Consistent Inconsistencies in the ECtHR’s Approach to Victim Status and Locus Standi
The ECtHR’s landmark judgment in the case Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland contains novel findings on procedural and substantive aspects of human rights protection in the climate change context. To reconcile effective protection of Convention rights with the exclusion of act...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2025-06-01
|
| Series: | European Journal of Risk Regulation |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1867299X24000953/type/journal_article |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849232988367224832 |
|---|---|
| author | Violetta Sefkow-Werner |
| author_facet | Violetta Sefkow-Werner |
| author_sort | Violetta Sefkow-Werner |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The ECtHR’s landmark judgment in the case Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland contains novel findings on procedural and substantive aspects of human rights protection in the climate change context. To reconcile effective protection of Convention rights with the exclusion of actiones populares, the Court set a high threshold for the individual applicants’ victim status while applying mostly formal criteria to the locus standi of the applicant association. On this count, only the association’s application was admissible. On the merits, the Court found violations of Articles 8 and 6(1) ECHR because Switzerland failed to comply with its positive obligation to protect individuals from the adverse effects of climate change and its courts did not engage seriously with the applicant association’s action. This case note takes a closer look at the ECtHR’s interpretation of standing for individuals and associations and discusses its (non-)alignment with previous case law. In particular, it reflects on the Court’s implicit understanding of the concept of victim in KlimaSeniorinnen and explores whether allowing representative standing is justified based on the Court’s existing case law. The case note concludes with an outlook on the enforcement of collective human rights issues through associations. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-9aedb78f7d424e20bc2bff3cb071d7b2 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1867-299X 2190-8249 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-06-01 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | European Journal of Risk Regulation |
| spelling | doaj-art-9aedb78f7d424e20bc2bff3cb071d7b22025-08-20T13:03:10ZengCambridge University PressEuropean Journal of Risk Regulation1867-299X2190-82492025-06-011681482310.1017/err.2024.95Consistent Inconsistencies in the ECtHR’s Approach to Victim Status and Locus StandiVioletta Sefkow-Werner0https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9261-1912University of Zurich, Institute for International Law and Comparative Constitutional Law, Zurich, SwitzerlandThe ECtHR’s landmark judgment in the case Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland contains novel findings on procedural and substantive aspects of human rights protection in the climate change context. To reconcile effective protection of Convention rights with the exclusion of actiones populares, the Court set a high threshold for the individual applicants’ victim status while applying mostly formal criteria to the locus standi of the applicant association. On this count, only the association’s application was admissible. On the merits, the Court found violations of Articles 8 and 6(1) ECHR because Switzerland failed to comply with its positive obligation to protect individuals from the adverse effects of climate change and its courts did not engage seriously with the applicant association’s action. This case note takes a closer look at the ECtHR’s interpretation of standing for individuals and associations and discusses its (non-)alignment with previous case law. In particular, it reflects on the Court’s implicit understanding of the concept of victim in KlimaSeniorinnen and explores whether allowing representative standing is justified based on the Court’s existing case law. The case note concludes with an outlook on the enforcement of collective human rights issues through associations.https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1867299X24000953/type/journal_article actio popularis climate changeEuropean Court of Human Rightshuman rightsstandingvictim status |
| spellingShingle | Violetta Sefkow-Werner Consistent Inconsistencies in the ECtHR’s Approach to Victim Status and Locus Standi European Journal of Risk Regulation actio popularis climate change European Court of Human Rights human rights standing victim status |
| title | Consistent Inconsistencies in the ECtHR’s Approach to Victim Status and Locus Standi |
| title_full | Consistent Inconsistencies in the ECtHR’s Approach to Victim Status and Locus Standi |
| title_fullStr | Consistent Inconsistencies in the ECtHR’s Approach to Victim Status and Locus Standi |
| title_full_unstemmed | Consistent Inconsistencies in the ECtHR’s Approach to Victim Status and Locus Standi |
| title_short | Consistent Inconsistencies in the ECtHR’s Approach to Victim Status and Locus Standi |
| title_sort | consistent inconsistencies in the ecthr s approach to victim status and locus standi |
| topic | actio popularis climate change European Court of Human Rights human rights standing victim status |
| url | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1867299X24000953/type/journal_article |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT violettasefkowwerner consistentinconsistenciesintheecthrsapproachtovictimstatusandlocusstandi |