CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECGRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 9 avril 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s45467685 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s8565C3AF { margin:8pt 28.35pt 3pt 17pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sFB48221D { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; color:#000000 } .sF13A94BC { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 34pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s67EF6F4D { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000 } .s30612871 { width:10.89pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s3F015572 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 51pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s67F06EFC { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#000000 } .sBB86AD60 { width:7.55pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .sC0FFF6FB { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 68.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s3111C198 { width:8.66pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s6590E94B { width:7.83pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s758281A9 { width:3.1pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .sF5B60BAC { width:7pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s9D09E579 { width:4.78pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s70E0A597 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 85.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s80769392 { width:5.34pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s79DA0BA4 { width:7.56pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .sC911D127 { width:8.12pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s78B5A895 { width:8.11pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s119C1441 { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s99272BBB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE32676A2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sF7177B22 { width:0.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF51428C6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt } .s2FA28896 { margin-left:8.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD8E89A4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8BF9F9FB { width:7.06pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDEA351A4 { width:7.61pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .s9CC3BE06 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial } .s48D26664 { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold } .s507990D1 { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9CB9BE2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3F0D5878 { width:5.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .s9A6E8000 { width:6.34pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6E1314E3 { width:11.79pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9D70BD0D { width:23.87pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s6544C75E { width:141.09pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s4976957A { width:9.2pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s2FE5D01B { width:139.76pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s8B8C7EEB { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s590A3EF4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7FAB50FD { width:9.84pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sAB3DA175 { margin-left:69.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s84DC20D0 { font-variant:small-caps } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal } .sB3AB582E { font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s50ACA1FA { margin-left:69.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sB48A7938 { width:9.84pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .sE753755A { margin-left:68.17pt; padding-left:3.83pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sEA9AAA23 { font-size:12pt; font-variant:small-caps } .s5D16A0F3 { margin-left:68.17pt; padding-left:3.83pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s8D540CAA { margin-left:69.01pt; margin-bottom:14.4pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s23D50895 { margin-left:69.01pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sB182A23D { margin-left:69.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE5938708 { font-style:normal; font-variant:small-caps } .sA6E7F17B { width:3.17pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sFFB69F6B { font-size:11.5pt } .s9AC26A4F { font-size:11.5pt; font-style:italic } .sDDE018F9 { width:3.17pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .s16DB5F45 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:72pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s869C3B81 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:72pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s1B2FEAA7 { width:7.99pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s7E6AC2AD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:54pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sD821D70 { width:7.99pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s617A623B { margin-left:65.21pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s2C868039 { font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps } .sB2FE937E { margin-left:65.21pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s92FE7353 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFE33374E { margin-left:69.01pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sE0C8E3CC { margin-left:36pt; text-indent:-18pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s98CBC846 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:72pt; text-indent:-18pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s1C90AC38 { width:6.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }     GRAND CHAMBER         CASE OF DUARTE AGOSTINHO AND OTHERS AGAINST PORTUGAL AND 32 OTHERS (Application no. 39371/20)                   DECISION       STRASBOURG 9 April 2024         TABLE OF CONTENTS PROCEDURE THE FACTS I.   