, television or radio."

The European Environment Information and Observation Network ("Eionet") is a partnership network of the EEA and its 38 member and cooperating countries.³⁵² EEA and Eionet gather and develop data, knowledge, and advice to policy makers about Europe's environment. This is an example of a SEIS that allows users to access environmental information from all around Europe. The European Commission published a report in 2019 highlighting the importance of well-functioning access to environmental information systems entitled 'Promotion of good practices for national environmental information systems and tools for data harvesting at EU level'.³⁵³

B. Are there any legal limits or restrictions on the right to access information that apply specifically to children?

There are no significant legal limits or restrictions on children's right to access information, however there is a 'digital age of consent' regarding the process of data as discussed below. In reality, a child's age and ability to assimilate environmental data that can be voluminous or complex may be the most obvious barrier.

Digital Age of Consent

Under the GDPR, Article 8(1) provides that the digital age of consent is set at 16 but that countries in the EU can enact national legislation which specifies a lower age limit to between the ages of 13 to 16.³⁵⁴ The age of consent varies across the EU.³⁵⁵

This means that the processing of data of children under the age of 16, in respect of online services, shall not be lawful without parental consent. This may have a tangible impact on the ability of children to access information digitally where their personal data is required to obtain such information. Across the EU, it may be the case that one's personal information is required to request and receive environmental information and, in those cases, a child's ability to consent to the processing of such data comes into question.

It remains to be seen whether public authorities and children actually obtain parental consent in requesting environmental information, as it is very difficult to accurately assess the age of a requester depending on the information provided. However, it could be seen to have a dissuasive effect for both children and public authorities in the processing of their data in order to obtain environmental information.

C. Are there specific policies, regulations or initiatives which address environmental education in schools across Member States?

The Convention on the Rights of the Child

Article 29(1)(e) UNCRC requires state parties to direct education of the child to development of respect for the natural environment.³⁵⁶ The Committee stressed in 2023 that “[c]hildren have the right to access to accurate and reliable environmental information, including about the causes, effects and actual and potential sources of climate and environmental harm, adaptive responses, relevant climate and environmental legislation, regulations, findings from climate and environmental impact assessments, policies and plans and sustainable lifestyle choices. Such information empowers children to learn what they can do in their immediate environment related to waste management, recycling and consumption behaviours”.³⁵⁷

The Committee further stated that “for free, active, meaningful and effective participation, children should be provided with environmental and human rights education, age-appropriate and accessible information, adequate time and resources and a supportive and enabling environment. They should receive information about the outcomes of environment-related consultations and feedback on how their views were taken into account and have access to child-sensitive complaint procedures and remedies when their right to be heard in the environmental context is disregarded.”³⁵⁸

European Commission proposal for a Council Recommendation on learning for environmental sustainability

Adopted by the European Council in June 2022, the European Commission proposed a whole-institution approach for learning on environmental sustainability, where it is not only taught, but practiced.³⁵⁹ The recommendation aims to foster greater cooperation at EU level on the deep and transformative changes needed in education and training for the green transition.

The Council's Recommendation calls on Member States to:

• Provide learners of all ages access to high-quality and inclusive education and training on climate change, biodiversity and sustainability;

  ---

• Establish learning for environmental sustainability as a priority area in education and training policies and programmes in order to support and enable the sector to contribute to the green transition;

  ---

• Encourage and support whole-institution approaches to sustainability which encompass teaching and learning; developing visions, planning and governance; active involvement of students and staff; management of buildings and resources and partnerships with local and wider communities; and

  ---

• Mobilise national and EU funds for investment in sustainable and green infrastructure, training, tools and resources to increase resilience and preparedness of education and training for the green transition.

The Aarhus Convention

The Working Group of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention, with regards to environmental education, “urged all Parties to mandate the integration of information on environmental rights, climate change mitigation and adaptation measures into environmental education within school curricula [...] [and] called on respective Parties, other interested States, Aarhus Centres and other stakeholders to take additional measures to promote environmental education and awareness-raising [...]”.³⁶⁰

The European Network for Environmental Education

The European Network for Environmental Education ("ENEE") is an EU-supported network that connects organisations and institutions involved in environmental education. It fosters the exchange of best practices and the development of environmental education initiatives across Member States.

The Education for Climate Coalition

The Education for Climate Coalition ("ECC") is a participatory education community, led by teachers and students with their schools and networks and other educational organisations and bodies.³⁶¹ It aims to support the sharing of experiences and encourage work on shared challenges.³⁶² An annual Education for Climate Day has been introduced.³⁶³ There is a strong digital community with regular activities and meetings held via Webex and Zoom as well as in person around Europe.³⁶⁴

The European School Education Platform

The European School Education Platform ("ESEP") platform offers online courses for teachers, school leaders and other education staff, as well as webinars featuring guest experts and project leaders.³⁶⁵ There is also an eTwinning community for schools across Europe to collaborate and engage in projects together both online and in person.³⁶⁶ The SENSE group (Sustainability Education Network Service eTwinning) brings together eTwinning teachers working on projects and activities related to the environment and sustainability so that students can connect with each other on projects that they care about.

The Learning Corner

The Learning Corner interactive platform for primary and secondary school students empowers children to learn more about the EU, including the EU environmental initiatives.³⁶⁷ Activities include information and games on biodiversity and climate, a climate and energy quiz and booklets for younger children on the water cycle.³⁶⁸

National Initiatives

Many EU countries have national education initiatives providing environmental education to children. For example, in Ireland, ENFO Kids is an educational resource with educational material about Ireland's ecosystem and sustainable living, including interactive games and guides on a broad range of topics which are separated by age.³⁶⁹

V. Right to vote

How is children’s right to vote protected by the European Union?

Democracy is recognised by Article 2 TEU as one of the values the EU is founded on.³⁷⁰ It is protected under Articles 39 and 40 of the EU CFR, and Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the Convention.³⁷¹ Article 20.2(b) TFEU further provides the right to vote and stand for election to the European Parliament for EU Citizens.³⁷²

The right to vote is not an absolute right and can be restricted in certain circumstances. This has been a source of controversy in the past, in the context of prisoners who have been denied the right to vote, such as in Scoppola (No 3) v Italy³⁷³, Soyler v Turkey,³⁷⁴ Mironescu v Romania,³⁷⁵ Kalda v Estonia (No 2),³⁷⁶ and Hirst (No 2) v the United Kingdom.³⁷⁷ Generally, children are not deemed to have sufficient competence to be afforded the right to vote. It is common in many states within the EU for the right to vote to apply once one attains the age of 18. However, some States do recognise the right to vote for those under 18 years old, although this may vary depending on the type of election, for example, whether it is a national, local or European election. In Belgium (2022) and Germany (2023), the voting age for EU elections was lowered to 16 years.³⁷⁸ In Austria, children aged 16 or older can vote in any type of election, and in Greece, children aged 17 or older can vote in any type of election.³⁷⁹ In Estonia and Malta, children can vote in local elections once they are 16 years old. By contrast, Italy has set a threshold of 25 years of age to vote for national elections, while all other types of elections have the standard age limit of 18 years.³⁸⁰

The EU affords states a wide margin of appreciation in deciding an age limit for the right to vote. The European Commission for Democracy through Law (the Venice Commission) is the Council's advisory body.³⁸¹ In its Resolution on the Abolition of Restrictions on the Right to Vote in General Elections, it states that Member States should allow children to vote once they have reached the age of majority (18 years old).³⁸²

VI. Ecocide

Do European Member States recognise the crime of ecocide? What proposals and policies exist at the European level to recognise the crime of ecocide?

In June 2021, an international panel of lawyers co-chaired by Philippe Sands KC and Dior Fall Sow – The Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide (the "Panel") – proposed that the term "ecocide" be defined in international law under the Rome Statute through the addition of Article 8 ter.³⁸³ The Panel was commissioned by Stop Ecocide International ("SEI"), the leading NGO promoting efforts to adopt the crime of ecocide at both domestic and international levels. The Panel's proposed wording for Article 8 ter reads as follows:

"For the purposes of this Statute, "ecocide" means unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment caused by those acts."

The proposed definition is elaborated through a second paragraph in Article 8 which lays out the definitions of the core elements of ecocide, namely "wanton", "severe", "widespread", "long-term" and "environment". Structurally, the Panel has drawn from Article 7 of the Rome Statute that defines Crimes Against Humanity in a similar two-tiered way.³⁸⁴ In terms of the proposed definition's substance, the Panel made use of a variety of existing legal provisions and authorities found in international treaties, customary law alongside international courts and tribunals.³⁸⁵ One example is the inclusion of the phrase "severe and either widespread or long-term", language which can also be found in Articles 35(3) and 55(1) of the 1977 First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions ("API"), in Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute and in Article 1 of the 1976 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques.³⁸⁶

This approach of drawing from existing legal authorities was taken throughout the Panel's drafting efforts. However, at times, the Panel also proposes divergence from the way in which these terms are interpreted. In their interpretation of "long-term", the Panel proposes that this should be defined as "damage which is irreversible or which cannot be redressed through natural recovery within a reasonable period of time".³⁸⁷ This contrasts with existing interpretations which define "long-term" in a way that centres around a prescribed time period, such as in the background materials to the API which interpret "long-term" to mean a period of decades.³⁸⁸

Prior to the Panel's work, ecocide had become a buzzword popularised by the renown environmental activist Polly Higgins, founder of SEI, and continues to be used by environmental NGOs to describe destruction being inflicted on the environment. SEI, one of the most prominent voices calling for ecocide to be recognised as a crime, describes activities including overfishing, oil spills, chemical and plastic pollution, deep sea mining, deforestation, land and water contamination and air pollution as activities contributing to the current destruction of ecosystems and that should be addressed by an ecocide law.

Ecocide Laws within EU Member States

EU Member States have varying levels of domestic regulations and legislation akin to addressing ecocide.

For instance, in France, in August 2021, the French National Assembly approved the creation of an offence similar to ecocide as part of a series of measures aimed at protecting the environment and addressing climate change under the France’s Climate & Resilience Act.³⁸⁹ Offenders could face up to 10 years in prison and a fine of €4.5 million.³⁹⁰ The law is intended to address "serious and durable" cases of intentional pollution of water, air, or soil. However, it is important to note that it will only apply in cases of intentional pollution and not to problems caused by negligence or recklessness.³⁹¹ Moreover, it only applies to instances of ecocide within France's territory and does not address instances with a cross-border dimension (e.g. if a French incorporated company commits ecocide outside of France's borders).³⁹² This is an obvious limiting factor, given a lot of environmental "crimes" cause damage across state lines (e.g. air pollution, contaminated waterways, the release of GHG into the atmosphere, etc.)

The Act includes ecocide in two contexts. Firstly, as a misdemeanour under national law (Article 231-3), providing for up to 10 years in jail for those committing offences which "cause serious and lasting damage to health, flora, fauna or the quality of the air, soil or water". Secondly, the government is obliged, under Article 296 of the new law, to report back to parliament within one year on "its action in favor of the recognition of ecocide as a crime which can be tried by international criminal courts".³⁹³ At the time of this report, there have not been any high-profile prosecutions under France’s ecocide law.

