Europe’s highest human rights court rules that countries must better protect their people from consequences of the climate crisis, siding with a group of older Swiss women against their government.
AFP
Members of Swiss association Senior Women for Climate Protection react after the announcement of decisions after a hearing of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to decide in three separate cases if states are doing enough in the face of global warming in rulings that could force them to do more / Photo: AFP
Europe's top rights court has said Switzerland was not doing enough to tackle the climate crisis in a historic decision that could force governments to adopt more ambitious climate policies.
The European Court of Human Rights, part of the 46-member Council of Europe, however, threw out two other cases against European states on procedural grounds on Tuesday.
Hopes had been high for a legal turning point ahead of the rulings in the three cases, treated as a priority by the 17 judges of the court's Grand Chamber.
In the first case, the court found that the Swiss state had violate d Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the "right to respect for private and family life", according to the ruling seen by AFP news agency.
The Swiss association of Elders for Climate Protection — 2,500 women aged 73 on average — had complained about the "failings of the Swiss authorities" in terms of climate protection that could "seriously harm" their health.
The court ordered the Swiss state to pay the association almost $87,000 (80,000 euros) within three months.
The lawyer of the Swiss association, Cordelia Bahr, said the court has "established that climate protection was a human right".
"It's a huge victory for us and a legal precedent for all the states of the Council of Europe," she said.
'Historic'
Activist Greta Thunberg said it was "only the beginning of climate litigation".
"All over the world more and more people are taking their government to court, holding them responsible for their actions," she said inside the court after attending the rulings.
Joie Chowdhury, a lawyer from the Center for International Environmental Law, said the ruling was "historic".
"We expect this ruling to influence climate action and climate litigation across Europe and far beyond," she said.
It "leaves no doubt: the climate crisis is a human rights crisis, and states have human rights obligations to act urgently and effectively... to prevent further devastation and harm to people and the environment," she said.
In a second case, the court dismissed a petition from six Portuguese people, aged 12 to 24, against 32 states including their own because the case had not exhausted all avenues at the national level.
In a third case, the court rejected a claim from a former French mayor that the inaction of the French state posed the risk of his town being submerged under the North Sea.
The court decisions came as Europe's climate monitor said March this year had been the hottest on record.
Swiss women win landmark climate case at Europe top human rights court
Issued on: 09/04/2024
Issued on: 09/04/2024
Europe's top human rights court ruled on Tuesday that the Swiss government had violated the human rights of its citizens by failing to do enough to combat climate change, in a decision that will set a precedent for future climate lawsuits.
01:46
Video by: Charlotte HUGHES
Video by: Charlotte HUGHES
Europe: European Court of Human Rights sets vital precedent with ruling in landmark climate case
Switzerland's Seniors for Climate, and the young Portuguese plaintiffs outside the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg in September
Switzerland's Seniors for Climate, and the young Portuguese plaintiffs outside the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg in September
Frederick Florin/AFP via Getty Images
Amnesty International
April 9, 2024
Reacting to rulings today by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on three landmark climate cases, involving older Swiss women, six young Portuguese people, and a former French mayor and member of the European Parliament, Mandi Mudarikwa, Amnesty International’s Head of Strategic Litigation, said:
“The ECtHR has set a vital and historic precedent today with its ruling in the case involving the Swiss women by finding that the Swiss government had failed to comply with its duties under the European Convention concerning climate change, including failing to set clear limits on greenhouse gas emissions and not meeting its past greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.”
“The determination and tenacity of the applicants in all three cases seeking climate justice through courts was both remarkable and encouraging. We especially recognize the courage of the young people involved as they looked to protect not only their future but the future of generations to come.
The ECtHR’s ruling sends a powerful message to policymakers in European countries that states must intensify their efforts to combat climate change.Mandi Mudarikwa, Amnesty International’s Head of Strategic Litigation
“The Swiss case ruling strengthens legal pathways to achieving climate justice through the ECtHR. It is hugely significant that the ECtHR recognized the harm caused to the applicants by climate change and that the Swiss government was doing too little to curb greenhouse gas emissions and adequately protect them.
