Abstract

This contribution critically appraises the decision of 9 April 2024 of the European Court of Human Rights in Duarte Agostinho and others v. Portugal and other 32 States and analyses the problem of extraterritorial jurisdiction. After a description of the facts of the case and the arguments presented by the parties and adopted by the Court, the article takes a two-pronged approach. First, the article engages critically with the concept of extraterritorial jurisdiction as ‘control over the exercise of rights or interests’ protected by the Convention. According to the author, this understanding of jurisdiction poses conceptual and practical problems, as it grounds jurisdiction on the notion of State’s capacity to act and a causal link between an alleged omission and its effects on the individual. The article explains why this approach is problematic, especially when one acknowledges that ‘con-trol over the exercise of rights’ is intended to apply as a general criterion for jurisdiction and not exclusively in the context of climate change. In the second part, the article analyses the line of thinking developed by the ECtHR to dismiss the case. It argues that the piecemeal approach to ju-risdiction adopted by the Court after Al-Skeini and applied to Duarte Agostinho undermines clarity and exposes the Court to the criticism of formalism.