Two similar climate change lawsuits brought by six young Portuguese men and a former French mayor have been dismissed by judges.
advertisementIn a landmark judgment, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) today ruled that climate change violates the right to respect for private and family life.
This is the main legal basis on which the court has decided so far in environmental cases, but it is a “historic” legal basis when it comes to the climate crisis, observers say.
The lawsuit was brought by a group of elderly Swiss women concerned about the health effects of global warming, who say the Swiss government is not doing enough.
The ECHR was found by 16 judges to be subject to the KlimaSeniorinnen (Swiss Elders for Climate Protection) violation of Article 8 and (unanimously) Article 6, which is the right to a fair trial in one's own country. It was decided that there was.
“We don't yet know all the details, but this decision is historic!” wrote Sebastian Duyck, senior lawyer at the International Environmental Law Center. “The court granted the petition and found that Klimasenyorinnen's rights were violated in both procedure and content.”
However, two other climate change lawsuits brought by a former French mayor and six young Portuguese men were ruled inadmissible.
Swiss case: Court rules on human rights violated by inaction on climate change
The first lawsuit was filed by Klimaseniolinen. This association of 2,500 people swiss women The average age is 73 years old.
Elders in Switzerland have complained of various “failures” regarding climate change that “have a serious negative impact on their health status”. They argued that their government's policies were “clearly insufficient” to sustain them. global warming This is below the Paris Agreement limit of 1.5°C.
After several years of fighting in Swiss courts and ultimately losing in Switzerland's highest federal court, they escalated the case to the ECHR.
Today, the Strasbourg Court declared that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights includes the right to effective protection by the state “against the serious adverse effects of climate change on life, health, well-being and quality of life”. did.
The Swiss Confederation has been found not to have fulfilled its obligations under the Convention on Climate Change.
“There were significant gaps in the process of developing the relevant domestic regulatory framework, including the failure of the Swiss authorities to quantify domestic emissions, including through a carbon budget. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions There are limits,” the judgment states.
Why was the Portuguese youth's case dismissed by the court?
Perhaps the most extensive lawsuit was filed by six people. young people of portugal Ages 12 to 24. The fires that swept across the country in 2017 spurred them into action.
Their case was not only against Portugal, but against all EU member states. NorwaySwitzerland, Türkiye, Great Britain, and Russia.
However, the court today ruled that this geographic spread is part of the reason for the inadmissibility.
The ECHR ruled that the “extraterritorial jurisdiction” sought by the applicants had no basis in the Convention.
The court ruled that complaints against the home country could not be entertained because Portuguese nationals had not taken any legal action within Portugal regarding their own complaints.
The court added that the decision in the case Duarte Agostinho et al. v. Portugal and 32 others is final.
advertisementThis comes as a shock to many who see it as, in the words of Sebastian Duyck, a “David vs. Goliath case,'' comparable to the dangers of inaction on climate change.
Why was the French mayor's case dismissed by the ECHR?
The third lawsuit was filed by Damien Carême, former mayor of the French town of Grand-Cinte. He complains about the government's “deficiencies” that are putting his town at risk of price increases. sea level.
Karem filed a lawsuit with France's Supreme Administrative Court in 2019. Although France's Council of State ruled in favor of the municipality, Karem's personal case was dismissed and the case was ultimately referred to the European Court of Human Rights.
However, the judges rejected his “victim” status because he does not currently live in France and has moved to Brussels to take up his post as a member of the European Parliament.
What does today's ruling mean for climate action?
These three cases raised several legal questions about the government's obligations regarding: climate change.
advertisementThis includes the obligation to prevent foreseeable human rights violations caused by climate change. Who can seek protection and redress from climate harm from the ECHR? and the role of international law, such as the Paris Agreement, in determining what is appropriate climate action.
There is no particular mention of climate change In the European Convention on Human Rights. However, courts have already ruled that states have a duty to maintain a “healthy environment” under Article 8 or the right to respect for private and family life when it comes to industry and waste management. .
Today's ruling in Klimaseniolinnen's favor is “monumental”, says Corina Heli, a postdoctoral researcher in human rights law and climate change.
“The court appears to have a clear path forward for climate litigation, confirming that climate change is an ECHR issue,” she wrote while live-tweeting the hearing from Strasbourg. .
“This decision in the Klimaseniolinnen case will have a major impact on Switzerland!” writes CIEL's Duyck.
advertisementHe pointed out that all European states have the same obligations as Switzerland under Article 8 regarding the need to protect the right to private and family life in the context of climate change.
Six other climate-related cases postponed by the ECHR will be considered in the light of today's “landmark decision”, he added. These include claims brought by plaintiffs against Austria, Germany, Italy and Norway.
