European Court of Human Rights Sets Landmark Precedent in Climate Case

Background

The case centred around a complaint by an association representing over 2,000 elderly Swiss women, who argued that the Swiss government’s insufficient action against climate change jeopardised their health and quality of life. They contended that the government’s failure to mitigate climate change violated their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Implications of the Ruling

In a first of a kind ruling, ECtHR asserts that states have a duty under the ECHR to safeguard their citizens from the adverse effects of climate change. Specifically, it recognises a right to protection by state authorities against climate change impacts on life, health, well-being, and quality of life, as outlined in Article 8 of the Convention.

Key Findings

The Court identified several critical shortcomings in Switzerland’s climate policies, including:

• Failure to set quantifiable national greenhouse gas emission limits.
• Inadequate measures to meet past emission reduction targets.
• Disregard for established scientific evidence on climate change.
• Insufficient engagement with climate-related complaints from citizens.

Scope of the Judgment

The ruling establishes essential principles for future climate change litigation, emphasising the need for states to:

• Set specific targets and timelines for achieving net-zero emissions.
• Implement intermediate emission reduction targets.
• Continuously update targets based on scientific evidence.
• Act promptly and effectively in devising climate legislation and measures.

Impact beyond the Swiss Borders

The ECtHR’s ruling in the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland case carries significant implications for European governments. As signatories to the ECHR, these governments are now under increased pressure to uphold their legal obligations in combating climate change and protecting the rights of their citizens.

• Clarification of states’ legal responsibility: This includes the duty to safeguard their populations from the adverse effects of climate change such as recognising the right to protection by state authorities against climate change impacts on life, health, well-being, and quality of life, as outlined in Article 8 of the Convention. European governments must therefore prioritise the implementation of effective climate policies to fulfil this obligation.
• Accountability mechanisms:  European governments are expected to establish transparent frameworks for monitoring and reporting on their climate progress, allowing for independent evaluation and public scrutiny. This entails providing avenues for citizens to challenge inadequate climate policies through legal means, thereby enhancing accountability and transparency in climate governance.
• Policy coherence: European governments must ensure that their climate strategies are coherent across various policy areas, aligning domestic legislation with international obligations and human rights standards. By integrating climate considerations into all aspects of policy making, from energy and transportation to agriculture and urban planning, governments can enhance the effectiveness and equity of their climate actions.
• European governments leading the global fight against climate change: By upholding human rights in their climate decision-making processes, these governments can set a positive example for the international community and inspire greater ambition on the global stage. This includes advocating for stronger climate action at international forums such as the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP) and supporting initiatives to enhance climate resilience and adaptation worldwide.

Implications for the UK

The implications of the ECtHR’s ruling extend to the UK government, as the United Kingdom is indeed a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The ruling underscores the UK government’s legal responsibility to combat climate change effectively and protect the human rights of its citizens in accordance with the Convention.

For the UK government, the ruling emphasises the need to prioritise robust climate action and ensure compliance with its obligations under the ECHR. This includes implementing ambitious climate policies, setting clear targets for greenhouse gas emissions reduction, and establishing mechanisms for monitoring and reporting on progress. The UK government must also address any shortcomings in its climate strategies to meet the standards set forth by the ECtHR.

In addition, the ruling highlights the importance of accountability and transparency in the UK’s climate governance. The government must provide avenues for citizens to challenge inadequate climate policies through legal channels, fostering greater accountability and public participation in climate decision-making processes.

Implications for International Law

Beyond its immediate impact on Switzerland, the ECtHR’s decision sets a precedent with implications for international human rights law. By recognizing the link between climate change and human rights violations, the Court signals a broader shift towards integrating environmental concerns into legal frameworks worldwide.

Strengthening Legal Pathways

The judgement strengthens legal pathways for holding governments accountable for their climate commitments. It empowers individuals and organisations to challenge inadequate climate policies through domestic courts and international human rights mechanisms, fostering a culture of accountability and transparency in climate governance.

The ECtHR’s judgement sets a precedent for future climate-related litigation, empowering individuals and organisations to hold governments accountable for inadequate climate policies. As countries strive to meet their climate targets, the role of human rights law in driving meaningful action and protecting vulnerable communities will continue to gain prominence.

Related Cases

Alongside the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland case, two other significant climate-related cases were considered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR): Carême v. France and Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal.

• Carême v. France

In the case of Carême v. France, a former inhabitant and mayor of the municipality of Grande-Synthe lodged a complaint alleging that France had failed to take sufficient measures to prevent global warming. The applicant argued that this failure violated the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life. However, the Court declared the application inadmissible, citing that the applicant did not have victim status under Article 34 of the Convention.

• Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others

In the case of Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others, the applicants raised concerns about the severe effects of climate change, which they attributed to the respondent states. They claimed that these effects impacted their lives, well-being, mental health, and the peaceful enjoyment of their homes. The applicants sought to extend the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the respondent states and filed complaints against Portugal and other states. However, the Court found no grounds in the Convention for such an extension of jurisdiction. Furthermore, since the applicants had not pursued legal avenues in Portugal regarding their complaints, the Court declared the complaint against Portugal inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Similarly, the applications against other states on the issue of climate change were also declared inadmissible.

These cases along with some previous cases brought to ECtHR highlight the complexity of climate-related litigation and the challenges faced by individuals seeking redress for climate change impacts through legal avenues. While the ECtHR’s ruling in the Swiss case sets a precedent for states’ obligations in addressing climate change, these related cases demonstrate the legal hurdles and limitations faced by individuals in pursuing climate-related claims before international courts.

Conclusion

In conclusion, despite these other two cases, ECtHR’s judgement on the Swiss case marks a significant milestone in the intersection of human rights and environmental protection, setting the stage for enhanced climate justice and accountability across Europe and beyond. As countries strive to meet their climate targets, the role of human rights law in driving meaningful action and protecting vulnerable communities will continue to gain prominence.

By Mallika Singhal