FACTS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANTS A.   Facts submitted in the application form 1.   Applicants nos. 1-3 2.   Applicant no. 4 3.   Applicants nos. 5-6 B.   Facts submitted to the Grand Chamber II.   FACTS SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT GOVERNMENTS RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE I.   DOMESTIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF PORTUGAL A.   Relevant domestic law 1.   The Constitution 2.   Law no. 83/95 of 31 August 1995 3.   Civil Code 4.   Code of Civil Procedure 5.   Law no. 19/2014 of 14 April 2014 6.   Law no. 67/2007 of 31 December 2007 7.   The Code of Administrative Courts Procedure 8.   Law no. 35/98 of 18 July 1998 9.   Decree-Law no. 147/2008 of 20 July 2008 10.   Law no. 98/2021 of 31 December 2021 11.   Law no. 34/2004 of 29 July 2004 12.   Law no. 108/2017 of 23 November 2017 B.   Relevant domestic practice II.   RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS A.   United Nations B.   Council of Europe C.   Regional human rights systems III.   OVERVIEW OF DOMESTIC CASE-LAW CONCERNING CLIMATE CHANGE COMPLAINT THE LAW I.   THE PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS A.   The respondent Governments 1.   Joint submissions (a)   General remarks (b)   Jurisdiction (c)   Exhaustion of domestic remedies (d)   Victim status 2.   Relevant State-specific submissions (a)   The Government of Bulgaria (b)   The Government of Croatia (c)   The Government of France (d)   The Government of Hungary (e)   The Government of Latvia (f)   The Government of the Netherlands (g)   The Government of Portugal (h)   The Government of Switzerland (i)   The Government of Türkiye B.   The applicants 1.   General remarks 2.   Jurisdiction 3.   Exhaustion of domestic remedies 4.   Victim status C.   The third-party interveners 1.   The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights 2.   European Commission 3.   United Nations Special Rapporteurs on human rights and the environment, and on toxics and human rights 4.   European Network of National Human Rights Institution (ENNHRI) 5.   Save the Children International 6.   Climate Action Network Europe (“CAN-E”) 7.   The Extraterritorial Obligations Consortium; Amnesty International; The Center for Legal and Social Studies (Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales); The Center for Transnational Environmental Accountability (“CTEA”); Economic and Social Rights Centre (Hakijamii); FIAN International; Great Lakes Initiative for Human Rights and Development (“GLIHD”); Professors Mark Gibney, Sigrun Skogly, Wouter Vandenhole and Jingjing Zhang, and Doctors Gamze Erdem Türkelli, Nicolás Carillo-Santarelli, Jernej Letnar Černič, Tom Mulisa, Nicholas Orago and Sara Seck; and the University of Antwerp Law and Development Research Group 8.   Center for International Environmental Law, Greenpeace International and the Union of Concerned Scientists 9.   International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“ESCR-Net”) 10.   ALL-YOUTH research project and Tampere University Public Law Research Group 11.   Professor Christel Cournil and Notre Affaire à Tous (“NAAT”) 12.   Our Children’s Trust (“OCT”), Oxfam International and its affiliates (Oxfam), Centre for Climate Repair at the University of Cambridge and Centre for Child Law at the University of Pretoria II.   THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT A.   Preliminary issues 1.   The application against Ukraine 2.   The application against the Russian Federation B.   Introductory remarks regarding the legal issues before the Court C.   Jurisdiction 1.   General principles 2.   Application of the above principles and considerations in the present case (a)   Territorial jurisdiction (b)   Extraterritorial jurisdiction (c)   Conclusion D.   Exhaustion of domestic remedies 1.   General principles 2.   Application of these principles to the present case E.   Victim status F.   Conclusion ANNEX     The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Síofra O’Leary,   Georges Ravarani,   Marko Bošnjak,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Arnfinn Bårdsen,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Tim Eicke,   Darian Pavli,   Raffaele Sabato,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Peeter Roosma,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins,   Mattias Guyomar,   Andreas Zünd , judges , and Søren Prebensen, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 September 2020, Having deliberated in private on 28 September 2023 and on 11   January   2024, decides as follows: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 39371/20) lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by six Portuguese nationals (for the list of applicants, see paragraph 11 below), on 7 September 2020, against the Portuguese Republic and the following 32 other States: the Republic of Austria, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Swiss Confederation, the Republic of Cyprus, the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Finland, the French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Hellenic Republic , the Republic of Croatia, Hungary, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Republic of Türkiye and Ukraine. 2.     The respondent Governments (“the Governments”) were represented by their Agents, whose names are listed in the Annex. 3.     The applicants alleged, in particular, that there had been a breach of Articles 2, 3, 8 and 14 of the Convention owing to the existing, and serious future, impacts of climate change imputable to the respondent States, and specifically those in relation to heatwaves, wildfires and smoke from wildfires, which affected their lives, well-being, mental health and the amenities of their homes. 4.     