However, it is worth noting that, although the Citizens' Climate Convention recommended that ecocide be recognised as a crime, “the trivialisation of ecocide to the level of a misdemeanour” and the retention of the “particularly restrictive and complicated definition” are insufficient for a truly effective and deterrent criminalisation of the most severe environmental attacks, according to Stop Ecocide.³⁹⁴

More recently, on 23 February 2024, Belgium became the first European country to recognise ecocide as a crime at both national and international levels. This came as part of the reform of the Belgian criminal code, through the Act introducing the (new) Book II of the Belgian Criminal Code.³⁹⁵ Nationally, the new crime, which is aimed at preventing and punishing the most severe cases of environmental degradation (such as extensive oil spills), will apply to individuals in the highest positions of decision-making power and to corporations.³⁹⁶ Under the new Belgian Criminal Code, which is expected to come into force in the first half of 2026, the punishment for individuals may include up to 20 years in prison, while corporations could face fines of up to €1.6 million. In addition, Belgium now recognises ecocide as a fifth "international crime" after war crimes, crimes of aggression, crimes against humanity and genocide.³⁹⁷

The new EU "Ecocide" Directive

At EU-level, there is presently no formal recognition of an "ecocide" crime per se. However, in November 2023, the European Parliament updated its environmental crime directive, Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of the environment through criminal law, to include a law criminalising wide-scale environmental damage "comparable to ecocide".³⁹⁸ This law targets the criminal punishment of those responsible for the most serious cases of environmental destruction and polluting.

This Directive was updated as a means of responding to the "growing gap between the criminal justice response to environmental crime and the criminological situation on the ground".³⁹⁹ Indeed, according to the World Bank, environmental crime is the fourth largest criminal activity in the world and represents a cost of over USD1 trillion per year.⁴⁰⁰ Didier Reynders, the Commissioner for Justice, commented that the updated directive "shows that the EU takes decisive action against environmental damage" through setting "EU-wide standards to ensure environmental protection, while providing for effective and dissuasive sanctions for offenders."⁴⁰¹

The offences noted in the Directive include, inter alia: pollution caused by ships; importing and use of mercury and fluorinated greenhouse gases; importing of invasive species; illegal depletion of water resources; marketing products linked to deforestation, maritime pollution, and illegal water withdrawals. The proposed law also includes "qualified offences" which refer to activities causing the destruction of an ecosystem or habitat within a protected site and damage to air, soil, or water quality.⁴⁰² These "qualified offences" include offenses comparable to the Panel's arguably more comprehensive definition of ecocide, such as deforestation and oil spills.⁴⁰³

It is worth noting that there were some key environmental concerns excluded from the list of environmental crimes in the updated EU directive including illegal fishing, the exportation of waste and polluting materials to developing countries and carbon market fraud, that are argued by many activists, academics and environmentalists on the ground to be causing serious and irreversible environmental impacts in line with the definition of ecocide.⁴⁰⁴

On 27 February 2024, the EU Parliament adopted the Directive, with 499 votes in favour, 100 against and 23 abstentions.⁴⁰⁵ Member States will have two years to adopt it into national law. Once in force, Member States will have to be more precise in their definitions of environmental offence categories and sanctions within their respective criminal laws.

This EU Directive will impact individuals responsible for the direction and considerations taken by the company in relation to environmental targets and environmentally damaging activities. The law will also impact companies as a whole with those found to have committed environmental offenses outlined in the updated directive punishable through fines and sanctions.

Punishments for breaking the law vary based on the type of offence committed and harm caused. For instance, environmental offences committed by individuals that result in death are to be punishable with a 10-year prison sentence.⁴⁰⁶ Environmental offences, including "qualified offenses", committed by individuals that do not result in death but are still considered to be severe and causing wide-spread and irreversible environmental damage are to be punishable by eight years in prison.⁴⁰⁷ Other relatively less severe environmental offences can be punishable by a five-year prison sentence.⁴⁰⁸

Offending companies risk fines of 3% or 5% of annual global turnover or fixed fines of 24 or 40 million euros.⁴⁰⁹ These fines will be decided by individual Member States upon implementation of their corresponding domestic laws and so will vary from state to state and depend on the nature of the crime. The ability of different Member States to set their own penalty rate could result in less punitive punishment for the most severe environmental crimes in some countries. Offending companies also risk operational punishments including the removal of operating licences, the removal of public subsidies, bans on access to public funding and enforcement of repayments or compensation for the damage caused.⁴¹⁰

Whilst breaching this law carries large and impactful consequences in theory, the challenge of measuring and quantifying the impacts of environmentally damaging activities remains an interesting hurdle for environmental prosecutors in practice. For example, it is uncertain whether there will be a quantified level of GHG emissions considered to be contributing to severe environmental destruction (insofar as their contribution to climate disruption) and therefore punishable under the law. The thresholds for what are to be deemed "most severe" in terms of environmental damage and what damages are “comparable to ecocide" remain unseen in initial reports. Additional uncertainty remains around whether offences qualifying under the "comparable to genocide" description must be intentional or whether reckless or negligent activities that cause the most severe damage to the environment are to be considered offenses.

It remains to be seen whether the new "ecocide" law has adequate and far-reaching enough measuring parameters outlined to prosecute and punish in the way it is intended. While the definition of ecocide" and the rough guidelines as to what constitutes severe environmental damage will be universal across Member States, the lack of clarity surrounding how to measure environmentally damaging activities could result in limited prosecution and/or less severe punishments.

In practical terms, once the EU Directive takes effect within Member States, company directors and managers will have to be more considerate in their evaluation of the environmental impact their business operations are having, especially in relation to the updated thresholds and criminal offences has applied into law. This new Directive increases the direct accountability of the individuals responsible for understanding and reducing the environmental impacts of the company. Managerial decisions should be taken to align companies with the new requirements of the directive, including taking steps to mitigate risks by implementing the right due diligence procedures and checks to best protect the company.

VII. International treaty system

How has the European Union sought to protect and advance environmental rights at the international level?

There are various bases upon which the EU is able to protect and advance environmental rights. The EU's foundational treaties are the TEU and the TFEU (collectively, the "Treaties"). The EU CFR also sits alongside the Treaties, and the Treaties are interpreted in light of the CFR.

Each of the Treaties and the Charter contain provisions which are relevant for the EU's environmental action. Article 191(1) & (2) of the TFEU provides the basis for the EU's environmental competences, and should be read with Article 11 TFEU, which provides that: "Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Union's policies and activities, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development."⁴¹¹ Article 191(1) TFEU obliges the EU to "promote measures at the international level to deal with regional or global environmental problems, and, in particular, to combat climate change."⁴¹² Article 191(4) TFEU then provides the basis for the EU to take action internationally by allowing the EU to establish "arrangements for environmental cooperation with third countries."⁴¹³

Article 192(1) TFEU was used as the basis for Member States to enter the UNFCCC.⁴¹⁴ The UNFCCC came into force in 1994 with the aim to control the global level of GHG within such a time period as "to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened, and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner."⁴¹⁵ It preceded the Kyoto Protocol, which set binding individualised targets specifically for industrialised countries to reduce emissions.⁴¹⁶ The EU then entered into the Paris Agreement under the UNFCCC.⁴¹⁷ Other provisions under the Treaties directly pertain to the EU's role in environmental stewardship. Article 21(1)(d) & (f) TEU mandate the EU to "develop international measures to preserve and improve [the environment] and the sustainable management of global natural resources."⁴¹⁸

Article 37 of the CFR provides, "a high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment must be integrated into the policies of the Union and ensured in accordance with the principle of sustainable development."⁴¹⁹ The EU in its “Biodiversity Strategy for 2023: Bringing Nature Back into our Lives”, uses Article 37 as the rationale for recommending that the EU "lead[s] the initiative to recognise a similar right internationally."⁴²⁰

The EU further acceded to the Aarhus Convention, which aims to give the public rights of (i) access to information, (ii) public participation and (iii) access to justice in relation to environmental issues (as discussed earlier in the report).⁴²¹

CJEU Case Law

As seen from the above, there is no specific, standalone right to a healthy environment within EU law. However, the CJEU has in some cases further advanced environmental rights via its judgments. For example, the EU - Singapore Free Trade Agreement lacked an enforcement mechanism to enable a party to terminate the Agreement for sustainable development.⁴²² The CJEU, in its Opinion 2/15, interpreted the Agreement in line with Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, as follows:⁴²³

"Chapter 13 [sustainable development] of the envisaged agreement are intended not to regulate the levels of social and environmental protection in the Parties’ respective territory but to govern trade between the EU and the Republic of Singapore by making liberalisation of that trade subject to the condition that the Parties comply with their international obligations concerning social protection of workers and environmental protection."⁴²⁴

The CJEU therefore created an enforcement mechanism for one Party to unilaterally terminate or suspend the agreement where the other had failed to comply with the sustainable development chapter of the Agreement.

The Council of Europe

There is currently no standalone right to a healthy environment within the legal framework of the Council of Europe. However, the steering committee for human rights (CDDH) has started a process of looking at the need for and feasibility of a further instrument or instruments in the field of human rights and the environment.⁴²⁵ During the 4th Reykjavik Summit of the Council of Europe in May 2023, leaders of all Member States committed to “strengthening [their] work at the Council of Europe on the human rights aspects of the environment based on the political recognition of the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as a human right”.⁴²⁶ On 18 April 2024, the Parliamentary Assembly adopted a resolution stressing the urgency of additional efforts to protect the environment and encouraged decision makers to focus on drawing up a legally binding instrument recognising an autonomous right to a healthy environment within the Council of Europe.⁴²⁷

The adoption of an additional protocol recognising this autonomous right is supported by a coalition of more than 500 civil society organisations, Youth and indigenous People organisations, together with over 120 academics, arguing that such additional Protocol would provide greater legal certainty for rights holders and member States alike while also providing a helpful framework for the Court’s work in this area, ensuring that the Court’s jurisprudence is coherent and consolidated.⁴²⁸

ECtHR Case Law

There are a number of ECtHR cases concerned with environmental rights. In cases such as Di Sarno v Others, Lopez-Ostra, Guerra and Others v Italy, Fadeyeva, Giacomelli, Dubetska, the ECtHR attached environmental rights to the civil and political rights of individuals.⁴²⁹ All cases had in common the violation of Article 8 of the ECHR.

In Di Sarno and Others v Italy the ECtHR followed Guerra and Others, and "examined the case from the standpoint of the State's positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention [ECHR]" and found a violation of the applicants' substantive Article 8 rights.⁴³⁰ In Guerra and Others the EtCHR recognised that Article 8 not only involves substantive elements, but also a procedural aspect, in line with the Aarhus Convention, to engage with the public during policy decision making, and furnish the public with enough information to help mitigate the threat in relation to environmental issues.⁴³¹

As mentioned above, there is a debate on whether a right to a healthy environment should or does exist independently to existing civil and political rights, such as Article 8. In Taskin and Others v Turkey and Tatar v Romania,⁴³² the ECtHR demonstrated a willingness to progress an autonomous right to a healthy environment. However, as yet, the prevailing position appears to be that the right to a healthy environment is subsumed under existing civil and political rights. Nonetheless, the cases above stand as examples of the ECtHR, protecting and advancing environmental rights.