“The ECtHR’s ruling sends a powerful message to policymakers in European countries that states must intensify their efforts to combat climate change. We note that the decisions of the ECtHR to dismiss the other two other climate-related cases was based on procedural considerations, rather than on the respective merits of each case.
“Strategic litigation can help to deliver climate justice and protect the rights of billions from global warming, especially the most marginalized, and will yield benefits – as we have witnessed today with the Swiss case.”
Background
The ECtHR ruled on three climate cases. In Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland, a group representing more than 2,500 older Swiss women argued that their government’s failure to adequately mitigate global warming violated their human rights to health and life and puts them at risk of dying during heatwaves.
In Duarte Agostinho and Others v Portugal and 31 Other States six young Portuguese people argued that countries bound by the European Convention on Human Rights — the 27 EU states, as well as the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Norway, Russia and Turkey — had infringed several human rights after heatwaves and forest fires closed down their schools and risked their health. Amnesty International submitted a joint third-party intervention in the case on the obligation on governments to create climate policies which protect the rights of people outside their borders.
In the third case, Damien Carême, a former mayor of Grande-Synthe, a suburb of Dunkirk in northern France, argued that the French government has neglected its obligation to protect life by failing to take sufficient steps to prevent climate change and therefore heightening the risk of future flooding in the area.
The right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment was universally recognized by the UN General Assembly in 2022. Amnesty International is part of a coalition calling for the adoption of an additional protocol on the right to the European Convention on Human Rights which would help reinforce and clarify the ECtHR’s jurisprudence on environmental protection, including climate change. Summaries of today’s rulings can be accessed here.
Amnesty International
April 9, 2024
Reacting to rulings today by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on three landmark climate cases, involving older Swiss women, six young Portuguese people, and a former French mayor and member of the European Parliament, Mandi Mudarikwa, Amnesty International’s Head of Strategic Litigation, said:
“The ECtHR has set a vital and historic precedent today with its ruling in the case involving the Swiss women by finding that the Swiss government had failed to comply with its duties under the European Convention concerning climate change, including failing to set clear limits on greenhouse gas emissions and not meeting its past greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.”
“The determination and tenacity of the applicants in all three cases seeking climate justice through courts was both remarkable and encouraging. We especially recognize the courage of the young people involved as they looked to protect not only their future but the future of generations to come.
The ECtHR’s ruling sends a powerful message to policymakers in European countries that states must intensify their efforts to combat climate change.Mandi Mudarikwa, Amnesty International’s Head of Strategic Litigation
“The Swiss case ruling strengthens legal pathways to achieving climate justice through the ECtHR. It is hugely significant that the ECtHR recognized the harm caused to the applicants by climate change and that the Swiss government was doing too little to curb greenhouse gas emissions and adequately protect them.
“The ECtHR’s ruling sends a powerful message to policymakers in European countries that states must intensify their efforts to combat climate change. We note that the decisions of the ECtHR to dismiss the other two other climate-related cases was based on procedural considerations, rather than on the respective merits of each case.
“Strategic litigation can help to deliver climate justice and protect the rights of billions from global warming, especially the most marginalized, and will yield benefits – as we have witnessed today with the Swiss case.”
Background
The ECtHR ruled on three climate cases. In Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland, a group representing more than 2,500 older Swiss women argued that their government’s failure to adequately mitigate global warming violated their human rights to health and life and puts them at risk of dying during heatwaves.
In Duarte Agostinho and Others v Portugal and 31 Other States six young Portuguese people argued that countries bound by the European Convention on Human Rights — the 27 EU states, as well as the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Norway, Russia and Turkey — had infringed several human rights after heatwaves and forest fires closed down their schools and risked their health. Amnesty International submitted a joint third-party intervention in the case on the obligation on governments to create climate policies which protect the rights of people outside their borders.
In the third case, Damien Carême, a former mayor of Grande-Synthe, a suburb of Dunkirk in northern France, argued that the French government has neglected its obligation to protect life by failing to take sufficient steps to prevent climate change and therefore heightening the risk of future flooding in the area.
