In April, the ECtHR set a precedent that revolutionised the basis on which individuals can hold their governments accountable for not adhering to their climate change policies. Let’s look at how senior women have changed the face of climate justice in the ECtHR.
In May 2020, after the Swiss Supreme Court's final decision, the Senior Women for Climate Protection Switzerland association took their case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). They argued that heat waves exacerbated by climate change threatened their health and requested the case be treated under the expedited procedure per Article 41 of the Court's Rules.
Their application raised three main complaints:
Switzerland's inadequate climate policies violate their rights to life and health under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The Swiss Federal Supreme Court rejected their case on arbitrary grounds, violating their right to a fair trial under Article 6.
Swiss authorities and courts failed to address the substance of their complaints, violating their right to an effective remedy under Article 13.
The ECtHR accepted the case in March 2021, giving it priority status and asking Switzerland to respond by July 2021, which it did.
In September 2021, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHR) submitted third-party interventions. They provided insights on the impact of climate change on the right to life and private and family life and the obligations of States under international environmental law.
In October 2021, the petitioners replied to the Swiss government's response, emphasising that Switzerland failed to protect their rights by not adopting necessary measures to prevent global temperatures from rising more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. In December 2022, the applicants and several organisations, including the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, submitted further observations and third-party interventions. Hearings were held in March 2023.
On April 9, 2024, the ECtHR found that Switzerland violated Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 6 § 1 (right to access court). The Court stated that Article 8 includes a right to effective protection from serious adverse effects of climate change. It found that Switzerland had not fulfilled its obligations under the Convention, having significant gaps in its regulatory framework, such as the lack of a carbon budget or sufficient GHG emissions limitations, and failing to meet past emissions targets.
While acknowledging the wide discretion of national authorities in implementing measures, the Court held that Switzerland did not act appropriately. Additionally, the Court ruled that Article 6 § 1 applied to the applicant's complaint about effectively implementing existing domestic mitigation measures.
This decision sets a binding precedent for all 46 European Convention on Human Rights members and indicates that countries need to do more to reduce emissions to fight climate change. Courts in Australia, Brazil, Peru and South Korea are considering climate change cases based on human rights while India has ruled that citizens have the right to be free from the effects of climate change. This monumental case has opened up opportunities to hold governments accountable for continuing to cause harm to our environment. Time will show how this precedent will affect future climate change cases.
Comments