Climate protection
for all of us
Not a ‘nice to have’ -
climate protection is
a human right!
States are obliged to protect people when they are aware of a danger and can do something about it. This is the case with the climate crisis, but Austria is not fulfilling its promises and obligations. That is why the climate case against the Republic of Austria, ‘Müllner v. Austria’, is demanding what has been promised for years but not delivered.
Mex Müllner is particularly affected by this climate policy inaction due to his illness. Together with climate lawyer Michaela Krömer, he is therefore taking his case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to demand what should be a given: climate protection that protects us all.
Health and freedom are at stake due to the climate crisis - this climate case can initiate the urgently needed turning point.
Climate protection deficits
There is a huge gap between promises and reality: Austria is aware of the risks posed by the climate crisis, but is failing to take appropriate action.
Austria is obliged to drastically reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in order to comply with the 1.5-degree limit of the Paris Agreement and the EU climate targets. In fact, however, Austria has no effective climate protection act and, according to the Second Austrian Assessment Report on Climate Change, will miss the EU climate targets for 2030 with its current climate protection measures. Austria has no binding CO₂ or GHG budget, and there is no effective way to have climate policy checked in court.
These serious structural deficits form the core of the climate case before the ECHR. Further information can be found in our FAQ.
No effective climate protection act
No CO₂ budget
Lack of legal protection
Failure to meet the EU's 2030 climate targets
Legal steps
On April 9, 2024, the ECHR ruled in favor of the Climate Seniors and recognized climate protection as a human right for the first time. This ruling stated that states must actively protect people from the threats posed by the climate crisis.
The climate case against Austria ties in directly with this and goes one step further. Mex could be the first individual to successfully claim that a state has violated his personal health and freedom through a lack of climate protection. This could be a legal breakthrough and set a precedent.
Austria is part of the European Union, so the EU's climate targets play a central role in the proceedings. Further information can be found in our FAQ.
In the case of Müllner v. Austria, the ECHR is examining whether Austria has violated its obligations under Article 8 of the ECHR (right to respect for private and family life), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).
- 8063 individual complaints filed with the Constitutional Court
September 2020: Constitutional Court rejects climate complaints on formal grounds – lack of legal protection against climate impacts in Austria
- Climate case filed with the ECHR
April 2021: Müllner v. Austria climate case filed with the ECHR - ECHR takes up climate case
June 2024: ECHR gives Müllner v. Austria priority status and classifies the case as a potential ‘impact case’ - Renowned third parties submit statements
November 2024: ECHR allows renowned institutions to submit statements
- Exchange of pleadings completed
May 2025: The extensive exchange of pleadings between Austria and Müllner is completed
- Further legal steps
2025: The ECHR is currently reviewing the statements submitted by all parties. The Court will then decide how to proceed with the case.
Who is suing and why?
CLAW is supporting Mex in his case for proper climate protection for all of us. Mex is suing because the climate crisis is threatening his health and, consequently, his freedom. However, the government is not adequately protecting him from this danger.
Mex lives with a form of multiple sclerosis (Uhthoff syndrome) that severely limits his mobility in hot weather. At temperatures above 25°C, he needs a wheelchair, and at temperatures above 30°C, he can no longer push it independently. The climate crisis is causing hot days to increase, and with each passing day, his freedom is shrinking.
For example, in 2024, Vienna experienced a total of 102 summer days (above 25°C) and 45 heat days (above 30°C). Between 1961 and 1990, there were only 54 summer days and 10 heat days on average. This means that the number of summer days has doubled and the number of hot days has quadrupled, a clear sign of how much the climate crisis is heating up our cities. The climate dashboard impressively shows how global warming is also leading to more and more hot days and fewer and fewer frost days in Austria.
What may be only a small change for others means a massive impact on Mex's quality of life. The inaction in climate policy thus has direct consequences on his everyday life, on his life, and violates his human rights. That is why he and Michaela Krömer are now taking their case to the ECHR to advocate for climate protection, which should actually be a given.
Climate cases are democracy in action!
In a state under the rule of law, courts are just as much a part of democracy as parliaments -they set guidelines when politicians lose sight of fundamental rights. Mex is taking legal action because he has no other way to protect his rights. That is precisely what courts are for: to enable people to defend themselves against government failure, regardless of party politics or power relations.
This case shows that climate protection is not an ideological project, but a question of justice and responsibility. It is not about replacing politics, but reminding politicians of their duty to protect people.
The ECHR will decide whether Austria's failures in climate protection violate human rights. A ruling in favor of the case would pave the way for people across Europe - and beyond - to claim their right to a safe and livable future in court. This is about more than a legal argument:
It is about justice, facts, and the fundamental rights of every single human being.
Climate protection
for all of us