CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 26 novembre 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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB00DFE03 { width:22.87pt; display:inline-block } .sCEDB100B { width:137.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 31925/22 Maya SOUBESTE against Austria and 11 others and 4 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 26   November 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Peeter Roosma , President ,   Diana Kovatcheva,   Mateja Đurović , judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 21 June 2022, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants were represented by Ms Clementine Baldon, a lawyer practicing in Paris. 2.     The applicants complained under Articles 2, 3, 8 and 14 of the Convention that the Energy Charter Treaty inhibited the respondent States from taking immediate measures against climate change, making it impossible for them to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below the temperature limits set out in the Paris Agreement. 3.     On 8 November 2022, the Court decided to adjourn the examination of the present applications pending the outcome of the proceedings in the cases that were, at that time, pending before the Grand Chamber: Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others (dec.) [GC], no. 39371/20, 9   April 2024; Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no.   53600/20, 9 April 2024; and Carême v. France (dec.) [GC], no.   7189/21, 9 April 2024. 4.     By letter dated 9 July 2024, the applicants informed the Registry that they no longer intended to pursue their applications and requested the Court to strike their applications out of its list of cases, since most of the respondent States either had withdrawn or had declared their intention to withdraw from the Energy Charter Treaty. THE LAW 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 6.     In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court, in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications. 7.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 19 December 2024.     Olga Chernishova   Peeter Roosma   Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix List of cases: No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality 1. 31925/22 Soubeste v. Austria and 11 Others [1] 21/06/2022 Maya SOUBESTE 2003 Saint Martin (France) French 2. 31932/22 Kassapis v. Austria and 11 Others 21/06/2022 Alexandros Elias KASSAPIS 2000 Dionysos (Greece) Cypriot 3. 31938/22 Mangon v. Austria and 11 Others 21/06/2022 Damien MANGON 1999 Chaudfontaine (Belgium) Belgian 4. 31943/22 Wischnewski v. Austria and 11 Others 21/06/2022 Julia (Maria) WISCHNEWSKI 2005 Hönningen (Germany) German 5. 31947/22 Vinet v. Austria and 11 Others 21/06/2022 Marion VINET 1990 St Blaize (Switzerland) French         [1] Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom