Challenging France’s Climate Adaptation: First-of-Its-Kind Legal Case Launched

A group of 14 applications – 5 individuals and 9 organisations – have launched a new legal action in France this week. Building on the foundation of emissions reductions litigation, this case addresses a less-explored area of state obligations regarding adaptation measures. The applicants allege that the French government has fallen short in its legal duty to protect its citizens from the impacts and risks caused by climate change. The applicants are supported by Oxfam France, Notre Affaire à Tous, and Greenpeace France.

This is initially a request addressed to the state, which must be made before the case can be brought before the Council of State (Conseil d’État), the highest administrative court in France. If the state fails to respond, or does so in an unsatisfactory manner, the case can be brought to the Council of State for judicial review and decision.

Background to the Climate Adaptation Case

The applicants are a diverse group, including individuals, associations, and non-governmental organisations. They reside across France or in France’s overseas territories, and most of them are affected by certain socio-economic vulnerabilities, such as illness, disability, or marginalisation, which exacerbate climate impacts on them. Another factor uniting all applicants is that each of them has already suffered the devastating impacts of climate change. Impacts referred to include flooding, heatwaves, agricultural losses, and the destruction of homes or property.  

At the heart of this case is the third version of France’s Climate Change Adaptation Plan, PNACC-3, recently introduced in March 2025. The applicants argue that PNACC-3 fails to sufficiently address the lived reality of individuals and communities suffering from climate impacts. In the Global North, we often like to think of climate change impacts as a problem of the future, but for vulnerable or marginalised communities, it is already part of their day-to-day life. Moreover, France has overseas territories, in locations even more vulnerable to climate impacts, which also remain largely unaddressed in PNACC-3. Overall, the applicants brought the case to argue that PNACC-3 lacks sufficient funding plans, clear implementation frameworks, and concrete measures and monitoring efforts. PNACC-3, therefore, fails to address the scale and urgency of the climate emergency. The goal of this legal action is to get the authorities to revise PNACC-3, so that more effective action can be taken.

Legal Framework and Arguments

The applicants’ legal action targets the French state’s inadequate climate adaptation measures as set forth in PNACC-3. They argue that the government has violated its constitutional and international obligations to ensure the protection of its citizens from the harmful impacts of climate change. This argument draws from a combination of domestic legal provisions, European Union law, and international human rights standards.

1. The Charter for the Environment (Charte de l’environment): Domestically, the applicants rely on Articles 1, 3, and 4 of the Charter for the Environment. They assert that the state’s obligation to ensure a balanced and healthy environment (Article 1) not only imposes a duty on the state to mitigate climate change but also to adapt to its impacts. In doing so, they draw on the precedent established by the Affaire du Siècle, a landmark case decided by the Paris Administrative Court. The court there recognised that the French government has an obligation to take proactive measures to combat climate change (See §2-4).

   
   

   The applicants further invoke Article 3 of the Environmental Charter, which mandates that “[e]veryone shall […] foresee and avoid the occurrence of any damage which he or she may cause to the environment or, failing that, limit the consequences of such damage.” They argue that this provision reinforces the state’s duty to adapt to climate change by proactively reducing its harmful impacts. The applicants assert that, just as the government has a responsibility to reduce emissions, it similarly has an obligation to limit climate-related harm, ensuring that affected populations are protected from climate-induced consequences (See §5, §30-36).

   
   

   In evaluating the effectiveness of government action, administrative judges have consistently applied several criteria, including the intended purpose, proportionality, and usefulness of the measures in question (§32). The plaintiffs argue that, in light of this case law, it is evident that the French government’s adaptation plan must be held to similar standards, ensuring that the measures put in place are not only appropriate but also effective in addressing the climate-related risks that the country faces.

   
   

2. The European Climate Law (EU Regulation 2021/1119): Under Article 5 of the European Climate Law, France, as a member state, is required to make consistent progress in its climate efforts and to adopt and implement national adaptation strategies. This Regulation also requires Member States to act in line with Article 7 of the Paris Agreement, adopt national adaptation strategies, set binding targets, and focus on specific vulnerabilities of sectors and communities (§23). This comprehensive approach extends the general adaptation obligation through sectoral and cross-cutting measures.

   
   

3. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): The applicants also invoke the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), particularly Article 2 (right to life) and Article 8 (right to private and family life). Referring to the recent Klimaseniorinnen decision, where the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) recognised that states are bound by positive obligations to protect individuals’ rights under Article 8 in the context of climate change. The request draws from specific paragraphs of the judgment (Klimaseniorinnen: §538, §544, §545, §546, and §522), concluding that the ECtHR requires states to adopt adaptation measures aimed at reducing the severe consequences of climate change. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recently reinforced this view in March 2025, confirming that adaptation measures are part of a state’s obligation to protect citizens from climate harm.