The application was allocated to the Fourth Section of the Court (Rule   52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). On 13   November 2020 the Governments were given notice of the application. Judge Eicke was appointed common ‑ interest judge on 24 May 2022 (Rule 30). On 28 June 2022 the Chamber to which the case had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber (Article 30 of the Convention and Rule 72). 5.     The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article   26 §§   4 and   5 of the Convention and Rule   24. The President of the Court decided that in the interests of the proper administration of justice, the case should be assigned to the same composition of the Grand Chamber as that in the cases of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (application no. 53600/20) and Carême v.   France (application no. 7189/21) (Rules   24, 42   §   2 and   71), which were relinquished by Chambers of the Third and Fifth Sections, respectively. 6.     The applicants and the respondent Governments (see paragraphs 72-74 below), each filed memorials on the admissibility and merits of the case. The   Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe exercised her right under Article 36 § 3 of the Convention to intervene in the proceedings and submitted written observations. In addition, having been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article   36   §   2 of the Convention and Rule   44   §   3), third-party comments were received from the European Commission, the United Nations Special Rapporteurs on human rights and the environment, and on toxics and human rights, the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (“ENNHRI”), Save the Children International, Climate Action Network Europe (“CAN-E”), the Extraterritorial Obligations Consortium and partners, Center for International Environmental Law, Greenpeace International and the Union of Concerned Scientists, the International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net), ALL-YOUTH research project and Tampere University Public Law Research Group, Professor Christel Cournil and Notre Affaire à Tous (“NAAT”), and Our Children’s Trust (“OCT”), Oxfam International and its affiliates (Oxfam), the Centre for Climate Repair at the University of Cambridge and the Centre for Child Law at the University of Pretoria. 7.     On 11 January 2023 the Grand Chamber decided that in the interest of the proper administration of justice, after the completion of the written stage of the proceedings in the above-mentioned cases, the oral stage would be staggered so that a hearing in the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland and Carême v. France cases would be held on 29 March 2023, and a hearing in the present case would be held before the same composition of the Grand Chamber at a later stage. 8 .     A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 27 September 2023. 9.     A list of those who appeared before the Court is provided in the Annex. The Court heard addresses by Mr S. Swaroop KC, Ms I. Niedlispacher and Mr R. Matos, who made joint submissions for the respondent Governments, and Mr V. de Graaf, Mr Matos and Mr H.A. Açikgül, who made State ‑ specific submissions for the Governments of the Netherlands, Portugal and Türkiye, respectively, as well as addresses by Ms A. Macdonald KC and Ms   A. Sander, representing the applicants. The Court also heard addresses by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms D. Mijatović, (Rule 44 § 2), and by the third-party interveners who had been granted leave to take part in the oral hearing before the Court (Rule 44 § 3), Mr D.Calleja Crespo, for the European Commission, and Ms A. Matheson Mestad, for ENNHRI. 10.     The answers to the questions put by the Court were provided by Mr   Swaroop KC, Ms Niedlispacher and Mr Matos on behalf of the Governments and by Ms Macdonald KC for the applicants. In addition, the President exceptionally granted leave to the respondent Governments to answer some of the questions in writing. Their answers were provided to the applicants, who were given the opportunity to comment on them. THE FACTS 11 .     The applicants, listed below, are all Portuguese nationals living in Portugal: 1.     The first applicant, Ms Cláudia Duarte Agostinho, was born in 1999; 2.     The second applicant, Mr Martim Duarte Agostinho, was born in 2003; 3.     The third applicant, Ms Mariana Duarte Agostinho, was born in 2012; 4.     The fourth applicant, Ms Catarina Dos Santos Mota, was born in 2000; 5.     The fifth applicant, Ms Sofia Isabel Dos Santos Oliveira, was born in 2005; 6.     The sixth applicant, Mr André Dos Santos Oliveira, was born in 2008. The first, third and fourth applicants live in Merinhas (Pombal municipality) and the second applicant in Leiria, both of which are in Leiria District. The fifth and sixth applicants live in Sobreda, a civil parish within the municipality of Almada, which is part of the metropolitan area of Lisbon.         FACTS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANTS    Facts submitted in the application form 12.     The applicants relied on the relevant international documents [1] , general reports and expert findings [2] concerning the harm caused by climate change to human health. This related, in particular, to the fact that Portugal was already experiencing a range of climate-change impacts, including increases in mean temperatures and extreme heat. That caused heatwaves which, in turn, were a major driver of wildfires. 13 .     In the applicants’ view, all the respondent States bore responsibility for this. In particular, States contributed to climate change by, inter alia , permitting: (a)     the release of emissions within the national territory, and offshore areas “over which they had jurisdiction”; (b)     the export of fossil fuels extracted on their territory; (c)     the import of goods, the production of which involved the release of emissions into the atmosphere; and (d)     entities within their jurisdiction to contribute to the release of emissions overseas, namely, through the extraction of fossil fuels overseas or by financing such extraction. 