In a landmark decision, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has today ruled that climate change violates the right to respect for one’s private and family life.
This is the main legal basis through which the court has previous rule on environmental cases, but an “historic” one regarding the climate crisis, observers say.
The case was brought by an association of older Swiss women concerned about the impact of global warming on their health, who claim the Swiss government is not taking enough action.
The ECHR ruled by 16 judges to 1 that the KlimaSeniorinnen (Swiss Elders for Climate Protection) were subject to a violation of Article 8 as well as Article 6 - the right to a fair trial in their country.
“While we do not have all the details yet - this decision is historic!,” writes Sébastien Duyck, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmmental Law. “The Court has found the petition admissible and finds a violation of the rights of the Klimaseniorinnen both on process and on the substance!”
Two other climate cases - brought by a former French mayor, and six Portuguese youth - were found to be inadmissible, however.
This story is being updated below.
What cases was the ECHR ruling on?
The first of the cases was brought by KlimaSeniorinnen. This association of 2,500 Swiss women have an average age of 73.
The Swiss elders filed a complaint about various “failings” on climate change that “would seriously harm their state of health”. They argue that their government’s policies are “clearly inadequate” for keeping global warming below the Paris Agreement limit of 1.5C.
After battling in the Swiss courts for several years and finally being defeated in the Federal Court - the country’s highest - they escalated the case to the ECHR.
The second comes from the former mayor of the French town of Grande-Synthe, Damien Careme. It complains about the “deficiencies” of the government putting his town at risk from rising sea levels.
Careme filed a case in France’s highest administrative court in 2019. France’s Council of State ruled in favour of the municipality but rejected Careme’s personal case which is how it ended up at the ECHR.
The third and perhaps most wide-reaching case was brought by six Portuguese young people aged 12 to 24. Fires that spread across their country in 2017 spurred them to action.
Their case is not just against Portugal but every EU member state, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, the UK and Russia.
All three cases hinge on articles in the European Convention of Human Rights which protect the “right to life” and the “right to respect for private life”.
What could the rulings mean for climate action?
These three cases raise several legal questions about a government’s obligations when it comes to climate change. This includes their duty to prevent foreseeable human rights harms caused by climate change; who can seek protection and redress from climate harms from the ECHR; and the role of international law like the Paris Agreement in determining what is adequate climate action.
There is no specific mention of climate change in the European Convention of Human Rights. But the court has already ruled for industry and waste management that, based on Article 8 or the right to respect for private and family life, states have an obligation to maintain a “healthy environment”.
If the court rules in favour of these three cases, it could set a precedent for other individuals to go to the ECHR seeking redress for their government’s failure to protect them from the consequences of climate change.
The rulings would apply to how human rights law is interpreted to protect citizens from climate change across the 46 member states of the Council of Europe. These cases could also serve as a blueprint for future court decisions, influencing climate cases still pending in both Europe and across the world.