The ECtHR Landmark Rulings on 9 April 2024

In April 2024, the ECtHR delivered three landmark judgments on the application of the Convention in the context of climate change. The three cases, brought by citizens, including children, from Switzerland, France, and Portugal, all raise crucial questions: (a) Can countries be held responsible for their failure to mitigate climate change; (b) How far does this obligation extend in practice; and (c) Can these cases even be brought?

Whilst two of these cases were ruled inadmissible on procedural grounds, in the case of KlimaSeniorinnen, the ECtHR found a violation of the Convention rights in relation to climate change and outlined positive obligations on all Member State Parties to the Convention to mitigate climate change.

Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland ⁴³³

A group of elderly Swiss women sue the Swiss government for insufficient emissions reduction targets. They were supported by Greenpeace Switzerland. Their claims broadly focused on the fact that inadequate GHG targets violated their right to life and private life (Articles 2 & 8) due to increased heatwaves posing a material health risk. They argued that they were particularly vulnerable due to their age. In response, Switzerland argued that target-setting is a democratic process, not a judicial one; that there was no causal link between Swiss emissions and women's worsening health; and, finally, that the claimants were not "direct" victims, but brought the action on behalf of a specific group (actio popularis), which is not allowed.

In Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, the Court found that there has been a violation of the right to a private and family life (Article 8), as Switzerland has failed to act adequately to protect the applicants. Overall, this ECtHR ruling is a helpful precedent for environmental and climate activists although the Swiss legislature has since refused to accept its findings, which raises challenges in terms of implementation of these decisions.⁴³⁴

Carême v. France⁴³⁵

In this case, a former mayor of Grande-Synthe in France sued over inadequate emissions targets and lack of climate adaptation measures. His claims were that France's inaction violated his right to life and right to private and family life (Articles 2 & 8) due to, among other things, flooding risk threatening his home. France's arguments in response included issues of admissibility of the case. They argued that mitigation measures were already being taken on the national level and that the applicant no longer lived in the affected area.

Carême v. France was ruled to be inadmissible since the Court did not find the applicant to be a victim as required by law. A key evidential factor was that he was no longer resident in the seaside town that he claimed climate risk exposures about.

Duarte Agostino and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others⁴³⁶

In this landmark case, six Portuguese children, supported by Global Legal Action Network, sued their government and 32 other European nations for failing to take sufficient climate action. The case was brought following devastating wildfires in Portugal.

The claimants argued that lack of effective action by European states violated their right to life, private life, and non-discrimination (Articles 2, 8 & 14) as their generation disproportionately suffers physically and mentally from dangerous climate change. They argued that Member States share the responsibility due to the interconnectedness of emissions. In response, the defendant Member States argued they should not be responsible for extraterritorial harms relating to global emissions. Further, their pleaded position was that there is no clear causal link between every state and victims' suffering and that domestic remedies were not exhausted. The States also claimed in this case that the claimants are not 'direct' victims, but were instead bringing the action on behalf of a specific group, which is not allowed.

Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others was also found to be inadmissible as the applicants did not exhaust the domestic remedies, which is required for bringing a case to the ECtHR.

Margin of Appreciation, State Practice & Customary International Law

Hatton, mentioned above in section 8, is also an example of the ECtHR recognising "direct democratic legitimation" and the margin of appreciation afforded to States to assess the local situation and govern accordingly.⁴³⁷ Therefore, regional bodies do have a place in advancing environmental rights at the EU-level. For example, Turkey's constitution recognises the right to a healthy environment, and thus, in the case of Taskin, the ECtHR did have to make substantive points in relation to the same.

The majority in Hatton concluded that there had been no violation of the applicants' rights under Article 8 of the Convention. However, in their dissenting opinion, Judges Costa, Ress, Türmen, Zupančič and Steiner used the Kyoto Protocol, article 37 of the CFR, and indeed the "many supreme and constitutional courts [which have] invoked constitutional vindication of various aspects of environmental protection" as examples to demonstrate "the growing concern over environmental issues all over Europe and the world" to suggest that the ECtHR should have recognised a violation.⁴³⁸

The Judges' opinion is reminiscent of the living instrument interpretation of the Convention.⁴³⁹ On a larger scale, regional bodies can also have the same impact on advancing environmental rights at the international level by helping to shape state practice and therefore customary international law. As of 2019, 19 out of 27 member states of the EU had recognised an autonomous right to a healthy environment either explicitly or implicitly in its constitution.⁴⁴⁰ A fact that the EU recognised when announcing the implementation of its 2030 Biodiversity strategy, and its aim to "lead on the international recognition of such a right".⁴⁴¹ Just by recognising an autonomous right to a healthy environment, regional bodies are advancing environmental rights at an international level.

Advisory Opinions on the Environment and Climate Crisis: ICJ, ITLOS and IACHR

States have at points taken the initiative to pursue guidance as opposed to waiting for a decision as to the (il)legality of a past act. One example of this are advisory opinions requested to supranational bodies, including the UN and the International Court of Justice ("ICJ").

ICJ Advisory Opinion

An advisory opinion is legal advice provided to the UN or a specialised agency by the ICJ, in accordance with Article 96 of the UN Charter.⁴⁴² In general, advisory opinions are not legally binding, but may inform the development of international law.⁴⁴³ According to the ICJ itself, advisory opinions:

"carry great legal weight and moral authority. They are often an instrument of preventive diplomacy and have peace-keeping virtues. Advisory opinions also, in their way, contribute to the elucidation and development of international law and thereby to the strengthening of peaceful relations between States."⁴⁴⁴

On 29 March 2023, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution A/77/L.58, requesting an advisory opinion from the ICJ on the obligations of States with respect to climate change.⁴⁴⁵ The resolution was adopted by consensus.⁴⁴⁶ This initiative was largely led by the Government of Vanuatu, which worked with other countries, including all EU Member States (with the exception of Poland), to prepare a draft resolution through internal negotiations and several rounds of informal consultations within the wider UN membership.

The request for an ICJ opinion is formulated as follows:⁴⁴⁷

"Having particular regard to the Charter of the United Nations, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the duty of due diligence, the rights recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the principle of prevention of significant harm to the environment and the duty to protect and preserve the marine environment,

(a) What are the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases for States and for present and future generations;

(b) What are the legal consequences under these obligations for States where they, by their acts and omissions, have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment, with respect to:

(i) States, including, in particular, small island developing States, which due to their geographical circumstances and level of development, are injured or specially affected by or are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change?

(ii) Peoples and individuals of the present and future generations affected by the adverse effects of climate change?"

On 22 March 2024, the ICJ received 91 written statements and 62 written comments were submitted to the ICJ on 15 August 2024. The public hearings were held in December 2024.

Various bodies and NGOs advocating on behalf of children made submissions to the ICJ. The Youth and the Civil Society Alliance that has campaigned for the ICJ climate advisory opinion since 2019 explains in its recommendation to the ICJ:

"These upcoming advisory proceedings offer a unique opportunity for all UN member States to have a role in shaping the interpretation and clarification of international law by the world’s top court. As the questions indicate, the perspectives and experiences of climate vulnerable States, and peoples and individuals of the present and future generations affected by the adverse effects of climate change, are particularly significant. This significance arises from the basic moral principle that the interests and voices of those most at risk of unjust harm and suffering must be amplified, and not silenced, or ignored."⁴⁴⁸

Our Children’s Trust, a non-profit child rights law firm focusing on fundamental climate rights, explains its rationale for contributing written submissions to the ICJ, "to ensure that young people and future generations, who face disproportionate harm from climate change, are considered in this tremendously consequential Advisory Opinion proceeding."⁴⁴⁹

Similar action has been taken by various member states of the EU in relation to guidance requested from the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea ("ITLOS"), once in 2011 and again in 2015.⁴⁵⁰ ITLOS's 2011 advisory opinion expounds upon an "obligation of "due diligence"" to "take measures within its legal system",⁴⁵¹ including "the obligation to provide recourse for compensation",⁴⁵² and ensure that a state's obligations (as set out in the opinion) are made enforceable. This is an important part of international law, as providing remedies and enforcement allows states to be held accountable.

ITLOS Advisory Opinions

ITLOS's 2015 advisory opinion expands further upon the obligations of due diligence from its 2011 advisory opinion, and acknowledges that a state will not be liable where it "has taken all necessary and appropriate measures to meet its "due diligence" obligations to ensure that [the specific legal provision is not infringed]."⁴⁵³

On 21 May 2024, ITLOS delivered a further advisory opinion, finding that states have a legal obligation to protect the world’s oceans and marine biodiversity from climate change in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ("UNCLOS").⁴⁵⁴ Although the opinion is not legally binding, the 169 signatory states of UNCLOS (including EU Member States) will be expected to implement laws and enforce them to ensure compliance with their obligations to prevent marine pollution caused by GHG emissions and protect and preserve marine ecosystems.

One of the landmark rulings by ITLOS in this latest opinion is the finding that GHG emissions constitute marine pollution under UNCLOS, as they are considered to be a substance or energy, introduced by humans (directly or indirectly) into the marine environment; and, importantly, have caused or are likely to result in harmful impacts on the marine environment.⁴⁵⁵

IACHR

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights ("IACHR") is currently in the midst of public consultations on questions arising from the climate emergency as it develops an Advisory Opinion that will guide legal thinking on the vast and significant issues at stake.

On January 9, 2023, Chile and Colombia brought a joint request to the IACHR to clarify State obligations in the context of the climate emergency.⁴⁵⁶ The request puts before the Court a range of issues related to State duties with respect to climate change: adaptation, mitigation, and remediation of losses and damages; environmental defenders; and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, among other issues.⁴⁵⁷

Hearings took place in 2024 and the opinion is expected in early 2025. Whilst the IACHR is concerned primarily with the interpretation of states obligations under the American Convention on Human Rights, a treaty ratified by members of the Organisation of American States, its findings will without doubt have effects across the Atlantic to Europe, and an influence on the ICJ's forthcoming advisory opinion, too.

End notes

¹ See Case C-176/03, para. 41, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?text=&docid=59714&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=11370817.

² Art. 3(3), Treaty on European Union (OJ C 191, 29.7.1992, pp. 1-112), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12016ME%2FTXT.

³ Article 37 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union art. 37, 2012 O.J. C 326/391, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12012P%2FTXT; Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 47–390. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12012E%2FTXT; Articles 191-193 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ C 202, 7.6.2016, p. 1–388, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12016ME%2FTXT.

⁴ Ibid, TFEU.

⁵ Subsidiarity dictates that the EU should only intervene in areas beyond its exclusive authority when Member States are incapable of achieving the proposed objectives adequately, or when accomplishing those goals is more effective at the Union level. The principle of proportionality mandates that EU law should only go as far as necessary to achieve EU Treaty. In environmental protection, this means striking a balance with other interests, occasionally resulting in diluted protection but potentially prioritising environmental concerns over other interests when warranted; Ibid., TFEU.

⁶ Ibid, TFEU.

⁷ The principle of conferral, outlined in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union, dictates that the EU can only enact legislation when explicitly granted powers by the treaties and within specified objectives, procedures, and conditions. The presence of a suitable legal foundation is essential for determining the extent of EU authority in a particular area, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12016ME%2FTXT.

