[ad_1]
Written by Gloria Dickey, Kate Abnett, Christian Leveaux
STRASBOURG, France – The European Court of Human Rights ruled on Tuesday that the Swiss government had violated the human rights of its citizens by not doing enough to combat climate change, setting a precedent for future climate change litigation. It became.
The European Court of Human Rights’ decision in favor of the more than 2,000 Swiss women who brought the case echoes court decisions across Europe and beyond, prompting more communities to take climate action against their governments. We hope that you will be encouraged to take action.
However, in a sign of the complexity of the growing wave of climate litigation, the court (ECtHR) dismissed two other climate-related cases on procedural grounds. One of his claims was filed by a group of six young Portuguese men against 32 European governments, and the other by a former mayor of a low-lying French coastal town.
Swiss women over the age of 64, known as KlimaSeniorinnen, say the government’s inaction on climate change puts them at risk of dying from heatwaves. They argued that their age and gender made them particularly vulnerable to such climate change impacts.
Court President Siofra O’Leary said in her judgment that the Swiss government had failed to meet its own targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and had failed to set a national carbon budget.
“It is clear that future generations are likely to bear increasingly severe burdens as a result of current failures and inaction in climate action,” Mr O’Leary said.
Rosmarie Weidler Verti, one of the leaders of Klimaseniolinnen, said she was having a hard time understanding the full implications of the decision.
“We ask lawyers over and over again, ‘Is that OK?’ And they say, ‘This is the most you can get. This is the biggest possible victory.'”
The decision was noted by the Swiss Federal Attorney’s Office, which represented the Swiss government in court.
The government said in a statement: “We will analyze the broader judgment together with the relevant authorities and consider what further steps Switzerland may take.”
Climate litigation on the rise
The case, filed before a 17-judge panel in Strasbourg, France, is one of a growing number of climate change lawsuits brought by citizens against governments that are governed by human rights law.
Although the Swiss decision cannot be appealed, it will have international ramifications, most directly by establishing binding legal precedent for all 46 states party to the European Convention on Human Rights.
This shows that Switzerland has a legal obligation to take further steps to reduce emissions.
Lucy Maxwell, co-director of the nonprofit Climate Litigation Network, said if Switzerland did not update its policies, further lawsuits at the national level and courts could impose fines.
Switzerland has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030 from 1990 levels. The city of Bern had proposed stronger measures to reach the goal, but voters rejected them in a 2021 referendum, saying they were too burdensome.
The ruling could also affect future rulings at the Strasbourg court, which had suspended six other climate cases until Tuesday’s ruling.
These include a lawsuit against the Norwegian government, which it claims has violated human rights by issuing new licenses for oil and gas exploration in the Barents Sea after 2035.
Ruth Delbert, legal campaign director for the global citizens’ movement Avas, said of the outcome of the Swiss case: “(This case) is an important piece of legislation that provides a blueprint for how to successfully sue governments on climate change. It has become a binding precedent.”
Courts in Australia, Brazil, Peru, and South Korea are considering human rights-based climate litigation. India’s Supreme Court ruled last month that people have the right to escape the negative effects of climate change.
In a case brought by young Portuguese men, a court rules that although a state’s greenhouse gas emissions may have a negative impact on people living outside its borders, a multijurisdictional lawsuit is justified. It was ruled that it would not.
It also pointed out that the young people had not exhausted their legal avenues in Portugal’s domestic courts before coming to the ECtHR.
“We really wanted to win against all countries,” Sofia Oliveira, one of Portugal’s teenage players, said in a statement.
“But most importantly, the court said in the Swiss woman’s case that governments need to further reduce emissions to protect human rights. Their victory is therefore also for us. It’s a win, and a win for everyone.”
(Reporting by Gloria Dickie and Kate Abnett; Additional reporting by Oliver Hirt, Dave Graham and Deep Vakil; Editing by Kevin Liffey, Richard Lough and Barbara Lewis)
[ad_2]
Source link
