This article examines the possible impact of the ECtHR’s KlimaSeniorinnen judgment on the case law of the CJEU regarding legal standing of legal and natural persons. Specifically, it focuses on the implications of the ECtHR’s interpretation of victim status under Article 34 ECHR in KlimaSeniorinnen for the CJEU’s Plaumann test to determine legal standing for individual applicants under Article 263, paragraph 4, TFEU. The diverging approaches by the ECtHR and the CJEU towards the shared goal of preventing the possibility for an actio popularis in climate litigation cases are juxtaposed. This contribution critiques the static approach of the CJEU in this regard, which has interpreted the legal standing of individual applicants and associations rather restrictively in climate litigation, specifically in the cases of Carvalho and Sabo. Different points of criticism, especially regarding access to justice, are discussed. The article argues that the Plaumann test is not immutable and that the CJEU should reconsider its restrictive approach by taking inspiration from the novel approach applied by the ECtHR in KlimaSeniorinnen. While the CJEU may not be legally required to adopt the ECtHR’s standards on legal standing under EU law ‒ that is, until the EU's accession to the ECHR ‒ the KlimaSeniorinnen judgment could still have an indirect impact on the CJEU. Furthermore, the pending cases of Medel and Asociația Inițiativa pentru Justiție provide the CJEU with the occasion to address the continued relevance of Plaumann. Moreover, both AG Emiliou’s Opinion and the Court’s judgement in Nicoventures are critically assessed.
Clara Helen Laetitia Labus (Thu,) studied this question.