The right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment was universally recognized by the UN General Assembly in 2022. Amnesty International is part of a coalition calling for the adoption of an additional protocol on the right to the European Convention on Human Rights which would help reinforce and clarify the ECtHR’s jurisprudence on environmental protection, including climate change. Summaries of today’s rulings can be accessed here.
Will landmark European climate ruling become legal turning point?
Issued on: 09/04/2024 -
Issued on: 09/04/2024 -
Europe’s highest human rights court ruled Tuesday that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change, siding with a group of older Swiss women against their government in a landmark ruling that could have implications across the continent. France 24's Emerald Maxwell takes a closer look.
04:14
Video by: Emerald MAXWELL
Video by: Emerald MAXWELL
Courtrooms: a growing arena in the climate fight
United Nations (United States) (AFP) – The battle against climate change is increasingly being fought in the courtroom, as national governments, specific laws and individual companies are targeted over their role in the crisis -- sometimes successfully.
Issued on: 09/04/2024 -
An explosion of lawsuits
The number of court cases linked to climate change doubled between 2017 and 2022, according to the UN Environment Programme and Columbia University's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
There were more than 2,500 cases lodged worldwide as of mid-December, the Sabin Center said in its annual report, with more than 1,600 in the United States.
Of the cases worldwide, 135 were brought in developing countries, including so-called Small Island Developing States -- far-flung nations whose land is some of the most at-risk from climate change.
"Why is climate litigation still growing? Because the climate crisis is increasing in its intensity, its immediacy," Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center, told AFP.
"And because government and corporate action is inadequate to meet the moment," he added.
The number of cases being filed appears to have slowed over the past year, though it is still too early to tell for sure, according to the latest report from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change in London.
- Effectiveness -
Climate change litigation has affected the "outcome and ambition of climate governance", experts from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wrote in a report last year, adding that successful cases also serve as a form of external pressure on governments.
Urgenda, an environmental organisation in the Netherlands, notched a notable win at the Dutch Supreme Court in 2019, with justices ordering the government to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by the end of the following year.
Government policies "that are explicitly linked to the case" were subsequently introduced, said Catherine Higham, a Grantham Research Institute policy fellow.
Litigation 'cuts both ways'
But a number of high-profile cases have been unsuccessful, and those seeking a greener future are not the only ones filing lawsuits: high-emitting companies are starting to file suits against climate-friendly laws they oppose.
"Litigation cuts both ways," Higham said.
"Those that benefit from the status quo will do what they can to preserve their benefits, and that will include going to court," added Burger.
Additionally, activists can find themselves in the crosshairs of suits linked to disruptive protests, though "judges have generally taken the climate crisis" as well as the role of civil disobedience "into consideration in sentencing", according to a report from the UN Environment Programme.
Companies targeted
In addition to governments, companies themselves can also be the target of lawsuits, with litigants pressing for both compensation and a change in corporate behaviour.
In another historic Dutch decision, Shell was ordered in 2021 to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45 percent by 2023, a decision the oil major is appealing.
A new strategy employed by climate change activists is to target "greenwashing", accusing companies or organisations of deceptive practices that conceal their true environmental footprint.
FIFA is among those that have been accused of the practice.
Stronger data
Scientists are increasingly able to establish the links between climate change and individual extreme weather events, as well as the role of specific high-emitting industries, from oil extraction to mining to cement production, in climate change -- data that is often used in lawsuits.
A county in the northwestern US state of Oregon filed suit in June against several international oil majors, seeking $51 billion in damages after a deadly "heat dome" blanketed the northwest of the country in 2021.
Human rights
Human rights also take centre stage in some cases, often concerning people's rights to health and well-being or to a clean environment.
These sorts of arguments are often made in cases before international tribunals, like the ECHR.
Non-binding, but influential
Even when decisions are non-binding, they can influence government attitudes and policies worldwide.
Activists are currently awaiting advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on the obligations of individual states in climate matters.