⁸ The precautionary principle allows restrictive actions based on a thorough scientific assessment in the presence of uncertainty about potential risks to human health or the environment. ECJ Case C-127/02, Waddenvereniging and Vogelsbeschermingvereniging, Judgment of 7 September 2004, ECLI:EU:C:2004:482, [2004] ECR 1-7448, para 44 and ECJ Case C-418/04, Commission v. Ireland, Judgment of 13 December 2007, ECLI:EU:C:2007:780, [2007] ECR 1-10947, para 254; See Case C-127/02 Waddenzee, para. 44; The 'polluter pays' principle, implemented through the Environmental Liability Directive, dictates that those responsible for pollution bear the costs of prevention, control, and remedy, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02004L0035-20190626; Supra note 3, TFEU.

⁹ Supra note 3, CFR.

¹⁰ Communication from the Commission, Strategy for the Effective Implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by the European Union, COM (2010) 573 final, para. 25, https://www.cvce.eu/obj/commission_communication_on_the_european_union_charter_of_fundamental_rights_brussels_13_september_2000-en-6991d904-fa07-4b13-b92d-eac507d4a379.html.

¹¹ Ionel Zamfir, A Universal Right to a Healthy Environment? European Parliament Research Service Briefing (2021), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2021/698846/EPRS_ATA(2021)698846_EN.pdf; Report on the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives, A9-0179/2021, 31 May 2021, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2021-0179_EN.html.

¹² The European Parliament has advocated for recognizing the right to a healthy environment in the EU Charter and urged the EU to take a leading role in securing international recognition of this right. See Report on the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives, A9-0179/2021, 31 May 2021, para. 143, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2021-0179_EN.html.

¹³ Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, June 25, 1998, 2161 U.N.T.S. 447, https://unece.org/environment-policy/public-participation/aarhus-convention/text. Implemented in the EU through Aarhus Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies, OJ L 264, 25.9.2006, p. 13-19, and the Access to Environmental Information Directive (AIED) (2003/4/EC), https://unece.org/environment-policy/public-participation/aarhus-convention/text.

¹⁴ Ibid., Aarhus Convention.

¹⁵ Ibid.

¹⁶ Outcomes of the 27th meeting of the Working Group of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention and 8th meeting of the Task Force on Access to Information under the Aarhus Convention and International Workshop on Access to Product Information. See sections below for calls to Member States in relation to the main pillars of the Aarhus Convention and child rights.

¹⁷ https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32003L0004; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32003L0035&qid=1638789035459; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02006R1367-20230429.

¹⁸ https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R1767.

¹⁹ https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en.

²⁰ https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2000/60/oj; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2008/50/oj.

²¹ https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32011L0092.

²² https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32012L0018.

²³ European Commission, Better Regulation Guidelines, SWD (2021) 305 final, https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/better-regulation/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en [last visited 27 March 2024].

²⁴ Supra note 3, CFR, Article 24.

²⁵ Convention on the Rights of the Child, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child.

²⁶ U.N. Comm. on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 26 (2023) on Children’s Rights and the Environment, CRC/C/GC/26 (2023), https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC%2FC%2FGC%2F26&Lang=en.

²⁷ European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights & Council of Europe, Handbook on European Law Relating to the Rights of the Child (2022), https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2022/handbook-european-law-child-rights.

²⁸ Court of Justice of the European Union, Fact Sheet on Environmental Impact Assessment (2023), https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2025-06/evaluation_des_incidences_sur_lenvironnement_-_en.pdf.

²⁹ Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora, 1992 O.J. L 206/7; supra note 20; Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 Nov. 2009 on the Conservation of Wild Birds, 2010 O.J. L 20/7, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009L0147.

³⁰ Jurisprudence relative à la politique intérieure de l’Union européenne, Environnement, développement durable et climat [Case Law Concerning EU Internal Policy: Environment, Sustainable Development and Climate], https://curia.europa.eu/common/recdoc/repertoire_jurisp/bull_4/data/index_4_23.htm.

³¹ Ibid.

³² Aannemersbedrijf P.K. Kraaijeveld BV and Others v Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland, Case C-72/95, ECLI:EU:C:1996:135, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-72/95.

³³ Commission v Council, Case C-176/03, ECLI:EU:C:2005:542, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-176/03.

³⁴ Commission v Council, Case C-440/05, ECLI:EU:C:2007:625, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62005CJ0440.

³⁵ Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK, Case C-243/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:838, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-243/15; D. Krawczyk, “The Slovak Brown Bear Case: The ECJ Hunts for Jurisdiction and Environmental Plaintiffs Gain the Trophy,” Environmental Law Review 14 (2012): 53.

³⁶ Dietrich Janecek v Freistaat Bayern, Case C-237/07, ECLI:EU:C:2008:447, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-237/07.

³⁷ Commission v Poland (Białowieża Forest), Case C-441/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:255, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-441/17.

³⁸ Sdruzhenie “Za Zemyata – dostap do pravosadie” and Others v Izpalnitelen director na Izpalnitelna agentsia po okolna sreda and “TETS Maritsa iztok 2” EAD, Case C-375/21, ECLI:EU:C:2023:173, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62021CJ0375.

³⁹ Commission v Ireland, Case C-215/06, ECLI:EU:C:2008:380, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-215/06.

⁴⁰ Commission v Spain, Case C-227/01, ECLI:EU:C:2004:528, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-227/01.

⁴¹ Križan and Others, Case C-416/10, ECLI:EU:C:2013:8, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-416/10.

⁴² Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee and Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Vogels v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (“Waddenzee”), Case C-127/02, ECLI:EU:C:2004:482, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-127/02.

⁴³ Commission v Ireland, Case C-418/04, ECLI:EU:C:2007:780, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-418/04.

⁴⁴ Bluhme, Case C-67/97, ECLI:EU:C:1998:584, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-67/97 (on conservation of biodiversity); Commission v Denmark, Case C-302/86, ECLI:EU:C:1988:421, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-302/86 (on waste management); Standley and Others, Case C-293/97, ECLI:EU:C:1999:215, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-293/97 (on water protection); PreussenElektra AG v Schleswag AG, Case C-379/98, ECLI:EU:C:2001:160, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-379/98 (on prevention of climate change).

⁴⁵ Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands, District Court of The Hague, C/09/456689 / HA ZA 13-1396 (24 June 2015), https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/urgenda-foundation-v-kingdom-of-the-netherlands/.

⁴⁶ Gruber, Case C-570/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:231, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-570/13.

⁴⁷ Commission v France, Case C-233/00, ECLI:EU:C:2003:371, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-233/00; Ville de Lyon, Case C-524/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:822, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-524/09; Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Others, Case C-266/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:779, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-266/09.

⁴⁸ Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Case C-873/19, ECLI:EU:C:2022:857, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62019CJ0873.

⁴⁹ Wasserleitungsverband Nördliches Burgenland and Others, Case C-197/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:824, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-197/18.

⁵⁰ Carvalho and Others v Parliament and Council, Case C-565/19 P, ECLI:EU:C:2021:252, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-565/19%20P.

⁵¹ See Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union supra note 3, which states that the “[e]njoyment of these rights entails responsibilities and duties with regard [...] to future generations”; Council Declaration of 22 May 1990 on the Environmental Imperative, Bull. EC 5-1990, at 35, states that “mankind is the trustee of the natural environment and has the duty to ensure its enlightened stewardship for the benefit of this and future generations.”

⁵² Supra note 13.

⁵³ Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 Oct. 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (Water Framework Directive), 2000 O.J. L 327/1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02000L0060-20141120.

⁵⁴ Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 Oct. 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community (EU ETS Directive), 2003 O.J. L 275/32, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02003L0087-20230605.

⁵⁵ Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 Apr. 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (Environmental Liability Directive), 2004 O.J. L 143/56, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02004L0035-20190626.

⁵⁶ Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, 2008 O.J. L 152/1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02008L0050-20150918.

⁵⁷ Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive), 2008 O.J. L 164/19, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02008L0056-20170607.

⁵⁸ Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 Nov. 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (Waste Framework Directive), 2008 O.J. L 312/3, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02008L0098-20180705.

⁵⁹ Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 Nov. 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (Birds Directive), 2010 O.J. L 20/7, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02009L0147-20190626; Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive), 1992 O.J. L 206/7, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:01992L0043-20130701.

⁶⁰ Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 Nov. 2010 on industrial emissions (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control), 2010 O.J. L 334/17, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02010L0075-20110106.

⁶¹ Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 Dec. 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (Environmental Impact Assessment Directive), 2012 O.J. L 26/1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02011L0092-20140515.

⁶² Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive), 2001 O.J. L 197/30, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32001L0042.

⁶³ Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 Dec. 2022 as regards corporate sustainability reporting (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive), 2022 O.J. L 322/15, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022L2464; Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 Oct. 2014 as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups (Non-Financial Reporting Directive), 2014 O.J. L 330/1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014L0095.

⁶⁴ Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence (Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive), 2024 O.J. L 2024/1760, http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj.

⁶⁵ Directive (EU) 2024/1203 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims (Green Claims Directive), 2024 O.J. L 1203, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1203/oj.

⁶⁶ Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 Nov. 2008 on the protection of the environment through criminal law, 2008 O.J. L 328/28, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0099.

⁶⁷ Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE Directive), 2012 O.J. L 197/38, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02012L0019-20180704.

⁶⁸ Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment (Single-Use Plastics Directive), 2019 O.J. L 155/1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019L0904.

⁶⁹ Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 Sept. 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators (Batteries Directive), 2006 O.J. L 266/1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02006L0066-20180704. The Batteries Directive will be repealed in 2025 by Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2023 concerning batteries and waste batteries (Batteries Regulation), 2023 O.J. L 191/1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1542/oj.

⁷⁰ Directive 1999/31/EC of the Council of 26 Apr. 1999 on the landfill of waste (Landfill Directive), 1999 O.J. L 182/1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:01999L0031-20180704.

⁷¹ Directive 1994/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 Dec. 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive), 1994 O.J. L 365/10, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:01994L0062-20180704.

⁷² Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS Directive), 2011 O.J. L 174/88, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02011L0065-20230901.

⁷³ Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 Dec. 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH Regulation), 2006 O.J. L 396/1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02006R1907-20231201.

⁷⁴ Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 Dec. 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP Regulation), 2008 O.J. L 353/1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02008R1272-20231201.

⁷⁵ Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence, COM(2022) 71 final (23 Feb. 2022), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52022PC0748.

⁷⁶ European Parliament, Legislative Train Schedule — Revision of the rules on classification, labelling and packaging of chemicals (CLP), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-a-european-green-deal/file-revision-of-the-rules-on-classification-labelling-and-packaging-of-chemicals.

⁷⁷ Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality (European Climate Law), 2021 O.J. L 243/1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32021R1119.

⁷⁸ Regulation (EU) 2018/841 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions and removals from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF Regulation), 2018 O.J. L 156/1, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/841/oj.

⁷⁹ Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 Sept. 2009 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (Ozone Regulation), 2009 O.J. L 286/1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02009R1005-20170419.

⁸⁰ Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 Apr. 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases (F-Gas Regulation), 2014 O.J. L 150/195, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014R0517.

⁸¹ European Commission, The European Green Deal, COM(2019) 640 final (11 Dec. 2019), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2019:640:FIN.

