Climate change litigation is becoming increasing clear, convincingly influencing not only the disappearance of skepticism regarding the role of courts in contributing to mitigating the consequences of climate change but also considering them as bodies capable of filling gaps in legal regulation and the practice of adopting effective measures at national and global levels. On April 9, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights issued three judgments related to climate change. Each of them raised important questions arising from climate change that had never been considered before. While complaints in two cases against France and Portugal were deemed inadmissible on procedural grounds, the third decision in the case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland is considered significant as the first judgment of an international human rights court on the inadequacy of state actions in taking effective measures against global warming and fulfilling their positive obligations to protect rights established by the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court not only recognised climate protection as a human right but also overcame the potential obstacle of actio popularis, allowing associations to bring lawsuits according to the Aarhus Convention model. The Court also confirmed that Article 8 of the Convention implies the right to effective protection from the serious harmful effects of climate change on the life, health, well-being, and quality of life of citizens, establishing a direct link between Convention rights and climate change. According to the Court, mitigating the effects of climate change is a direct obligation of the state, which it must implement for everyone. The Court’s conclusion is based on indisputable scientific evidence of anthropogenic nature of climate change and the current and future harm it entails. Issuing this judgment the Court has laid a new paradigm for judicial proceedings in the field based on the concept of human rights protection.