"Although such opinions are non-binding, they have great potential to shape the future development of climate change law," according to the Grantham Research Institute.
© 2024 AFP
United Nations (United States) (AFP) – The battle against climate change is increasingly being fought in the courtroom, as national governments, specific laws and individual companies are targeted over their role in the crisis -- sometimes successfully.
Issued on: 09/04/2024 -
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) heard in September 2023 a case brought by six Portuguese youths accusing governments of moving too slowly to counter climate change
© FREDERICK FLORIN / AFP
On Tuesday, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Switzerland was not doing enough to tackle climate change, its first such ruling against a state on the subject, after a women's association mounted a legal challenge.
Here is some key background and analyst commentary on climate lawsuits around the world:
On Tuesday, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Switzerland was not doing enough to tackle climate change, its first such ruling against a state on the subject, after a women's association mounted a legal challenge.
Here is some key background and analyst commentary on climate lawsuits around the world:
An explosion of lawsuits
The number of court cases linked to climate change doubled between 2017 and 2022, according to the UN Environment Programme and Columbia University's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
There were more than 2,500 cases lodged worldwide as of mid-December, the Sabin Center said in its annual report, with more than 1,600 in the United States.
Of the cases worldwide, 135 were brought in developing countries, including so-called Small Island Developing States -- far-flung nations whose land is some of the most at-risk from climate change.
"Why is climate litigation still growing? Because the climate crisis is increasing in its intensity, its immediacy," Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center, told AFP.
"And because government and corporate action is inadequate to meet the moment," he added.
The number of cases being filed appears to have slowed over the past year, though it is still too early to tell for sure, according to the latest report from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change in London.
- Effectiveness -
Climate change litigation has affected the "outcome and ambition of climate governance", experts from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wrote in a report last year, adding that successful cases also serve as a form of external pressure on governments.
Urgenda, an environmental organisation in the Netherlands, notched a notable win at the Dutch Supreme Court in 2019, with justices ordering the government to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by the end of the following year.
Government policies "that are explicitly linked to the case" were subsequently introduced, said Catherine Higham, a Grantham Research Institute policy fellow.
Litigation 'cuts both ways'
But a number of high-profile cases have been unsuccessful, and those seeking a greener future are not the only ones filing lawsuits: high-emitting companies are starting to file suits against climate-friendly laws they oppose.
"Litigation cuts both ways," Higham said.
"Those that benefit from the status quo will do what they can to preserve their benefits, and that will include going to court," added Burger.
Additionally, activists can find themselves in the crosshairs of suits linked to disruptive protests, though "judges have generally taken the climate crisis" as well as the role of civil disobedience "into consideration in sentencing", according to a report from the UN Environment Programme.
Companies targeted
In addition to governments, companies themselves can also be the target of lawsuits, with litigants pressing for both compensation and a change in corporate behaviour.
In another historic Dutch decision, Shell was ordered in 2021 to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45 percent by 2023, a decision the oil major is appealing.
A new strategy employed by climate change activists is to target "greenwashing", accusing companies or organisations of deceptive practices that conceal their true environmental footprint.
FIFA is among those that have been accused of the practice.
Stronger data
Scientists are increasingly able to establish the links between climate change and individual extreme weather events, as well as the role of specific high-emitting industries, from oil extraction to mining to cement production, in climate change -- data that is often used in lawsuits.
A county in the northwestern US state of Oregon filed suit in June against several international oil majors, seeking $51 billion in damages after a deadly "heat dome" blanketed the northwest of the country in 2021.
Human rights
Human rights also take centre stage in some cases, often concerning people's rights to health and well-being or to a clean environment.
These sorts of arguments are often made in cases before international tribunals, like the ECHR.
Non-binding, but influential
Even when decisions are non-binding, they can influence government attitudes and policies worldwide.
Activists are currently awaiting advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on the obligations of individual states in climate matters.
"Although such opinions are non-binding, they have great potential to shape the future development of climate change law," according to the Grantham Research Institute.
© 2024 AFP
No comments:
Post a Comment