14 .     The applicants submitted that they were currently exposed to a risk of harm from climate change and that the risk was set to increase significantly over the course of their lifetimes and would also affect any children they might have. The applicants alleged that they had already experienced reduced energy levels, difficulty sleeping and a curtailment on their ability to spend time or exercise outdoors during recent heatwaves. The regions where they lived faced an increase in extreme fire risk. The 2017 wildfires had come very close to the homes of applicants nos. 1-4, and the garden of the house of applicants nos. 1-3 had been covered in ash. The wildfires also made applicants nos. 5-6 anxious and upset. Similarly, applicants nos. 1-4 were horrified to know that people were being killed close to their home by these fires. The second applicant had been unable to attend school for several days because of the amount of smoke in the air. The applicants also experienced anxiety about the effects which climate change might have on them and their families, and the families they hoped to have in future. 15.     In support of their application, the applicants submitted written personal statements which may be summarised as follows.      Applicants nos. 1-3 16.     In a written statement accompanying the application form, signed by applicants nos. 1-3, they explained that they had decided to lodge an application with the Court following the forest fires which had struck Portugal in the summer of 2017. They made the same statements as in the application form (see paragraph 14 above) and added that none of them or their friends or family had been injured in the forest fires, and nor had their family suffered any damage from the fires. However, over sixty people had been killed by these fires and many others had been injured. All of the fatalities had occurred in or near a place less than an hour’s drive away from their home. The applicants had experienced moments of horror during these fires, especially knowing that people were being killed in the most awful way so close to their home. Then again, in October 2017, fires had broken out throughout the northern half of Portugal and some had been very close to their home. Around forty-five people had been killed across the country as a result of these fires. 17 .     As regards the reason why they decided to lodge an application with the Court, the applicants submitted the following: “The fires made us realise that climate change is not just a threat to the planet’s future or to the polar ice caps. It is a threat to us that is here, right now, on our doorstep. Around that time, we became anxious to do something. We know that without immediate action by governments to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, the threat from climate change is only going to get worse. We may have escaped harm in 2017 but our chances of doing so again will only decrease over time if we continue on the path that we are on. Once again, Portugal experienced widespread forest fires this (2020) summer as a result of a combination of high temperatures and high winds. Fortunately, these fires were not as bad as the fires in 2017 but they are reminder of the risk we face. That’s why we decided to take this case. Climate change causes us to fear what the future holds for us and the families we hope to have. While we may at some point wish to spend some time abroad, Portugal is our home, it is the country in which we are likely to spend most of the rest of our lives and have our own families. And yet we have learned from the Climate Analytics expert report that Portugal is a climate change hotspot. It makes us sad and scared to think that, if governments continue on their current path, we will experience much more extreme heatwaves than the ones which have gripped our country in recent years and that events like the fires which broke out around us in 2017 will occur again and again, getting worse into the future. Even Mariana, who is only eight years old, appreciates that the natural environment which surrounds her is under threat. As a lover of the natural environment this causes her significant anxiety.” 18 .     The applicants further argued that there were lots of ways in which the impacts associated with climate change, in particular from high temperatures and drought, affected, or would affect in the future, their lives. The extreme heat was difficult to endure, it required them to spend more time indoors, they suffered from reduced energy levels and they had difficulty sleeping, which affected their productivity. Severe droughts could interfere with their ability to grow crops and use their well. Applicants nos. 1 and 2 suffered from allergies (a sun allergy, hay fever and sinusitis, respectively) which made them worry because climate change would worsen certain allergies. 19.     Finally, the applicants specified that “[t]his statement [had] been prepared with the input of our parents (Teresa and Sérgio) and they [had confirmed] that the contents of the statements relating to Mariana and Martim [were] true”.      Applicant no. 4 20 .     In a written declaration, the fourth applicant explained that she was a friend and neighbour of the Duarte Agostinho family. She further specified why she had decided to lodge an application with the Court: “I decided to join Claudia, Martim and Mariana Duarte Agostinho in bringing this case when I heard about it. I too experienced the horror of the forest fires which broke out across Portugal in 2017, although fortunately I was not injured [and] nor were any of my family members, and nor was any of my family’s property damaged. I have been concerned about climate change for some time. As a result, I have made some changes to how I live. For example, I consume far less meat than I used to as I know the production of meat contributes to climate change.” 