UK climate adaptation case goes to European Court of Human Rights

At a glance

• Historic case: filed in July 2025, Friends of the Earth has taken the first European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case to directly challenge a government's national climate adaptation plan.
• Real-life impact: Kevin Jordan lost his home to climate-induced coastal erosion, while Doug Paulley faces dangerous heat in his care home due to inadequate climate preparation.
• Government failure: the UK's third National Adaptation Programme (NAP3) has been branded "far short of what is needed" by the government's own expert advisers, the Climate Change Committee (CCC).
• Human rights violation: the applicants argue that the UK's inadequate climate planning breaches their rights to life, private life and property.
• Wider potential: as well as in the UK, a positive judgment could force governments across Europe to take climate adaptation more seriously and protect vulnerable people.
• Urgent need: climate impacts are worsening but government planning remains inadequate in the UK, with no area scored as “good” by the CCC.

Background and context

The European Court Application

Climate adaptation is about putting plans and actions in place to deal with the impacts of climate change, such as building flood defences and planting trees for more shade.

In July 2025, Friends of the Earth, Kevin Jordan and Doug Paulley applied to the ECtHR. We argue that the UK's climate adaptation planning violates human rights requirements under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case challenges NAP3, published in July 2023, which sets out how the government plans to prepare for climate change impacts for the years 2023 to 2028. The applicants say this programme is so inadequate that it fails to protect basic human rights.

Why this case matters

To our knowledge, this is the first time the ECtHR will directly examine a government's responsibilities for national climate adaptation as the sole focus of the case, in this instance involving the UK. The case builds on the landmark "Swiss Seniors" ruling in April 2024, where the ECtHR found that governments have a positive duty to put effective climate measures in place (ie through a framework) and to implement them effectively in practice.

Any judgment could have major implications for how governments across Europe respond to the climate crisis. It could result in more serious action to protect people from increasing climate impacts, as well as greater transparency and public engagement in adaptation planning – all grounded in the proper consideration and application of human rights requirements in the adaptation context.

Who’s behind the case

Kevin Jordan lives in Hemsby, Norfolk, where his home was destroyed by coastal erosion made worse by climate change. He received little support and suffered significant stress before losing his property. Coastal defences are increasingly being removed or not maintained, leaving communities like his severely impacted.

Doug Paulley lives in a care home and has health conditions that put him particularly at risk from heat. During heatwaves (which are becoming more common), his care home gets dangerously hot. He has to isolate in his air-conditioned room for long periods, severely affecting his physical and mental health.

Friends of the Earth represents its supporters and other affected people who face growing risks from the UK's failure to prepare for climate change.

The problem with UK climate adaptation planning

Every 5 years, the UK government must publish a NAP under the Climate Change Act 2008. However, all 3 programmes so far have been heavily criticised, including by the government's own expert advisory body, the CCC.

The CCC's damning assessments show:

• The previous NAP2 only had credible plans for 5 out of 45 areas examined.
• The gap between climate risks and actual preparation has widened.
• NAP3 "falls far short of what is needed" and lacks pace and ambition.
• Only 40% of urgent actions from the latest risk assessment are being progressed.
• In 2025, the CCC found "no evidence" of any area scoring as “good” for adaptation delivery.

Despite the new Labour government promising improvements, there’s been no meaningful change in approach.

Our case

We and our co-claimants say the UK has violated our human rights in a number of ways:

1. Vague objectives. NAP3 sets unclear, unmeasurable goals that can't drive real action and so aren’t effective. It’s not clear what level of action is intended and progress can’t be monitored.
2. Ineffective protection. NAP3 doesn't provide adequate protection from the climate impacts that Mr Jordan and Mr Paulley (and others) are already experiencing. It’s also not adequately implemented nor capable of being implemented.
3. No meaningful consultation. There was no open public participation in developing NAP3, so the voices of those most at risk weren't heard. None of the applicants had the opportunity to comment on draft proposals.
4. Immediate harm. Mr Jordan and Mr Paulley are suffering a high level of concrete harm right now from the government's failure to act.

We and our co-claimants argue this breaches the human rights to life, private and family life, and property under the European Convention on Human Rights. The UK also failed to implement required procedural safeguards that should have ensured those at risk had a say, and the government should have then taken their views into account before the national plan was finalised.

How the UK courts dealt with the challenge

Before going to Europe, we and our co-claimants challenged NAP3 in the UK courts through judicial review. We argued that, as well as breaching human rights requirements, the government had misunderstood its legal duties and had therefore failed to set proper objectives or consider equality impacts.

The High Court dismissed our case entirely, and the Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal. The UK courts essentially said the existing legal framework under the Climate Change Act 2008 is sufficient, even though it's clearly not working in practice via successive national adaption plans.

Worryingly, the government only completed required equality impact assessments after Friends of the Earth sued, despite climate change having disproportionate impacts on groups such as older people and disabled people. It did a belated assessment during legal proceedings, specifically to defend against our case.

What happens next

Climate change is already causing widespread harm. The UN Secretary-General has called a recent climate science report "code red for humanity”. The most at-risk people are being hit hardest and the situation is getting worse.

At the time of writing, the UK isn’t on track to meet international or its own climate targets, meaning impacts will continue to worsen. Yet the government's planning remains inadequate, leaving increasing numbers of people at risk. Even if the UK hits all the necessary targets, there will still be severe climate impacts to adapt to, some of which are already happening.

The ECtHR will now decide whether to hear the case. If successful, it could force the UK to fundamentally improve how it prepares for climate change, providing better protection for everyone, including at-risk people like Mr Jordan and Mr Paulley. A positive judgment could also force governments across Europe to take climate adaptation seriously and protect those at risk – both from climate impacts and government inaction.

The case represents hope for the growing number of people facing real threats from climate change at a time when government action remains woefully inadequate.