policy, but as rights that are legally actionable and protectable. Climate litigation has emerged as one of the most significant phenomena in the international legal landscape, with over 2.000 cases recorded worldwide30. This judicial phenomenon is marked by its capacity to transform general principles into concrete obligations, demonstrating that climate change is no longer solely an environmental issue but a central matter of human rights protection. The most emblematic and influential case is undoubtedly Urgenda Foundation v. the State of the Netherlands31. The case began in 2013 when the environmental organization Urgenda, together with 886 Dutch citizens, sued their government for failing to adopt sufficient measures to combat climate change, thereby violating citizens’ fundamental rights, particularly the right to life and to private and family life. The Dutch Supreme Court, in its ruling of December 20, 2019, upheld the lower court decisions and found that the state had a legal obligation to reduce CO₂ emissions by at least 25% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels. The legal basis for the ruling was found in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), particularly Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), interpreted in light of the precautionary principle. The Urgenda ruling is historic for several reasons: it was the first time a court imposed concrete and specific climate measures on a state; it established a precedent for the justiciability of climate rights; and it demonstrated that climate change is no longer just an environmental issue but a matter of human rights32. In Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court delivered a highly significant judgment in 2021 in the case of Neubauer and Others v. Germany33. The case had been brought by young activists who challenged the inadequacy of Germany’s climate legislation. The Court ruled that the 2019 Federal Climate Protection Act (Bundes-Klimaschutzgesetz), in its original form, did not sufficiently protect the rights of future generations. The decision was based on Article 20a of the German Basic Law, which requires the state to protect the natural foundations of life also in the interest of future generations34. The legislature was thus obliged 30 Data from Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia University, updated in 2024, available at https:// climatecasechart.com/ 31 Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, 20 dicembre 2019, Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007, disponibile su https://www.urgenda.nl/wp-content/uploads/ENG-Dutch-Supreme-CourtUrgenda-v-Netherlands-20-12-2019.pdf 32 P. PUSTORINO, Sviluppi giurisprudenziali in materia di diritti umani e cambiamento climatico, in Giurisprudenza italiana, 2024, n. 8-9, p. 1922 ss. 33 BVerfG, 1 BvR 2656/18, 24 March 2021, Neubauer and Others v. Germany. 34 Art. 20a of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Grundgesetz): “The state shall protect the natural foundations of life and animals by legislation and, in accordance 134 GINEVRA GELSOMINI
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==