With its ruling in Switzerland, the Human Rights Court sets a crucial precedent in future climate cases

On the day that the Copernicus Commission, the European Union's climate science body, recorded a record 10th consecutive hot month, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled that human rights are at stake in climate policy. Although the court declared inadmissibility two of the three major climate cases it ruled on Tuesday, the ruling in the third case could be interpreted as a harsh rebuke to a government that does not adequately protect its citizens against the harmful effects of global warming. planet.

The court ruled in favor of the Swiss KlimaSeniorinnen. This association, which includes about 2,400 elderly women (average age is about 73 years), said that the Swiss government had not done enough to protect them from the effects of climate change. They specifically mentioned summer heat waves, which have serious consequences on quality of life. In recent years, these have also caused an increase in the mortality rate among the elderly, especially women, in the summer.

The 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated the right to private and family life (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights) by failing to take adequate measures to combat dangerous climate change. It is forbidden. According to the court, individuals have the right “to effective protection by State authorities against the serious negative consequences of climate change on their life, health, well-being and quality of life.”

According to Laura Bergers, a climate lawyer at the University of Amsterdam, the ruling is in line with previous court cases. “I would have been surprised if the court had said climate was not a human rights issue. Two weeks ago, the Court of Justice in India confirmed that again. The Urgenda case in the Netherlands was also based on human rights. I was particularly curious about the argument. How far they would go ?

Politics is about politics

The court does not comment definitively on climate policy itself. According to Berger, this is also consistent with previous statements. “The court says: Political institutions must set climate policy. But our job is to identify human rights violations. And that's what we'll do here.”

In the ruling, the court spoke of the “wide margin of discretion of states regarding the choice of means” to achieve their climate goals. But countries have a “fundamental obligation” to take adequate measures “to mitigate the current and potentially irreversible future impacts of climate change.” The court found that the Swiss government had not put in place sufficient safeguards to ensure that internationally agreed climate goals were actually met.

Human Rights Action Group Avaaz, which assisted Klima SeniorsRuth Delber The Swiss ruling sets a decisive and legally binding precedent

The Court points out that the objectives are not just about mitigation, i.e. reducing greenhouse gas emissions. “Mitigation measures must be complemented by adaptation measures aimed at mitigating the effects of more serious or threatening climate change.” According to the court, there are “serious gaps” in Swiss policy regarding compliance with this order.

Citizens find it “remarkable, especially for a country with such a good reputation as Switzerland” that the country has been found guilty of “violating the right to a fair trial.” According to the 17 judges, the Swiss easily declared KlimaSeniorinnen's complaints unfounded. They also accuse Swiss courts of not taking into account “convincing scientific evidence regarding climate change” in their decisions.

Legally binding precedent

The European Court's decision was eagerly awaited around the world. Citizens or environmental groups are increasingly turning to national courts to force governments to do more to prevent dangerous climate change. In many cases, complainants are demanding that governments fulfill promises made previously set out in international agreements. This ruling is a great support for them. “The Swiss ruling sets a decisive and legally binding precedent,” Ruth Delpier, of the human rights action group Avaaz, which helped KlimaSeniorinnen, said afterwards. According to her, the ruling could serve as “a blueprint for how to successfully sue your government over failed climate policy.”

For Dutch climate organization Melodydefense, the ruling in Strasbourg represents a boost to its appeal against the oil company Shell, currently before the Court of Appeal in The Hague. “Good news that Europe’s highest judges now also confirm that the climate crisis violates human rights,” campaign leader Nine De Pater said. “This is precisely the premise of the climate case brought by Milieudefensie against Shell. Heatwaves and wildfires are becoming increasingly severe, which is why this ruling is an important step in the fight against dangerous climate change.”

Read also
Who will win the battle between Shell and Melodydefense?

Greenpeace also said in its initial response that it was pleased with the ruling. “Europe's highest human rights court confirms that states have a duty to protect their citizens from the climate crisis. Not only Switzerland, but all countries in Europe, including the Netherlands,” said Evje de Kroon, climate justice campaigner at the environmental organisation. Only through carbon dioxide much faster₂ By reducing this, we can keep the Earth below 1.5 degrees Celsius. With this ruling, we are stronger in the case that the people of Bonaire and Greenpeace are currently pursuing against the Dutch state for further climate action. Let this be a signal to the Dutch government that it should not wait for the judge to amend the order again, but should act now. The House of Representatives is discussing this matter today.”

The fact that the court declared the other two cases inadmissible does not change this much. When he filed his complaint, Damien Carem was living on the northern French coast near Calais, and feared that his happiness would be affected if his home and other possessions were affected by sea level rise. But he moved and the court therefore considered that the sentence was no longer appropriate.

According to the court, the six young Portuguese men who filed lawsuits against the European Union and major European countries should have first taken their case to a national court. “I understand they tried,” Bergers says. “They feel they have no time to waste. And don't forget that KlimaSeniorinnen has been working for eight years and has lost his case for the first time in three cases in Switzerland.

To participate




Email the editor