⁸² Council of the European Union, Fit for 55 Package Overview, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/fit-for-55/.

⁸³ Supra note 77.

⁸⁴ European Commission, EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/biodiversity-strategy-2030_en.

⁸⁵ European Commission, Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability Towards a Toxic-Free Environment, https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/chemicals-strategy_en.

⁸⁶ European Commission, Farm to Fork Strategy, https://food.ec.europa.eu/horizontal-topics/farm-fork-strategy_en.

⁸⁷ European Commission, Zero Pollution Action Plan, https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/zero-pollution-action-plan_en.

⁸⁸ European Commission, EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child and the European Child Guarantee, https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/rights-child/eu-strategy-rights-child-and-european-child-guarantee_en.

⁸⁹ Commission Recommendation (EU) 2024/1238 of 23 Apr. 2024 on developing and strengthening integrated child protection systems in the best interests of the child, paras. 18(b), 66, 2024 O.J. L 2024/1238, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401238.

⁹⁰ Commission Recommendation (EU) 2024/1238 of 23 Apr. 2024 on developing and strengthening integrated child protection systems in the best interests of the child, para. 67, 2024 O.J. L 2024/1238, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401238.

⁹¹ European Commission, Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability, https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/chemicals-strategy_en; European Commission, REACH Regulation, https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/chemicals/reach-regulation_en.

⁹² European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation on the Safety of Toys, https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-regulation-safety-toys_en#files; European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), PFAS Restriction Proposal, https://echa.europa.eu/fr/-/echa-publishes-pfas-restriction-proposal.

⁹³ European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation on the Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products (repealing Directive 2009/128/EC), COM(2022) 305 final (22 June 2022), https://food.ec.europa.eu/document/download/61efcfd6-18e9-4875-aa66-4dc9bc5010ee_en?filename=pesticides_sud_eval_2022_reg_2022-305_en.pdf.

⁹⁴ Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 Dec. 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), 2006 O.J. L 396/1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02006R1907-20231201.

⁹⁵ See European Chemicals Agency, Investigation Report to Support the Commission on the Preparation of a Restriction Proposal for the Use and Presence of CMR 1A or 1B Substances in Childcare Articles Based on REACH Article 68(2), https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/17233/rest_cmrs_childcare_articles_investigation_report_com_en.pdf.

⁹⁶ Regulation (EU) 2024/2865 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 Dec. 2024 on [title not yet consolidated at EUR-Lex], 2024 O.J. L 2865, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2865/oj. =

⁹⁷ Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (Biocidal Products Regulation), 2012 O.J. L 167/1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02012R0528-20220415.

⁹⁸ Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 Oct. 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, 2009 O.J. L 309/1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02009R1107-20221121.

⁹⁹ Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 Oct. 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides, 2009 O.J. L 309/71, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02009L0128-20091125.

¹⁰⁰ Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the safety of toys (Toys Safety Directive), 2009 O.J. L 170/1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02009L0048-20221205.

¹⁰¹ European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the safety of toys and repealing Directive 2009/48/EC, https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-regulation-safety-toys_en.

¹⁰² Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 Feb. 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin, 2005 O.J. L 70/1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02005R0396-20231021.

¹⁰³ Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 Nov. 2009 on cosmetic products (Cosmetics Regulation), 2009 O.J. L 342/59, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02009R1223-20231201.

¹⁰⁴ Directive 94/33/EC of the Council of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work, 1994 O.J. L 216/12, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:01994L0033-20190726.

¹⁰⁵ Supra note 73.

¹⁰⁶ Philippe Grandjean, Impacts of PFAS on the Immune System, presentation at HEAL Webinar (Oct. 2024), https://www.env-health.org/heal-webinar-series-on-the-health-impacts-of-per-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas/; European Environmental Bureau (EEB), Chemical Evaluation: Achievements, Challenges and Recommendations After a Decade of REACH (Feb. 2019), https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Report-Substance-Evaluation-under-REACH.pdf.

¹⁰⁷ Supra notes 85, 91 and 70.

¹⁰⁸ See, for example, Philippe Grandjean & Esben Budtz-Jørgensen, Researchers Criticize Exposure Limits for PFAS, University of Southern Denmark, https://www.sdu.dk/en/nyheder/forskere-med-kritik-af-eu-graensevaerdier-for-pfas.

¹⁰⁹ See National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIH), Endocrine Disruptors — Fact Sheet, https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/endocrine/index.cfm.

¹¹⁰ See European Society of Endocrinology, Hormones in European Health Policies: ESE White Paper, https://www.ese-hormones.org/publications/directory/ese-white-paper/.

¹¹¹ Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 Jan. 2006 concerning the establishment of a European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register and amending Council Directives 91/689/EEC and 96/61/EC (E-PRTR Regulation), 2006 O.J. L 33/1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02006R0166-20200101; European Environment Agency (EEA), European Industrial Emissions Portal, https://industry.eea.europa.eu/#/home.

¹¹² Supra note 111.

¹¹³ Releases to air, water and land of any pollutant specified in Annex II for which the applicable threshold value specified in Annex II is exceeded.

¹¹⁴ Off-site transfers of hazardous waste exceeding 2 tonnes per year or of non-hazardous waste exceeding 2000 tonnes per year, for any operations of recovery or disposal with the exception of the disposal operations of land treatment and deep injection referred to in Article 6, indicating with ‘R’ or ‘D’ respectively whether the waste is destined for recovery or disposal and, for transboundary movements of hazardous waste, the name and address of the recoverer or the disposer of the waste and the actual recovery or disposal site.

¹¹⁵ Off-site transfers of any pollutant specified in Annex II in waste water destined for waste-water treatment for which the threshold value specified in Annex II, column 1b is exceeded.

¹¹⁶ The Commission, assisted by the European Environment Agency, shall include in the European PRTR information on releases from diffuse sources where such information exists and has already been reported by the Member States.

¹¹⁷ Supra note 111.

¹¹⁸ Directive (EU) 2024/1203 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 Apr. 2024 on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims (Green Claims Directive), 2024 O.J. L 1203, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1203/oj/eng.

¹¹⁹ European Commission, Proposal for a Directive on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law and Replacing Directive 2008/99/EC, ST 16069/2023 INIT (2023), https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-16069-2023-INIT/en/pdf.

¹²⁰ Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 Apr. 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (Environmental Liability Directive), 2004 O.J. L 143/56, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2004/35/oj/eng.

¹²¹ Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 Dec. 2022 as regards corporate sustainability reporting (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive), 2022 O.J. L 322/15, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022L2464; Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 Oct. 2014 as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups (Non-Financial Reporting Directive), 2014 O.J. L 330/1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014L0095.

¹²² Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 Nov. 2019 on sustainability‐related disclosures in the financial services sector (Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation), 2019 O.J. L 317/1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02019R2088-20240109.

¹²³ Regulation (EU) 2023/956 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 establishing a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM Regulation), 2023 O.J. L 130/52, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32023R0956.

¹²⁴ European Commission, EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) — Overview, https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-system-eu-ets_en.

¹²⁵ Sacchi et al. v. Argentina et al., Committee on the Rights of the Child, Decisions CRC/C/88/D/104/2019–CRC/C/88/D/108/2019 (8 Oct. 2021), https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g21/322/87/pdf/g2132287.pdf.; L. Bridget, "Sacchi et al v Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany and Turkey (United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child)," 36(9/10) Australian Environmental Review 201 (2022); B. Lewis, "Children's Human Rights-based Climate Litigation at the Frontiers of Environmental and Children's Rights," 39(2) Nordic Journal of Human Rights 180–203 (2021); M. Wewerinke-Singh, "Communication 104/2019 Chiara Sacci et al v. Argentina et al.," Case Note 2021/10, https://www.childrensrightsobservatory.nl/case-notes/casenote2021-10; Petitioners’ Communication to the CRC (2019), Sacchi et al. v. Argentina et al., https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/sacchi-et-al-v-argentina-et-al/. This Communication was submitted under Article 5 of the Third Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

¹²⁶ L. Bridget, "Sacchi et al v Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany and Turkey (United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child)," 36(9/10) Australian Environmental Review 201 (2022); B. Lewis, "Children's Human Rights-based Climate Litigation at the Frontiers of Environmental and Children's Rights," 39(2) Nordic Journal of Human Rights 180–203 (2021); M. Wewerinke-Singh, "Communication 104/2019 Chiara Sacchi et al v. Argentina et al.," Case Note 2021/10, https://www.childrensrightsobservatory.nl/case-notes/casenote2021-10.; L. Bridget, "Sacchi et al v Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany and Turkey (United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child)" (2022), 36(9/10) Australian Environmental Review 201-206, 201. See also: B. Lewis, "Children's Human Rights-based Climate Litigation at the Frontiers of Environmental and Children's Rights" (2021), 39(2) Nordic Journal of Human Rights 180, 180-203; and M. Wewerinke-Singh, "Communication 104/2019 Chiara Sacci et al v. Argentina et al" (2021), Case Note 2021/10, available at: https://www.childrensrightsobservatory.nl/case-notes/casenote2021-10.

¹²⁷ GlobeNewswire, "UN Committee on the Rights of the Child Turns Its Back on Climate Change Petition From Greta Thunberg and Children From Around the World," reporting statement of claimants’ lead counsel (Hausfeld), https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2021/10/12/2312125/27401/en/UN-Committee-on-the-Rights-of-the-Child-Turns-Its-Back-on-Climate-Change-Petition-From-Greta-Thunberg-and-Children-From-Around-the-World.html.

¹²⁸ Supra note 125, Sacchi et al., para 10.

¹²⁹ Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), Institutional Information Page, https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/institutions-and-bodies/search-all-eu-institutions-and-bodies/court-justice-european-union-cjeu_en (last visited 27 Mar. 2024).

¹³⁰ Court of Justice of the European Union, Homepage, https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_7024/en/ (last visited 27 Mar. 2024).

¹³¹ Ibid.

¹³² Ibid.

¹³³ European Union, Annulment — Glossary (EU Law), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/annulment.html (last visited 27 Mar. 2024).

¹³⁴ Ibid.

¹³⁵ Ibid.

¹³⁶ Ibid.

¹³⁷ Ibid.; TFEU, supra note 3, Art. 263 IV.

¹³⁸ Europa, supra note 133.

¹³⁹ TFEU, supra note 3, Art. 263.

¹⁴⁰ Judgment of the Court of 12 Nov. 1996, United Kingdom v Council, Case C-84/94, ECLI:EU:C:1996:431, para. 23, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61994CJ0084.

¹⁴¹ European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS), Action for Annulment of an EU Act, EPRS_BRI(2019)642282 (2019), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2019/642282/EPRS_BRI(2019)642282_EN.pdf (last visited 27 Mar. 2024).

¹⁴² Ibid.

¹⁴³ Judgment of the Court of 29 Oct. 1980, Van Landewyck and Others v Commission, Joined Cases 209/78, 210/78, 211/78, 212/78, 213/78, 214/78 & 215/78, ECLI:EU:C:1980:248, para. 47, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61978CJ0209.

¹⁴⁴ Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 Apr. 1983, Ragusa v Commission, Case 282/81, ECLI:EU:C:1983:105, para. 22, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61981CJ0282; EU, supra note 132.