21.     The fourth applicant further submitted that she could not exercise outdoors during extreme heatwaves and there had even been occasions during the summer of 2020 when she had avoided spending time outdoors altogether. Her sleep was affected and therefore she did not function properly during the day. She was becoming increasingly worried about how climate change would affect her and her generation’s future since, as things stood, climate change posed a clear risk to life, health and quality of life. As a child, the applicant had suffered from bad asthma (which was now less of a problem) and she currently suffered occasionally from bronchitis. Any significant deterioration in air quality could cause her to suffer from bad asthma again and would worsen the symptoms of her bronchitis.      Applicants nos. 5-6 22 .     As regards the reason why they decided to lodge the present application with the Court, the applicants explained as follows: “We decided, along with our parents, to get involved in bringing this case not long after major forest fires spread across Portugal in 2017, first in June and then again in October, killing over 100 people. Fortunately, none of our friends or family members were killed or injured but the scenes of destruction across our country made us realise how real the threat of climate change is. We were disturbed to see the images of the fires on the news, with people crying for help as a result of the destruction. It made us both very anxious and upset.” 23 .     The applicants further stressed that they were worried about climate change, particularly after they had seen the summary of the Climate Analytics report. They had difficulty sleeping, lacked energy and could not go outside on hot days. The scenes of death and destruction linked to forest fires caused them fear and anxiety. Both applicants suffered from allergies which would be affected by high temperatures. They were also worried about whether they would be able to spend time outdoors in future. Their home was close to the sea and close enough for them to experience the effects of winter storms. 24.     The applicants specified that their parents had been present when they provided the information for their statement and had confirmed its veracity.    Facts submitted to the Grand Chamber 25.     In their memorial of 5 December 2022, the applicants reiterated the arguments made in the application form and further relied on the more recent reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) [3] , and some other scientific reports [4] , showing that the level of global warming to date was unsafe and that “rapid and deep” emissions reductions by 2030 were needed in order to achieve the agreed 1.5 o C temperature increase limit. The respondent States had been aware of the dangers of climate change since the adoption in 1992 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (“UNFCCC”) and the adoption of the Paris Agreement. [5] Action was required by each respondent State across the four areas identified in paragraph 13 above. The applicants argued that Portugal was one of the European countries that would be most affected by the adverse impact of climate change and that it faced “hard limits” to its ability to adapt to the impact of global warming [6] . 26 .     The applicants submitted a list of specific impacts on and risks to them linked to climate change. This list was mostly based on the general climate ‑ change situation in Portugal [7] and included the following: (a)     Heat-related impacts – the applicants reiterated that during periods of extreme heat, they had to curtail their usual youthful activities of playing and exercising outdoors, and otherwise enjoying the outdoors. Extremely hot nights also made it difficult for them to sleep, making them more tired and less productive in the days that followed. Applicants nos. 2, 4 and 6 suffered from respiratory conditions, and an increase in the mean temperature would lead to increases of 2.7% in general mortality and 1.7% in respiratory morbidity. (b)     Wildfires and smoke – applicants nos. 1-3 had described the “horror” of these fires, with the first applicant now suffering from anxiety as each summer approached. During the forest fires, their garden had been covered with ash. The second applicant had been unable to attend school, and smoke had filled the sky (containing chemicals harmful to human health). The applicants were concerned that wildfires at least as bad as those in 2017 would occur in the future. Where the applicants resided, the number of days of extreme wildfire risks was projected to significantly increase between the years 2000 and 2100. (c)     Air pollution and allergens – climate change would expose people in Portugal to high levels of pollution, and would potentially increase the levels of aeroallergens exacerbating respiratory diseases such as asthma. Applicants nos. 2 and 4-6 suffered from health conditions caused by pollution and allergens. Applicant no. 2 submitted a medical certificate according to which he had been diagnosed with rhinitis and asthma. Applicant no. 6 provided a handwritten medical certificate according to which he suffered from bronchial asthma aggravated by climate-change related temperature changes, namely extreme heat. (d)     Mental-health impact – the lead author of a study surveying the mental-health impact on young people in Portugal linked to climate change [8] , had produced an expert report concerning the applicants in the present case. In her opinion, applicants nos. 2 and 5-6 suffered from an “Adverse Childhood Experience” linked to prolonged climate anxiety. The applicants also experienced a form of mental suffering called “moral injury” caused by their awareness of the failure by those in authority to protect them. 27.     