On April 9, 2024, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or the Court) seated in Strasbourg released its judgment in the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland case, which marks the first occasion where the Court found a violation of several rights of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention) in a climate change litigation case.

On June 13, 2024, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) delivered its judgment in Case C-123/22 European Commission v. Hungary, a follow-up action to Case C-808/18 European Commission v Hungary condemning Hungary's non-compliance with EU legislation on common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals and on common procedures regarding international protection. Hungary had responded to the earlier judgment in what the Commission deemed a wholly inadequate manner. The Commission requested that a lump sum and penalty payment be imposed on Hungary by the ECJ. The Court now responded by ordering a record lump sum payment and record-equalling penalty payment, forcefully underlining judicial power in policing rule of law compliance.

Following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, a number of countries, including the United States, froze Russian sovereign assets (RSA) within their respective jurisdictions. It is estimated that some US$300 billion of RSA are immobilized worldwide. A fraction of those frozen assets, approximately US$4–$5 billion, are thought to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. On April 24, 2024, President Biden signed H.R. 815 into law, which included the Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians Act (REPO Act). The REPO Act broadly provides for the “repurposing” of RSA within the jurisdiction of the United States to facilitate assistance to Ukraine in response to Russia's unlawful invasion.

On November 8, 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered a preliminary ruling in response to a request from the Administrative Court of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. The request pertained to the interpretation of Article 9(3) of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention). The CJEU held that Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention must be interpreted as precluding a situation where an environmental association is unable to challenge an administrative decision before a national court.