¹⁴⁵ Ibid.

¹⁴⁶ Judgment of the Court of 30 Apr. 1974, Haegeman v Belgian State, Case 181/73, ECLI:EU:C:1974:41, para. 5, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61973CJ0181.

¹⁴⁷ Judgment of the Court of 12 Dec. 1972, International Fruit Company NV and Others v Produktschap voor Groenten en Fruit, Joined Cases 21–24/72, ECLI:EU:C:1972:115, paras. 6–7, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61972CJ0021.

¹⁴⁸ Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 Sept. 2008, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, Joined Cases C-402/05 P & C-415/05, ECLI:EU:C:2008:461, paras. 280–330, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62005CJ0402.

¹⁴⁹ Judgment of the Court of 14 May 1974, Nold KG v Commission, Case 4/73, ECLI:EU:C:1974:51, para. 13, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61973CJ0004.

¹⁵⁰ Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 11 Dec. 2003, Conserve Italia Soc. coop. rl v Commission, Case T-306/00, ECLI:EU:T:2003:339, paras. 127–151, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62000TJ0306.

¹⁵¹ Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 Sept. 2009, Commission v Koninklijke FrieslandCampina NV, Case C-519/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:556, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62007CA0519.

¹⁵² Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 June 2006, Kingdom of Belgium and Forum 187 ASBL v Commission, Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03, ECLI:EU:C:2006:416, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62003CJ0182.

¹⁵³ Kadi, supra note 148, para. 353; European Union, supra note 133.

¹⁵⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵⁵ Judgment of the Court of 7 Dec. 1976, Luigi Pellegrini & C. s.a.s. v Commission and Flexon Italia S.p.A., Case 23/76, ECLI:EU:C:1976:174, para. 30, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61976CJ0023.

¹⁵⁶ Commission v Daffix, Case C-166/95, ECLI:EU:C:1997:73, para. 24, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61995CJ0166; Salzgitter AG (formerly Preussag Stahl AG) v Commission and Germany, Case C-210/98 P, ECLI:EU:C:2000:397, para. 56, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61998CJ0210.

¹⁵⁷ Salzgitter AG (formerly Preussag Stahl AG) v Commission and Germany, Case C-367/95 P, ECLI:EU:C:2016:149, para. 67, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=174928&doclang=EN.

¹⁵⁸ TFEU, supra note 3, Art. 264; European Union, supra note 133.

¹⁵⁹ TFEU, supra note 3, Art. 264; European Parliament v Council, Case C-166/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:499, paras. 73–75, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62007CJ0166.

¹⁶⁰ European Union, supra note 133.

¹⁶¹ Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 & 14), ETS No. 5 (1950).

¹⁶² European Court of Human Rights, The ECHR in 50 Questions (2021), https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/50Questions_ENG (last visited 27 Mar. 2024).

¹⁶³ Ibid.

¹⁶⁴ Ibid.

¹⁶⁵ Ibid.

¹⁶⁶ European Court of Human Rights, Questions & Answers (2018), https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Questions_Answers_ENG (last visited 27 Mar. 2024).

¹⁶⁷ European Court of Human Rights, Factsheet — Climate Change (2024), https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/fs_climate_change_eng (last visited 27 Mar. 2024).

¹⁶⁸ David Browne, Simons on Planning Law (3d ed., Round Hall 2021), pp. 17–54.

¹⁶⁹ Ibid.

¹⁷⁰ Atanasov v Bulgaria, App. No. 12853/03 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2010), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-101958%22]} ; Browne, supra note 167, p. 17-55.

¹⁷¹ Browne, supra note 163, p. 17-55.

¹⁷² Hatton v United Kingdom, 37 Eur. Ct. H.R. 28 at para. 122 (2003), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-61188%22]} ; Browne, supra note 168, p. 17-56.

¹⁷³ Ibid., p. 17-57.

¹⁷⁴ Ibid., 17-58.

¹⁷⁵ Fadeyeva v Russia, 45 Eur. Ct. H.R. 10 (2005) [hereinafter * Fadeyeva *], https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-69315%22]} ; Browne, supra note 168, p. 17-57.

¹⁷⁶ Hardy and Maile v United Kingdom, 55 Eur. Ct. H.R. 28, at para. 261 (2012), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-109072%22]} ; Browne, supra note 168, p. 17-59.

¹⁷⁷ Ibid., 17-76.

¹⁷⁸ Grimkovskaya v Ukraine, App. No. 38182/03 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2011), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-105746%22]}.

¹⁷⁹ Duarte Agostinho and Others v Portugal and 32 Other States, App. No. 39371/20 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2023), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng/#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-14303%22]}.

¹⁸⁰ Ibid.

¹⁸¹ Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland, App. No. 53600/20 (Eur. Ct. H.R.), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-233206.

¹⁸² Ibid.

¹⁸³ Ibid., paras. 502, 524-526.

¹⁸⁴ Carême v France, App. No. 7189/21 (Eur. Ct. H.R.), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-233174%22]}.

¹⁸⁵ European Union, supra note 133.

¹⁸⁶ Ibid.

¹⁸⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸⁸ Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, OJ L 265, 29 Sept. 2012, pp. 1–42, arts. 51 and 52, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:265:0001:0042:en:PDF.

¹⁸⁹ TFEU, supra note 3, Arts. 265 III and 263 IV; European Union, supra note 133.

¹⁹⁰ European Union, Actions for Failure to Act, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:actions_for_failure_to_act (last visited 27 Mar. 2024).

¹⁹¹ Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 June 2004, Front National v European Parliament, Case C-486/01 P, ECLI:EU:C:2004:394, paras. 34–43, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62001CJ0486.

¹⁹² Judgment of the Court of 13 May 1971, International Fruit Company NV and Others v Commission, Joined Cases 41–44/70, ECLI:EU:C:1971:53, paras. 23–28, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61970CJ0041.

¹⁹³ European Union, supra note 133.

¹⁹⁴ Judgment of the Court of 15 July 1963, Plaumann & Co. v Commission, Case 25/62, ECLI:EU:C:1963:17, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61962CJ0025.

¹⁹⁵ European Union, supra note 133.

¹⁹⁶ Order of the General Court of 6 Sept. 2011, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v European Parliament and Council, Case T-18/10, para. 56; Camilla Buchanan, “Long-Awaited Guidance on the Meaning of ‘Regulatory Act’ for Locus Standi Under the Lisbon Treaty,” 3 European Journal of Risk Regulation 115 (2012); Camilla Buchanan, at 122.

¹⁹⁷ Ibid., p. 120.

¹⁹⁸ European Court of Human Rights, The Admissibility of an Application (2015), available here.

¹⁹⁹ Humane Being and Others v the United Kingdom, App. No. 36959/22 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2022), https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/factory-farming-v-uk/.

²⁰⁰ Plan B. Earth and Others v the United Kingdom, App. No. 35057/22 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2022), https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/plan-bearth-and-others-v-united-kingdom/.

²⁰¹ Supra note 27.

²⁰² Ibid., pp. 19-20.

²⁰³ Supra note 25.

²⁰⁴ Supra note 27, p. 20.

²⁰⁵ Ibid. Ibid. See also EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, art. 24, which also underlines children as right holders by affirming “the right of children to protection and care as is necessary for their well-being”.

²⁰⁶ Council of Europe, Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers on Child-Friendly Justice (2011), https://rm.coe.int/16804b2cf3 (last accessed 27 Mar. 2024).

²⁰⁷ Ibid., p. 27.

²⁰⁸ Ibid., p. 28.

²⁰⁹ Ibid.

²¹⁰ Francesca Ippolito, Children’s Environmental Rights Under International and EU Law: The Changing Face of Fundamental Rights in Pursuit of Ecocentrism (Springer, 2023), p. 255.

²¹¹ Ibid.

²¹² Ibid.

²¹³ Outcomes of the 28th Meeting of the Working Group of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention (2024), https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2024-07/WGP-28_List_of_decisions_outcomes.pdf.

²¹⁴ Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018, Case C-150/17 P, Laboratoires pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA and Goupil v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2018:1014, para. 117; Judgment of the Court of 4 July 2000, Case C-352/98 P, Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2000:361, paras. 39–42.

²¹⁵ Judgment of the Court of 9 September 1999, Case C-257/98 P, Lucaccioni v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1999:402, paras. 63–64; Judgment of the Court of 15 June 2000, Case C-237/98 P, Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH v Council and Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2000:321, para. 54.

²¹⁶ Judgment of the Court of 19 April 2007, Case C-282/05 P, Holcim (Deutschland) AG v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2007:226, para. 50, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62005CJ0282 ; Judgment of the Court of 30 May 2017 (Grand Chamber), Case C-45/15 P, Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. v Council, ECLI:EU:C:2017:402, para. 30, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62015CJ0045.

²¹⁷ Roche v United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H.R., App. No. 32555/96 (2005), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-70662.

²¹⁸ Vilnes and Others v Norway, Eur. Ct. H.R., Apps. Nos. 52806/09 and 22703/10 (2014), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-138597 ; see also Guerra and Others v Italy, Eur. Ct. H.R., App. No. 116/1996/735/932 (1998), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58135.

²¹⁹ Brincat and Others v Malta, Eur. Ct. H.R., Apps. Nos. 60908/11, 62110/11, 62129/11, 62312/11 and 62338/11 (2014), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-145790.

²²⁰ Lopez Ostra v Spain, Eur. Ct. H.R., App. No. 16798/90 (1994), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57905.

²²¹ Fadeyeva v Russia, supra note 175.

²²² Ibid.

²²³ Smaltini v Italy, Eur. Ct. H.R., App. No. 43961/09 (2015), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-153980.

²²⁴ Calancea and Others v Moldova, Eur. Ct. H.R., App. No. 23225/05 (2018), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-196346.

²²⁵ Supra note 213.

²²⁶ Supra note 133.

²²⁷ Supra note 162.

²²⁸ Actions for failure to act, Europa, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:actions_for_failure_to_act.

²²⁹ Supra note 133.

²³⁰ Supra note 162.

²³¹ Howald Moor and Others v Switzerland, Eur. Ct. H.R. Application No. 52067/10 and 41072/11 (2014), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-141952%22]}.

²³² Supra note 213.

²³³ Supra note 13.

²³⁴ Ibid.

²³⁵ Supra note 160.

²³⁶ Supra note 3.

²³⁷ Council Directive 2002/8/EC of 27 January 2003 to improve access to justice in cross-border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes, 2003 O.J. L 26/41–47, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32003L0008.

²³⁸ Steven Gibens, Bernard Hubeau & Stefan Rutten, Global Access to Justice Project: Belgium, https://globalaccesstojustice.com/global-overview-belgium/.

²³⁹ Andrew Field, Ronan Deegan & John Scanlon, Global Access to Justice Project: Ireland, https://globalaccesstojustice.com/global-overview-ireland/.

²⁴⁰ Susanne Peters, Global Access to Justice Project: the Netherlands, https://globalaccesstojustice.com/global-overview-netherlands/.

²⁴¹ European Justice, Legal aid in Spain, https://e-justice.europa.eu/topics/taking-legal-action/legal-aid/es_en.

²⁴² European Justice, Legal aid in Italy, https://e-justice.europa.eu/topics/taking-legal-action/legal-aid/it_en.

