On April 9, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as the ECHR) ruled in three cases directly related to climate change. This day will definitely go down in the history of both the climate movement and the human rights movement. In view of the importance and a kind of precedent nature of the ECHR jurisprudence, we consider it expedient to analyse these judgements. You can find a video recording of the court announcing the judgements here: http://surl.li/slkrg.
The judgement in the case “Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and others v. Switzerland” (application No. 53600/20)
This case concerned a complaint by four women and a Swiss association Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, whose members are concerned about the consequences of global warming for living conditions and health. They consider that the Swiss authorities are not taking sufficient action to mitigate the negative impact of the consequences of climate change.
In the judgement of the Grand Chamber of the ECHR dated April 9, 2024 in this case, the European Court of Human Rights ruled by a majority of sixteen votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; and, unanimously, that a violation of paragraph 1 of Article 6 (access to justice) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was established.
The ECHR established that Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms includes the right to effective protection by state authorities against serious negative consequences of climate change for lives, health, well-being and quality of life.
However, the ECHR held that four individual applicants did not fulfil the victim–status criteria under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and declared their complaints inadmissible. The applicant association, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, in contrast, according to the position of the ECHR, had the right (locus standi) to bring a complaint regarding the threats arising from climate change in the respondent state on behalf of those individuals who could claim to be exposed to specific threats or adverse impacts of climate change on their lives, health, well-being and quality of life as protected under the Convention on Human Rights.
The ECHR found that the Swiss Confederation failed to fulfill its obligations (“positive obligations”) under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms with regard to climate change, being a party to the Paris Agreement. The ECHR emphasized that there had been in place critical gaps in the process of creating an appropriate domestic regulatory framework, including the failure of the Swiss authorities to quantify at the national level limits on greenhouse gas emissions (hereinafter – GHG) using a carbon budget or in any other way. Switzerland has also failed to meet its past GHG emission reduction targets. While recognizing that national authorities enjoy wide discretion in relation to implementation of legislation and other measures, the ECHR held, on the basis of the material submitted to it, that the Swiss authorities had not acted in a timely and appropriate manner to develop and implement the relevant legislation and take the necessary measures in this case.
In addition, the ECHR found that paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is also applicable to the complaint of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, we are talking about a violation of the right to access to justice. The ECHR held that the Swiss courts had not provided convincing arguments as to why they considered it unnecessary to examine the merits of the applicant association’s complaints. They had failed to take into consideration the compelling scientific evidence concerning climate change and had not taken the complaints seriously enough.
The judgement in the case “Carême vs. France” (application No. 7189/21)
This case concerned a complaint by a former resident and mayor of the municipality of Grand-Synthe, who claimed that France had taken insufficient measures to prevent global warming and that such insufficient action by France entailed a violation of the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life.
Taking into account the fact that the applicant did not, in the ECHR’s opinion, have relevant links with Grand Synthe and that, moreover, he was not at that time a resident of France, the ECHR held that for the purposes of any potential connection with a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms or Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life or home) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, he could not claim to have the status of a victim under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Decision in the case “Duarte Agostinho and others v. Portugal and 32 others” (application No. 39371/20)
We have already written about this case on EPL’s resources, you can see our previous publication at the following link: http://surl.li/slkhd.
The case “Duarte Agostinho and others v. Portugal and 32 others” concerns the present and future serious effects of climate change, which the applicants claim are the responsibility of the respondent states and which the applicants claim are affecting their lives, well-being, mental health and peaceful use of housing.
The applicants are six young citizens of Portugal. They argued that Portugal is already experiencing a range of effects from climate change, including rising average temperatures and extreme heat, which has been a major cause of forest fires. They referred to various articles of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, international documents such as the Paris Agreement of 2015 and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as general reports and expert opinions on the damage caused by climate change.
According to the applicants, Portugal and 32 other respondent States are responsible for the situation in question. They argued that they are currently at risk of adverse effects from climate change, that the risk will increase significantly during their lifetime. They argued that their generation was particularly affected by climate change and that, given their age, the interference with their rights was greater than in the case of older generations.
With regard to the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the respondent States, except for Portugal, the ECHR found that, under the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, there were not sufficient grounds in this case to extend, through judicial interpretation, extraterritorial jurisdiction in the manner requested by the applicants. Thus, territorial jurisdiction was established with respect to Portugal, while jurisdiction could not be established with respect to the other respondent States. Thus, the applicants’ complaint against the respondent States other than Portugal was declared inadmissible in accordance with paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 35 of the Convention.
Taking into account the fact that the applicants did not seek any judicial protection mechanism in Portugal regarding the issues raised in their complaints, the applicants’ complaint to the ECHR against Portugal was declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of national remedies.
Conclusions. Formation of the climate change jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights is extremely important to ensure protection of basic human rights and freedoms in the context of environmental challenges. Establishing clear rules and precedents will help ensure access to a fair trial, protection of life and health, and the right to live in a healthy environment. This jurisprudence will be an important step in developing a legal system that takes into account environmental aspects and responds to the modern challenges of climate change. From the above, we can see that the relevant jurisprudence is developing, and the progressive positions of the ECHR are being formed, however, there are still a number of challenges that must be overcome on the way to the proper and complete protection of the human right to life in a safe and sustainable environment. The studied jurisprudence of the ECHR once again demonstrates the importance of recognition at the level of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the right to safe and healthy environment, which is recognized and enshrined at the level of constitutions of majority of European states.
