Civil society, led by young people, is mobilizing at courts to demand action against the escalating climate crisis. A month ago, a group of students in Montana achieved a historic win in a state court, prompting officials to strengthen climate protections. Now, Europe faces a similar challenge as the European Court of Human Rights begins reviewing a petition filed by six Portuguese youths against 32 governments, including Spain. They contend that the states have not done enough to curb global warming.
According to Grand Chamber President Siofra O’Leary, the case centers on how climate change affects the plaintiffs’ lives and health, with heatwaves and wildfires cited as concrete consequences of rising temperatures. The lawsuit runs parallel to other climate justice actions sparked by large forest fires in Portugal in 2017 that claimed more than a hundred lives.
They condemn governments’ inaction on climate change. The plaintiffs range from 11 to 24 years old and say they are directly affected, worrying about their health and facing other illnesses linked to the climate crisis.
Violation of the right to life
Some complainants report allergies and breathing difficulties, arguing that their conditions will worsen if the planet continues to warm, both during fires and in their aftermath.
“European governments do not protect us,” commented a 15-year-old plaintiff, emphasizing the stakes of the argument.
Because of the gravity of the situation, the youth advocates accuse 27 EU members plus Russia, Turkey, Switzerland, Norway, and the United Kingdom of failing to limit greenhouse gas emissions despite scientific evidence. Legally, they argue that this inaction breaches Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which safeguard the right to life and the right to private and family life.
“European governments are not protecting us,” echoed another youth plaintiff.
More than 80 lawyers from the states named attended the hearing, with Russia choosing not to participate. Ukraine was initially included but was removed after the conflict began.
The European Court of Human Rights classified the matter as a priority and referred it to the Grand Chamber, the court’s top body, comprising 17 judges.
Condemned countries defend their stance
The governments argue that the ECHR should act only after national courts have exhausted remedies. The youths went directly to the European court, bypassing national courts, a point the defendants contest.
Portugal’s representative, Ricardo Matos, asserted that the youths did not prove themselves to be direct victims and argued that mere predictions are insufficient.
Direct victim status contested
The complainants say pursuing separate suits in all 32 countries would be excessive and disproportionate given the urgency of the climate issue. Lawyers for the six youths rejected these criticisms, calling them a typical governmental tactic in climate cases.
There is a recurring theme: governments are accused of avoiding scrutiny over climate policy by focusing on admissibility criteria instead of substantive action. A Global Legal Action Network spokesperson emphasized that the court could be urged to find that these 32 states violated the youths’ rights, potentially yielding a binding ruling that compels policy changes and significant emission cuts.
Experts expect the court’s decision about accepting the case to take several months. Historically, the court has issued environmental rulings on disasters or pollution, but not yet a broad ruling on global warming. Activists hope this case marks a turning point in using human rights law to compel states to act on climate change.
Montana as a precedent
The Montana decision from August found fault with state authorities for permitting fossil fuel development without adequately considering climate impacts, arguing that this violated the rights to a clean and healthy environment. The ruling declared certain permit processes unconstitutional and established a legal duty for state agencies to assess the climate implications of emissions from fossil fuels.
The court described Montana’s emissions and climate change as a substantial factor in climate-related harms to youth and the state’s environment. It underscored the potential of human rights law to drive stronger action by states and corporations on climate policy.
Analysts noted that this decision reflects a broader trend in which courts increasingly view climate protection as a human rights issue. While the Montana ruling stands as a notable milestone, many observers expect the path ahead to involve further legal challenges and policy reforms aimed at aligning emissions with health and environmental safeguards.
As the legal process unfolds, the outcomes in both the European case and U.S. state decisions continue to shape the conversation about accountability and climate responsibility across jurisdictions.