In their further submissions of 29 March 2023, the applicants argued that there were in fact only few factual disputes between them and the respondent States. In their view, the following was undisputed: (i) the global causes and impacts of climate change; (ii) the climate-change impacts in Portugal and the limits of Portugal’s adaptive capacity; (iii) the imperative to keep global warming to 1.5℃; (iv) the inadequacy of the current pathway; (v) the need for rapid global emissions reductions outlined as necessary by the IPCC; (vi) the need for steep declines in fossil fuel production; and (vii) the contribution to climate change of embedded and overseas emissions of entities domiciled within the respondent States. 28.     The applicants argued that the risk level of heatwaves in their districts was comparable to the overall high and increasing risk of heatwaves in Portugal as a whole. All the applicants lived in areas which had experienced record temperatures of over 40℃ in recent years. Applicants nos. 1-4 lived in areas classified as being at “moderate” risk and all the applicants lived in or near coastal areas with higher humidity where heat stress could occur at lower temperatures. The district where applicants nos. 1-4 lived was one of the three districts in Portugal most affected by wildfires in 2022. 29.     It could not be accepted as a “common issue” the fact that the applicants needed to stay indoors during heatwaves. Heatwaves would substantially increase as a result of climate change and the issue needed to be tackled by the respondent States (see paragraph 35 below). 30.     The applicants clarified that their reference to the 2017 wildfires should be understood as an example of the increasingly frequent and severe impacts of climate change that had affected and would continue to affect Portugal. However, the applicants had never claimed that the reference to the 2017 wildfires was their only complaint in respect of the impact of climate change upon them.       FACTS SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT GOVERNMENTS 31 .     In their joint submissions to the Grand Chamber (see paragraph 72-73 below), the respondent Governments challenged the probative value of the expert reports relied upon by the applicants concerning climate change and its effects on the applicants. The Governments stressed that these reports had not been peer-reviewed and some of them were based on contested assumptions which did not represent the best available evidence. 32.     The Governments further explained that the factual information as regards the case had been collected and examined by the Portuguese Government. The other respondent Governments had not had access to detailed information regarding the applicants’ situation and the factual context of the case. 33.     The respondent Governments noted the following facts of the case: (a)     Two major fires occurred in Portugal in 2017, the first in June and the second in October. (b)     The houses where applicants nos. 1-4 lived were located in the Meirinhas municipality of Pombal, in the centre of Portugal, which was the region in which the second major fire occurred, in October 2017. (c)     The above-mentioned applicants’ houses were located approximately an hour’s journey from the location of the first fire in the summer of 2017. (d)     Ash might have fallen in the garden of the house where the first three applicants lived. (e)     The second applicant would have been unable to attend school on the afternoon of 16 October 2017, as it had been closed at the time owing to the smoke caused by the second major fire. (f)     Applicants nos. 5-6 lived in Sobreda, in the region of Lisbon, close to the sea. (g)     Sobreda was located around 200 kilometres from the region where the fires occurred. 34.     The respondent Governments contested all the other facts of a personal nature alleged by the applicants. As regards the applicants’ personal statements, the Governments noted as follows. 35 .     All the applicants had conceded that neither they nor their relatives had sustained any harm, whether physical or material. The difficulties alleged to have been experienced by the applicants in sleeping and spending time outdoors when it was too hot was a common issue and did not raise concerns specific to the applicants. The fears for the future the applicants claimed they were facing had not been substantiated. 36 .     Regarding the alleged damage suffered by applicants nos. 1-3, they had not indicated when or where such damage had occurred, nor had they specified what the damage consisted of. The applicants had not established any causal link between the alleged damage and the events in question. The names of the applicants had not been included on the list of victims who had suffered physical injury, non-material or material damage as a result of the two major fires in 2017, and who had accordingly been awarded compensation at the domestic level. 37 .     While applicants nos. 2 and 6 had provided some medical evidence in support of their complaints, the Governments noted that applicant no. 2’s medical certificate dated from November 2018 and did not provide any information about the level or intensity of his conditions (rhinitis and asthma) or any medical treatment provided then or since, and did not provide any information about the cause of the conditions. Applicant no. 6’s medical certificate was an undated handwritten note, which declared that the applicant suffered from bronchial asthma “aggravated” by extreme heat. No information had been given about the level or intensity of the condition, or any medical treatment provided. 38.     The respondent Governments argued that there had been a significant shift and expansion of the applicants’ arguments as regards the actual subject matter of the case. In particular, it appeared that the applicants no longer sought to relate the damage or inconvenience they claimed to have suffered to the fires of 2017, but also (or especially) to greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions emitted by the various respondent Governments. 