   
   

   In relation to Article 2 ECHR, the ECtHR has emphasised that the right to life imposes a duty on states to proactively protect individuals from life-threatening risks, including environmental threats. This has been affirmed in rulings like Budayeva v. Russia and Öneryıldız v. Turkey, where the ECtHR held states accountable for failing to prevent or adequately address environmental hazards. This evolving framework reinforces climate litigation, as it suggests that inadequate state action on climate risks could violate fundamental human rights.

   
   

4. International Law and the Paris Agreement: The applicants reference international climate agreements. They reference Article 3 of the UNFCCC, which urges parties to take precautionary measures to prevent or minimise climate change and its effects, including adaptation across all sectors. Article 4 expands on this by requiring parties to implement adaptation measures. The Kyoto Protocol’s Article 10 further reinforces this by requiring national and regional programs for both mitigation and adaptation. Of course, the Paris Agreement is especially important in this argument, with Article 2 setting global goals for limiting temperature rise and enhancing adaptation capacity, while Article 7 requires states to establish adaptation goals and plans, and to monitor progress. Finally, the applicants make reference to the Cancún Agreements (COP16), the Implementation Plan from COP27, and the Global Stocktake at COP28, which collectively emphasize the global consensus on the importance of adaptation.

   
   

5. The French Constitution: In relation to health protection, the request draws from the Preamble of October 27, 1946 of the French Constitution, which guarantees health protection for vulnerable groups. The Constitutional Council has confirmed that environmental protection is a constitutional goal, and the Environmental Charter links environmental and health protection. The eleventh paragraph of the 1946 Constitution thus obliges the state to prevent health risks related to climate change, requiring administrative authorities to fulfil their public health responsibilities, as per the applicants’ arguments.

Criticisms of PNACC-3

The legal challenge is supported by several criticisms of the current adaptation plan, PNACC-3. A central issue is the plan’s lack of adequate financial support. PNACC-3 fails to allocate sufficient funds to carry out its proposed actions. While some actions have been costed, the majority remain vague, and no clear financial framework has been established. Out of 310 proposed actions, only 48 have a clear budget. Without dedicated funding, many of the proposed measures are unlikely to be implemented effectively, leaving vulnerable communities without adequate protection.

Another critical flaw in PNACC-3 is the absence of a robust monitoring and evaluation mechanism. The applicants argue that without a means to assess the effectiveness of adaptation measures, the plan cannot be considered credible or capable of delivering tangible results. The lack of accountability undermines the government’s ability to ensure that adaptation efforts are adequately prioritized and implemented.

Additionally, the applicants argue that PNACC-3 fails to sufficiently address the social and territorial inequalities that exist in France. Marginalised groups, including low-income individuals, the elderly, and people with disabilities, are disproportionately impacted by climate change. However, these populations have not been adequately considered in the adaptation plan, which instead focuses largely on technical measures such as infrastructure upgrades and risk assessments, rather than addressing the specific needs of the most vulnerable people and communities.

The plan also relies on outdated scientific data and does not provide a comprehensive risk assessment that reflects the most current climate projections. The applicants argue that France must take into account more recent data and adopt a forward-looking approach to ensure that the adaptation measures are aligned with the scale of the climate emergency.

The applicants finally criticise the government for focusing primarily on short-term measures rather than long-term, transformational strategies that could build resilience over time. Adaptation must go beyond immediate relief efforts and address the underlying causes of vulnerability by promoting sustainable and equitable development. The plaintiffs contend that the government’s current approach is reactive rather than proactive, failing to address the systemic issues that leave certain communities more vulnerable to climate change.

See §60-§92.

Concluding Remarks

This first-of-its-kind case in the European Union carries significant jurisprudential implications, marking a new building block in climate litigation strategy. It represents a paradigm shift from focusing solely on mitigation, often entangled in abstract discussions of emissions targets, to addressing the state’s tangible responsibility to protect citizens from the immediate and foreseeable impacts of climate change. This approach may, in fact, prove to be a more potent tool in climate litigation. By highlighting the direct, in-your-face consequences of climate change—floods, heatwaves, agricultural losses—experienced by real individuals, it grounds the legal argument in concrete human suffering, making the urgency of climate action far more palpable than abstract metrics.

Moreover, the case's emphasis on the disparate impacts of climate change on vulnerable populations, particularly those in overseas territories, adds a critical dimension to the legal discourse. The applicants’ arguments, in their highlighting of the overseas territories, echo the legal challenge brought against the Dutch government regarding Bonaire, which alleges a form of climate racism. These cases underscore the reality that climate change exacerbates existing inequalities, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities who often lack the resources to adapt. This focus on climate justice, and the recognition that climate change impacts are not evenly distributed, may prove to be a significant catalyst for more equitable and effective climate policies. The outcome of this case has the potential to establish a powerful precedent, compelling states to not only mitigate emissions but also to actively protect their citizens from the unfolding climate crisis, ensuring that no one is left behind.