The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the 2024 case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland represents the first time that an international court found a human rights violation in light of States’ greenhouse gas emissions policies. Responses to this judgment spanned a wide spectrum — from surprised but welcoming academic reactions, to allegations of judicial overreach and calls to terminate Switzerland’s membership in the European Convention on Human Rights from domestic political actors. Various of these discussions consider KlimaSeniorinnen to be an example of public interest litigation, understanding this term as synonymous with that of the proscribed actio popularis. The present contribution engages with this discussion. To do so, it first describes the style of KlimaSeniorinnen as a model judgment sitting somewhere between an individual judgment and an advisory opinion. It then clarifies the content of this model, noting that it is overall cautious or deferential to State decisions and other ongoing processes while also setting important parameters for rights-based litigation. Thirdly, it argues that there is an important distinction to be made between public interest cases, on the one hand, and actio popularis cases, on the other.