²⁴³ European Justice, Legal aid in France, https://e-justice.europa.eu/topics/taking-legal-action/legal-aid/fr_en.

²⁴⁴ Supra note 213.

²⁴⁵ Supra note 129.

²⁴⁶ Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 Sept. 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention to Community institutions and bodies (Aarhus Regulation), 2006 O.J. L 264/13, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02006R1367-20230429; Supra note 13.

²⁴⁷ Ibid.

²⁴⁸ Ibid.

²⁴⁹ Ibid.

²⁵⁰ Ibid.

²⁵¹ Further information regarding the Court’s practice in relation to public access to environmental information is available at: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-05/fiche_thematique_-_environnement_-_en.pdf.

²⁵² Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Case C-873/19, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 November 2022, ECLI:EU:C:2022:857, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=267751&doclang=EN.

²⁵³ See Commission v Slovakia (Habitats and Birds Directives infringement), Case C-331/16, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 4 October 2018, for failure to comply with Council Directive 92/43/EEC and Directive 2009/147/EC, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=261463&doclang=EN; see Commission v Italy (Air Quality Directive infringement), Case C-644/18, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 10 November 2020, for failure to comply with Directive 2008/50/EC, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=233482&doclang=EN.

²⁵⁴ Case T-33/16, TestBioTech eV v European Commission, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=200243&doclang=EN.

²⁵⁵ European Environment Agency (EEA), https://www.eea.europa.eu/en.

²⁵⁶ European Environment Information and Observation Network (EIONET), https://www.eionet.europa.eu/.

²⁵⁷ Supra note 73.

²⁵⁸ Supra note 74.

²⁵⁹ Supra note 97.

²⁶⁰ Regulation (EU) No 649/2012, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02012R0649-20231101.

²⁶¹ European Ombudsman, https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/home.

²⁶² European Ombudsman (EU body), https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/institutions-and-bodies/search-all-eu-institutions-and-bodies/european-ombudsman_en.

²⁶³ Ibid.

²⁶⁴ Ibid.

²⁶⁵ Ibid.

²⁶⁶ Ibid.

²⁶⁷ Ibid.

²⁶⁸ European Commission, Legal enforcement, https://environment.ec.europa.eu/law-and-governance/legal-enforcement_en.

²⁶⁹ Ibid.

²⁷⁰ Ibid.

²⁷¹ Ibid.

²⁷² Christian Democratic People’s Party v. Moldova, Eur. Ct. H.R., Application No. 28793/02 (2006), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-72346.

²⁷³ Supra note 25.

²⁷⁴ Supra note 27.

²⁷⁵ Jonathan Day, Restrictions on Peaceful Protest Intensified: Trend Analysis (Liberties, 2024), https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/rolreport2024-protestbans/45017.

²⁷⁶ Restrictions on Peaceful Protest Intensified: Report, https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/rolreport2024-protestbans/45017.

²⁷⁷ Ibid.

²⁷⁸ German police have long collaborated with energy giant RWE to enforce ecological catastrophe, The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/german-police-have-long-collaborated-with-energy-giant-rwe-to-enforce-ecological-catastrophe-198095.

²⁷⁹ Katharina Wecker, Hambach in shock after journalist’s death (DW 2018), https://www.dw.com/en/stillness-and-shock-in-hambach-forest-after-journalist-dies/a-45579629.

²⁸⁰ Fridays for Future, https://fridaysforfuture.org [accessed March 2025].

²⁸¹ Marthe de Ferrer, “I turned 17 in my prison cell”: Meet climate activist Blue Sandford (Euronews, 2020), https://www.euronews.com/green/2020/10/19/i-turned-17-in-my-prison-cell-meet-the-author-of-extinction-rebellion-s-latest-book.

²⁸² Directive (EU) 2024/1069 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings (Strategic lawsuits against public participation), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1069/oj.

²⁸³ Ibid.

²⁸⁴ Ibid.

²⁸⁵ Ibid.

²⁸⁶ Supra note 25.

²⁸⁷ UNICEF, Four principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (2019), https://www.unicef.org/armenia/en/stories/four-principles-convention-rights-child.

²⁸⁸ Ibid.

²⁸⁹ Ibid.

²⁹⁰ Ibid.

²⁹¹ Ibid.

²⁹² Supra note 2.

²⁹³ Supra note 3.

²⁹⁴ Ibid.

²⁹⁵ Ibid.

²⁹⁶ Ibid.

²⁹⁷ Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 of 25 June 2019 on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast), 2019 O.J. L 178/1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELLAR:524570fa-9c9a-11e9-9d01-01aa75ed71a1.

²⁹⁸ Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)2 to member States on the participation of children and young people under the age of 18 (adopted 28 Mar. 2012), https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805cb0ca.

²⁹⁹ Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child, COM(2021) 142 final, 24 March 2021, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:e769a102-8d88-11eb-b85c-01aa75ed71a1.0002.02/DOC_1&format=PDF.

³⁰⁰ Child participation in political and democratic life (Thematic Area 1 of the EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child), https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/rights-child/child-participation-political-and-democratic-life_en.

³⁰¹ See Commission Recommendation (EU) 2024/1238 of 23 April 2024 on developing and strengthening integrated child protection systems in the best interests of the child, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401238, which is based on the continuous assessment of the EU Strategy on the rights of the child implementation.

³⁰² Humpert and Others v. Germany, Eur. Ct. H.R., Applications Nos. 59433/18, 59477/18, 59481/18 and 59494/18 (2023), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-229726%22]}.

³⁰³ Folgerø and Others v. Norway, Eur. Ct. H.R., Application No. 15472/02 (2007), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-81356%22]}.

³⁰⁴ Sahin v. Germany, Eur. Ct. H.R., Application No. 30943/96 (2003), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-61194%22]}.

³⁰⁵ Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation), 2016 O.J. L 119/1, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj.

³⁰⁶ Directive (EU) 2018/1808 amending Directive 2010/13/EU (Audiovisual Media Services Directive), 2018 O.J. L 303/69, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/1808/oj.

³⁰⁷ Regulation (EU) 2024/1183 amending Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 as regards establishing the European Digital Identity Framework, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1183/oj.

³⁰⁸ European Parliament, Protection of minors, 2025/2060(INI), https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/en/procedure-file?reference=2025/2060(INI); European Parliament Press Room, New EU measures needed to make online services safer for minors, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20251013IPR30892/new-eu-measures-needed-to-make-online-services-safer-for-minors.

³⁰⁹ OECD Recommendation on Children in the Digital Environment, OECD/LEGAL/0488 (2022), https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0488.

³¹⁰ euCONSENT Project, https://euconsent.eu/.

³¹¹ European Commission, Special group on the EU Code of conduct on age-appropriate design, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/group-age-appropriate-design; Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), Age-appropriate design: a code of practice for online services, https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/childrens-information/childrens-code-guidance-and-resources/age-appropriate-design-a-code-of-practice-for-online-services/.

³¹² European Commission, European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles (Digital Principles), https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-principles; European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation laying down rules to prevent and combat child sexual abuse, COM(2022) 209 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52022PC0209.

³¹³ European Commission, Children’s participation in government decisions across the European Union, https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2021-02/accessible_version_of_child_participation_report_final_10.02.2021_v0.3.pdf.

³¹⁴ Ibid.

³¹⁵ Ibid.

³¹⁶ Ibid.

³¹⁷ Ibid.

³¹⁸ Supra notes 161 and 3.

³¹⁹ Supra note 27.

³²⁰ European Commission, EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child, https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2021-09/ds0821040enn_002.pdf (last accessed 7 May 2023).

³²¹ Supra note 3.

³²² Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)2 to member States on the participation of children and young people under the age of 18 (adopted 28 Mar. 2012), https://rm.coe.int/09000016805cb0ca.

³²³ Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)2 to member States on the participation of children and young people under the age of 18 (adopted 28 Mar. 2012), https://rm.coe.int/09000016805cb0ca; Council of Europe, Strategy for the Rights of the Child (2022–2027), p. 39, https://rm.coe.int/council-of-europe-strategy-for-the-rights-of-the-child-2022-2027-child/1680a5ef27.

³²⁴ Ibid, p.30.

³²⁵ Supra note 272, para. 74.

³²⁶ Supra note 3.

³²⁷ Ibid.

³²⁸ Ibid.

³²⁹ Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v Spain, App. No. 62543/00 (Eur. Ct. H.R., 27 Apr. 2004), para. 38, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#%7B%22itemid%22:[%22001-61731%22]%7D.

³³⁰ Written Observations on behalf of the Applicants in App. No. 34068/21, Greenpeace Nordic and Others v Norway, pp. 19–20, https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/non-us-case-documents/2022/20220629_Application-no.-3406821_reply.pdf (Written Observations on behalf of the Applicants in App No 34068/21).

³³¹ Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC, 2003 OJ L 41, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32003L0004.

³³² Supra note 12.

³³³ United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), Content of the Convention, https://unece.org/environment-policy/public-participation/aarhus-convention/content.

³³⁴ Supra note 12.

³³⁵ Supra note 12.

³³⁶ UNECE, Outcomes of the 8th meeting of the Task Force on Access to Information under the Aarhus Convention and International Workshop on Access to Product Information (2023), https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2023-11/8TFAI_KeyOutcomes_inf.3_fnl.pdf.

³³⁷ Supra note 331.

³³⁸ European Commission, Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Experience Gained in the Application of Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information, COM(2012) 774 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52012DC0774.

³³⁹ Supra note 331.

³⁴⁰ Ibid.

³⁴¹ Ibid.

³⁴² European Environment Agency, Access to environmental information: key elements and good practices (2016), https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/92-9167-020-0/page007.html (last accessed 27 March 2024).

³⁴³ Supra note 331.

³⁴⁴ Supra note 331.

³⁴⁵ European Commission, Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the experience gained in the application of Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information, COM(2012) 774 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52012DC0774.

³⁴⁶ Ibid.

³⁴⁷ Ibid.

³⁴⁸ Supra note 331.

³⁴⁹ European Environment Agency, Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS), https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/audiovisuals/shared-environmental-information-system-seis.

³⁵⁰ Ibid.

³⁵¹ United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), Draft updated Recommendations on the more effective use of electronic information tools, ECE/MP.PP/2021/2/Add.2, https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-05/ECE_MP.PP_2021_2_Add.2_E.pdf.

³⁵² European Environment Information and Observation Network (EIONET), https://www.eionet.europa.eu/ (last accessed 27 March 2024).

³⁵³ EIS-Data, Promotion of best practices for national environmental information systems and tools for data harvesting at EU level (2016), https://eis-data.eu/ (last accessed 27 March 2024).

³⁵⁴ Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 (General Data Protection Regulation), 2016 OJ L 119, Art. 8, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj.

³⁵⁵ euCONSENT, Digital Age of Consent under the GDPR (2021), https://euconsent.eu/digital-age-of-consent-under-the-gdpr/ (last accessed 27 March 2024).

³⁵⁶ Supra note 25.

³⁵⁷ Supra note 26.

³⁵⁸ Ibid.

