The UK Adaptation Plan Challenge heads for the European Court of Human Rights

Earlier this month, Friends of the Earth (FoE) announced that it had submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), challenging the UK’s compliance with its human rights obligations in how it currently plans for and implements climate adaptation under the Climate Change Act 2008. This follows the dismissal of FoE’s, and co-claimants Doug Paulley and Kevin Jordan, High Court and Court of Appeal challenges. 

In July 2023, the UK published its third National Adaptation Programme (NAP3), detailing climate change adaptation strategies. NAP3 was published pursuant to the obligation on Government, under s. 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008, to lay programmes before Parliament setting out the Government’s objectives in relation to adaptation to climate change.

In 2024, FoE et al challenged NAP3's legality by way of judicial review, claiming it breached the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Climate Change Act 2008. They argued NAP3 failed principally to:

• provide lawful adaptation objectives;
• consider the risks to delivery of the proposals and policies for meeting the objectives; and
• consider marginalised groups.

The High Court dismissed the claim, finding NAP3 lawful. The Court of Appeal also rejected the request to appeal that decision.

Unsuccessful in the UK courts, FoE and the individual claimants have now submitted an application to the ECtHR. This coincides with the UK Climate Change Committee's 2025 report highlighting the UK’s unpreparedness in addressing climate adaptation risks.

Although the domestic challenge to NAP3 failed, and it remains to be seen whether the ECtHR proceeds to hear the case, this challenge serves to illustrate how climate change jurisprudence is developing and reflects the growing trend in the use of human rights arguments in climate cases[1].

The ECtHR case of KlimaSeniorinnen and ors. v. Switzerland last year was a watershed moment in this space, and the decision is and will no doubt continue to inspire future human rights arguments in climate-related proceedings. 

Certainly, the High Court in NAP3 highlighted that KlimaSeniorinnen was clear authority of a State’s positive obligations extending to adopting measures capable of mitigating the “existing” as well as the “future” risks of climate change and to setting climate targets and taking effective steps towards meeting them. In relation to the adaptation to climate change, the obligation is to put in place and effectively apply adaptation measures in accordance with the best available evidence. States that fail to do that will increasingly find themselves held accountable.

If you would like any further information, or advice related to climate-related litigation or liability issues, please contact Victoria Barnes, Christopher Wenn or your usual Burges Salmon contact. 

This article was written by Victoria Barnes and Carys Cox.

[1]Global-trends-in-climate-change-litigation-2024-snapshot.pdf