- The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has condemned for the first time the Government of a country, Switzerland, for its ‘critical gaps’ in addressing the climate crisis in the case ‘Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and others vs. Switzerland,’ and has declared the cases ‘Duarte Agostinho and others vs. Portugal and 32 other States’ and ‘Careme vs. France’ inadmissible.
- The director of the International Institute of Law and Environment (IIDMA), Ana Barreira, positively values the Court’s ruling because it is mandatory for the defendant, who will have to intensify its climate mitigation efforts, but asks for caution in the face of enthusiasm : “It remains to be seen and analyzed the repercussions it will have.
- The IIDMA has studied the most relevant climate litigation both within the scope of the ECtHR and in cases relating to the responsibility of the private sector and has expressed its conclusions in the report: ‘Climate Rights: Legal Mechanisms for Climate Defense in Spain’.
The measures taken by Switzerland to address climate change are not sufficient and contravene Articles 6 (by unanimity) and 8 (by 16 votes in favor and one against) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is the verdict of the ECHR judgment made public this Tuesday. On the other hand, the French case ‘Careme vs. France’ has been deemed inadmissible because the plaintiff no longer resides in the area; while in the high-profile case of the Portuguese youths ‘Duarte Agostinho and others vs. Portugal and 32 other States,’ the Court highlights that the defendants could not directly approach Strasbourg without exhausting the avenue of national remedies.
The ruling in the case of Switzerland could lead to new cases where measures taken to address climate change infringe upon the right to privacy of the home, as stated by the ECHR. The violation of this right, provided for in Article 8 of the Convention, is recognized, but at the same time, it leaves it to the Swiss Federation to take necessary measures to ensure that this right is not infringed upon by climate change caused by emissions. Therefore, Switzerland will need to increase its nationally determined contribution, something it is obliged to do under the Paris Agreement.
In a preliminary assessment of the verdict, the director of the International Institute of Law and the Environment (IIDMA), Ana Barreira, urges caution amid the enthusiasm generated by the ruling and considers it necessary to make a detailed reading: ‘There are climate cases that are strategic because they raise awareness, but the judicial path should not be the only legal response to address the climate crisis.’ In fact, through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement, significant changes have been driven in various economic sectors.
“The place where there is the most climate litigation is in the United States since they have a judicial system in which precedents must be set, which are the primary source of law, but in the majority of the countries of the European Union—including Spain—we have a civil law system, where the first source of law is legislation,” argues Barreira.
On the other hand, the lawyer remembers that the climate crisis is a global problem and requires the involvement of all countries: “The European Union has to continue working, but at the same time it is necessary for emerging economies to implement transition plans that are fulfilled. and they are endowed with resources.”
The International Institute of Law and Environment (IIDMA) has studied in depth the legal mechanisms for the defense of the climate and has expressed its conclusions in the report ‘Climate rights: legal mechanisms for the defense of the climate in Spain’.