³⁵⁹ European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Proposal for a Council Recommendation on learning for environmental sustainability, COM(2022) 11 final (2022), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022DC0011; European Commission, Learning for the green transition and sustainable development (2022), https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/db585fc7-ed6e-11ec-a534-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/; Council of the European Union, Council adopts recommendation to stimulate learning for the green transition and sustainable development (2022), https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/06/16/council-adopts-recommendation-to-stimulate-learning-for-the-green-transition/.

³⁶⁰ UNECE, Outcomes of the 8th meeting of the Task Force on Access to Information under the Aarhus Convention and International Workshop on Access to Product Information, https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2023-11/8TFAI_KeyOutcomes_inf.3_fnl.pdf.

³⁶¹ Education for Climate Day, https://land.oce.global/en/news/education-climate-day.

³⁶² Ibid.

³⁶³ Available at: https://land.oce.global/en/news/education-climate-day.

³⁶⁴ Ibid.

³⁶⁵ European School Education Platform, European Commission (2024), https://school-education.ec.europa.eu/en (last accessed 27 March 2024).

³⁶⁶ eTwinning, European Commission (2022), https://school-education.ec.europa.eu/en/etwinning (last accessed 27 March 2024).

³⁶⁷ European Commission, Learning Corner, https://learning-corner.learning.europa.eu/index_en.

³⁶⁸ Ibid.

³⁶⁹ ENFO Kids, Ask about Ireland (2011), https://www.askaboutireland.ie/learning-zone/primary-students/enfo-kids/ (last accessed 27 March 2024).

³⁷⁰ Supra note 2.

³⁷¹ Supra note 3; Council of Europe, Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, https://www.coe.int/en/web/echr-toolkit/protocole-1.

³⁷² Supra note 3.

³⁷³ European Court of Human Rights, Application no. 126/05, 22 May 2012, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-111044.

³⁷⁴ European Court of Human Rights, Application no. 29411/07, 17 September 2013, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-126350%22]}.

³⁷⁵ European Court of Human Rights, Application no. 19565/15.

³⁷⁶ European Court of Human Rights, Application no. 14581/20 (2022), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-13921%22]}.

³⁷⁷ European Court of Human Rights, Application no. 74025/01, 6 October 2005, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-3706%22]}.

³⁷⁸ Rafał Mańko, Voting age for European elections, European Parliament (2023), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2023/749767/EPRS_ATA(2023)749767_EN.pdf.

³⁷⁹ European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Children’s right to vote, http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2017/mapping-minimum-age-requirements/childrens-right-vote.

³⁸⁰ Ibid.

³⁸¹ Council of Europe, European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/pages/?p=01_presentation.

³⁸² M. Lazarova Trajkovska, Report on the abolition of restrictions on the right to vote in general elections, CDL-AD(2005)011-e, Venice Commission; see also Council of Europe, Commissioner for Human Rights, Boosting child and youth participation – from voice to choice (2021), https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17364&lang=EN.

³⁸³ Stop Ecocide Foundation, Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide (2021), p. 9, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ca2608ab914493c64ef1f6d/t/60d1e6e604fae2201d03407f/1624368879048/SE+Foundation+Commentary+and+core+text+rev+6.pdf.

³⁸⁴ Ibid.

³⁸⁵ Ibid.

³⁸⁶ Ibid.

³⁸⁷ Ibid.

³⁸⁸ Ibid.

³⁸⁹ France, Loi n° 2021-1104 du 22 août 2021 portant lutte contre le dérèglement climatique et renforcement de la résilience face à ses effets, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/download/pdf?id=x7Gc7Ys-Z3hzgxO5KgI0zSu1fmt64dDetDQxhvJZNMc= (in French).

³⁹⁰ Ibid.

³⁹¹ Ibid.

³⁹² Ibid.

³⁹³ Stop Ecocide International, France Writes Ecocide Into Law, In 2 Ways, https://www.stopecocide.earth/press-releases-summary/france-writes-ecocide-into-law-in-two-ways (last accessed 7 May 2024).

³⁹⁴ Stop Ecocide, Recognition of the crime of ecocide in France, https://www.stopecocide.earth/france.

³⁹⁵ Belgian Chamber of Representatives, Bill concerning the recognition of the crime of ecocide, dossier no. 3518, https://www.lachambre.be/kvvcr/showpage.cfm?section=/flwb&language=fr&cfm=/site/wwwcfm/flwb/flwbn.cfm?lang=F&legislat=55&dossierID=3518.

³⁹⁶ Ibid.

³⁹⁷ Ibid.

³⁹⁸ Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the protection of the environment through criminal law, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0099.

³⁹⁹ Directive (EU) 2024/1203 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on the protection of the environment through criminal law, repealing Directive 2008/99/EC, OJ L 132, 3.5.2024, p. 1–38, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1203/oj.

⁴⁰⁰ European Commission, Commission welcomes political agreement on protecting the environment through criminal law, Press Release, 27 November 2023, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_5817.

⁴⁰¹ European Commission, Commission welcomes political agreement on protecting the environment through criminal law, Press Release, 27 November 2023, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_5817.

⁴⁰² Directive (EU) 2024/1203 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on the protection of the environment through criminal law, repealing Directive 2008/99/EC, OJ L 132, 3.5.2024, p. 1–38, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1203/oj.

⁴⁰³ Ibid.

⁴⁰⁴ European Parliament, Environmental crimes: MEPs adopt extended list of offences and sanctions, Press Release, 27 February 2024, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20240223IPR18075/environmental-crimes-meps-adopt-extended-list-of-offences-and-sanctions.

⁴⁰⁵ Ibid.

⁴⁰⁶ Directive (EU) 2024/1203, supra note 402.

⁴⁰⁷ Ibid.

⁴⁰⁸ Ibid.

⁴⁰⁹ Ibid.

⁴¹⁰ Ibid.

⁴¹¹ TFEU, Supra note 3.

⁴¹² Ibid., Article 191(1).

⁴¹³ Francesca Ippolito, Children’s Environmental Rights under EU and International Law (T.M.C. Asser Press, 2022), p. 30; TFEU, supra note 3.

⁴¹⁴ TFEU, supra note 3.

⁴¹⁵ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Art. 2, https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf (last visited 27 Mar. 2024).

⁴¹⁶ Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol.

⁴¹⁷ Paris Agreement under the UNFCCC, https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/paris-agreement.

⁴¹⁸ Ippolito, supra note 413, p.30.

⁴¹⁹ TFEU, supra note 3, Art. 37.

⁴²⁰ European Commission, EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives, COM(2020) 380 final, June 2021, para. 143, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0380.

⁴²¹ Supra note 13.

⁴²² European Commission, EU–Singapore Agreements, available at: https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/singapore/eu-singapore-agreements_en.

⁴²³ Opinion 2/15 of the Court (Full Court), 16 May 2017, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62015CV0002(01).

⁴²⁴ Ibid, para 143.

⁴²⁵ The CDDH has been instructed by the Committee of Ministers inviting the CDDH to “prepare a report on the need for and feasibility of a further instrument or instruments on human rights and the environment, bearing in mind Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Recommendation 2211 (2021), Anchoring the right to a healthy environment: need for enhanced action by the Council of Europe, https://pace.coe.int/en/files/29501/html; Council of Europe, CDDH, Study on the need for and feasibility of a further instrument or instruments in the field of human rights and the environment (finalised Nov. 2024), https://rm.coe.int/steering-committee-for-human-rights-cddh-cddh-study-on-the-need-for-an/1680b2b196.

⁴²⁶ Council of Europe, Reykjavík Declaration, 16–17 May 2023, Appendix V, The Council of Europe and the environment, p. 21, available at: https://rm.coe.int/4th-summit-of-heads-of-state-and-government-of-the-council-of-europe/1680ab40c1.

⁴²⁷ Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Resolution 2545 (2024), available at: https://pace.coe.int/en/files/33520/html.

⁴²⁸ Healthy Environment Europe campaign website, https://healthyenvironmenteurope.com/.

⁴²⁹ This argument is developed in F. Ippolito, Children’s Environmental Rights under EU and International Law (1st ed., T.M.C. Asser Press, 2022), supra note 413.

⁴³⁰ Di Sarno and Others v. Italy, App. No. 30765/08, Judgment of 10 January 2012, para. 109, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-108480.

⁴³¹ Id, para 107.

⁴³² Taşkın and Others v. Turkey, App. No. 46117/99, Judgment of 10 Nov. 2004, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-67401; Tătar v. Romania, App. No. 67021/01, Judgment of 27 Jan. 2009, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-83052.

⁴³³ Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, App. No. 53600/20, Judgment of 9 April 2024, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-233206.

⁴³⁴ Swiss parliament spurns European climate ruling, Reuters, 12 June 2024, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/why-does-switzerlands-rebuff-european-climate-ruling-matter-2024-06-12/.

⁴³⁵ Carême v. France, App. No. 7189/21, Judgment of 9 April 2024, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-233174.

⁴³⁶ Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and Others, App. No. 39371/20, Judgment of 9 April 2024, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-233261.

⁴³⁷ Hatton, supra note 172, para 96.

⁴³⁸ Id, paras. 1 & 5 (Dissenting Opinions of Judges Costa, Ress, Türmen, Zupančič & Steiner).

⁴³⁹ Tyrer v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 25 April 1978, § 31, Ser. A no. 26, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57587.

⁴⁴⁰ European Parliament, A Universal Right to a Healthy Environment, 2021, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2021/698846/EPRS_ATA(2021)698846_EN.pdf.

⁴⁴¹ Ibid.

⁴⁴² United Nations, UN Charter, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter.

⁴⁴³ Ibid.

⁴⁴⁴ International Court of Justice, Advisory Jurisdiction, https://www.icj-cij.org/advisory-jurisdiction.

⁴⁴⁵ Request for an Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States with Respect to Climate Change, https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/request-for-an-advisory-opinion-on-the-obligations-of-states-with-respect-to-climate-change/.

⁴⁴⁶ Ibid.

⁴⁴⁷ Ibid.

⁴⁴⁸ World’s Youth for Climate Justice, Written Statement – Legal Memorandum (22 March 2024), p. 3, https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/non-us-case-documents/2024/20240322_18913_na-6.pdf.

⁴⁴⁹ Our Children’s Trust, Amicus Curiae Submission (21 March 2024), p. 2, https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/non-us-case-documents/2024/20240321_18913_na-1.pdf.

⁴⁵⁰ International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with respect to Activities in the Area (Advisory Opinion, 2011), https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_17/17_adv_op_010211_en.pdf.

⁴⁵¹ Ibid, p 68.

⁴⁵² Ibid, p 69.

⁴⁵³ International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC) (2015), p. 64, https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no.21/advisory_opinion_published/2015_21-advop-E.pdf.

⁴⁵⁴ United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf.

⁴⁵⁵ International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Request for an Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and International Law (2024), https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/31/Advisory_Opinion/C31_Adv_Op_21.05.2024_orig.pdf.

⁴⁵⁶ Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion on the Climate Emergency and Human Rights (proceedings initiated 2023), https://www.justiceinitiative.org/litigation/iachr-advisory-opinion-on-climate-emergency-and-human-rights.

⁴⁵⁷ Center for International Environmental Law, The Inter-American Court of Human Rights Must Prioritize Corporate Accountability in Climate Opinion (18 April 2024), https://www.ciel.org/inter-american-court-hr-hearings/.

< Back to country reports