Europe’s top rights court issues landmark climate judgment

Europe’s top court of rights is set to deliver unprecedented verdicts on Tuesday in three separate cases on state responsibility in the face of global warming, a ruling that could force governments to adopt more ambitious climate policies. There is sex.

The European Court of Human Rights, part of the 46-nation Council of Europe, will rule on whether governments’ climate change policies violate the European Convention on Human Rights, which it oversees.

All three lawsuits accuse European governments of inaction or insufficient measures to combat global warming.

As a sign of the importance of this issue, all of these cases have been prioritized by the Court’s highest court, the ECHR Grand Bench, whose 17 judges have the potential to set important precedents. can.

This will be the first time the court has ruled on climate change.

Several European countries, including France, have already been criticized by domestic courts for not fulfilling their global warming commitments, but the ECHR could go further and clarify new fundamental rights. .

Corinne Lepage, a lawyer and former French environment minister who is defending one of the lawsuits, said the challenge was to “ensure that individual and collective rights to a climate as stable as possible are recognized, and this is an important legal matter.” “It will be a major innovation.” .

“turning point”

Jerry Liston, a lawyer with the NGO Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), said the court’s position “could be a turning point in the global fight for a more livable future.”

“If we win in any of the three cases, this could be the most important piece of climate change legislation for Europe since the 2015 Paris Agreement, which set new emissions reduction targets for governments,” he said. ” he said.

Even if a treaty does not contain an explicit provision regarding the environment, courts have already relied on article 8 of the treaty, the right to respect for private and family life, and the obligation of states to maintain a “healthy environment.” I am making a judgment. In connection with waste management or industrial activities.

The first of the three cases to be decided on Tuesday was brought personally by the Swiss Association of Climate Protection Elders (2,500 women, average age 73) and four of its members. .

They complain about the “failures of the Swiss authorities” on climate protection, which they say “has a serious negative impact on the health situation”.

Damien Carême, the former mayor of the northern French coastal city of Grand Sinte, has attacked the “deficiencies” of the French state, saying it risks sinking the town into the North Sea.

He already filed a lawsuit in 2019 with France’s Council of State (Supreme Administrative Court), alleging France’s “inaction on climate change.” Although the court ruled in favor of the municipality in July 2021, it dismissed the lawsuit brought by Mr. Caleme in his own name, prompting Mr. Caleme to take the case to the ECHR.

“For everyone’s benefit”

The third case was brought by a group of six Portuguese men aged between 12 and 24 who took action after fires devastated their country in 2017.

Their case is not only against Portugal, but also 31 other countries (all EU member states, plus Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and Russia).

Almost all European countries, not just the EU member states, belong to the Council of Europe.

Although Russia was expelled from the COE after the invasion of Ukraine, cases against Russia are still being heard in court.

The ECHR will only hear cases once all domestic appeals have been exhausted. The ruling is binding, although compliance by certain countries, such as Turkey, is questionable.

The three lawsuits rely primarily on the treaty’s provisions protecting the “right to life” and the “right to respect for private life.”

However, courts will issue precedential decisions only if they determine that these cases have exhausted all remedies at the national level.

The accused state tried to prove this was not the case in two hearings held in 2023.