39 .     In this connection, the Governments noted the following: (a)     The applicants had claimed that the region in which they resided was especially affected by heatwaves and fires. However, the applicants’ places of residence, which were located near the coastline, had been identified in the “National Risk Assessment” (provided by the Portuguese Government) ‑ which divided Portugal into four levels of risk (very high, high, mild, low) – as geographical areas where the risk level regarding heatwaves or episodes of extreme heat was considered to be “mild” or “low”. The risk level in the regions where the applicants lived was no higher than in the rest of the territory of Portugal. In any event, in the period 2018-22, Portugal had avoided the most severe consequences from wildfires, having reduced by half their number. (b)     The applicants were now claiming that their mental health was being severely impaired by the effects of climate change and/or had been severely impaired by the fires of 2017. Previously the applicants had relied on their asserted fears concerning the possible future consequences of climate change, in particular, fears that the respiratory diseases and allergies from which they claimed to suffer would worsen. (c)     As regards the alleged mental-health impact, and in so far as the applicants relied on the expert report (see paragraph 26 (d) above), the Governments questioned whether the document in question could be considered an “expert report”. They noted that the document itself acknowledged that climate anxiety was not yet a diagnosable mental illness. There was no evidence that any of the applicants had had any treatment, whether for anxiety and depression generally or for climate anxiety. The “expert report” had apparently been prepared without any direct examination of the applicants by the expert. The applicants had apparently only been interviewed online and in conditions that were not clear. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE         DOMESTIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF PORTUGAL    Relevant domestic law      The Constitution 40 .     The relevant provisions of the Constitution of Portugal provide as follows: Article 9 Fundamental tasks of the State “The fundamental tasks of the State are: ... (e)     To ... defend nature and the environment, preserve natural resources ...”   Article 16 Scope and interpretation of fundamental rights “1.     The fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution shall not exclude any others set out in applicable international laws and legal rules 2.     The constitutional and legal precepts concerning fundamental rights must be interpreted and completed in harmony with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Article 17 Regime governing rights, freedoms and guarantees “The regime governing rights, freedoms and guarantees applies to those set out in Title II and to fundamental rights of an analogous nature.” Article 18 Legal force “1.     The constitutional precepts with regard to rights, freedoms and guarantees are directly applicable and are binding on public and private entities. ...” Article 52 Right to petition and right of actio popularis “1. Every citizen has the right to, individually or collectively, submit petitions, representations, claims or complaints in defence of their rights, the Constitution, the laws or the general interest to the entities that exercise sovereignty, the self-government organs of the autonomous regions, or any authority, as well as the right to be informed of the result of the consideration thereof within a reasonable time limit. 2.     The law shall lay down the conditions under which collective petitions that are submitted to the Assembly of the Republic and the Legislative Assemblies of the autonomous regions are examined in plenary sitting. 3. Everyone is granted the right of actio popularis , including the right to apply for the applicable compensation for an aggrieved party or parties, in the cases and under the terms provided for by law, either personally or, via associations that purport to defend the interests in question. The said right may particularly be exercised in order to: (a)     Promote the prevention, cessation or judicial prosecution of offences against public health, consumer rights, the quality of life or the preservation of the environment ...” Article 66 Environment and quality of life “1.     Everyone has the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced human living environment and the duty to defend it. 2. In order to ensure the right to the environment within an overall framework of sustainable development, the State, acting via appropriate bodies and with the involvement and participation of citizens, is charged with: (a)     Preventing and controlling pollution and its effects ...”      Law no. 83/95 of 31 August 1995 41 .     The relevant provisions of Law no. 83/95 on the right to procedural participation and actio popularis provide as follows: Section 1 Scope of the present Law “1.     The present Law defines the situations and conditions under which the right to popular participation in administrative proceedings and the right of actio popularis aiming to prevent, cease, or institute judicial proceedings in respect of the infringements provided in Article 52 § 2 of the Constitution are conferred and may be exercised. 2.     ... [T]he interests protected by the present Law shall be public health, the environment, quality of life ...” Section 2 Right to procedural participation and actio popularis “1.     Any citizen in full enjoyment of his or her civil and political rights and associations and foundations defending the interests referred to in the previous section have the right to procedural participation and the right to actio popularis , irrespective of whether or not they have a direct interest in the claim.”      Civil Code 42 .     Article 7