The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has issued its ruling in three climate cases (Duarte Agostinho and Others v Portugal and 32 Other States, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland and Carême v France), deciding in favour of the KlimaSeniorinnnen.
The Court has ruled that the Swiss senior women’s human rights are being harmed by the impacts of the climate crisis and that Switzerland’s weak effort to reduce emissions violates its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The court found that the rights under the following Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) have been violated: Their right to privacy and family life (Article 8); Their right to a fair hearing (Article 6). This win of the KlimaSeniorinnnen means that all European countries must come up with science-based targets that are aligned with the 1.5C limit.
In the Portuguese young people’s case (officially called ‘Duarte Agostinho and others v Portugal and others‘), the ECtHR held that their case was not ‘admissible’, in part because the applicants did not take their case to the Portuguese courts first and in part because the other 31 states did not have extraterritorial obligations to the Applicants.
Today’s rulings do not therefore consider whether the emissions reduction policies of the Respondent governments other than Switzerland are compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. These rulings have, however, set out the obligations of all signatories to the Convention to address climate change, making them a landmark precedent with consequences for all European governments.
While the ECtHR does not have the power to sanction governments for failing to comply with its judgments, this ruling can be used in cases brought at the national level to hold governments accountable for failure to comply with them. It is therefore expected that today’s ruling will bring about a new wave of climate change cases in domestic courts in Europe. They will also strengthen the position of claimants in ongoing climate cases, including Anton Foley and others v Sweden (the ‘Aurora’ case), and Milieudefensie v Shell.
The rulings have also set a precedent for other international courts to follow. Currently, there are climate change cases ongoing at the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
Gerry Liston, Senior Lawyer, Global Legal Action Network:
“Today’s ruling against Switzerland sets a historic precedent that applies to all European countries. It means that all European countries must urgently revise their targets so that they are science-based and aligned to 1.5 degrees. This is a massive win for all generations.”
Sofia Oliveira, Applicant, 19:
“I really hoped that we would win against all the countries so obviously I’m really disappointed that this didn’t happen. But the most important thing is that the Court has said in the Swiss women’s case that governments must cut their emissions more to protect human rights. So I really think their win is a win for us too and a win for everyone!”
Martim Duarte Agostinho, Applicant, 21:
“Even though the ruling didn’t go our way and we’re disappointed, I’m proud today of what we’ve achieved because the judges recognised that climate change is an existential threat to humanity and an intergenerational challenge. We were in court with the Swiss women today, showing how powerful working together can be.”
Catarina dos Santos Mota, Applicant, 23:
“Today’s judgment is a win for solidarity between young and old and recognises the existential threat of climate change. We didn’t break the wall but we’ve made a huge crack. I want to see the win against Switzerland being used against all European countries and in national courts. All governments in Europe must act on this ruling immediately. And now we need people all around Europe to come together to make sure their countries do this.”
Ruth Delbaere, Avaaz, Legal Campaigns Director:
“The Swiss ruling sets a crucial legally binding precedent serving as a blueprint for how to successfully sue your own government over climate failures. The indomitable senior women have therefore opened a new chapter in climate litigation, showing how ordinary citizens can force climate action on reluctant governments. To ensure they implement this judgment, we all need to get active in the movement and hold our politicians’ feet to the fire by continuing to sue the prolific polluters that are setting our planet aflame.”
Corina Heri, University of Zurich
“These cases drew on each other, and they should be understood that way. In particular, the arguments created by the Duarte Agostinho case shifted what was thought legally possible, and they created new approaches to how much states know and can be expected to do about climate change. These understandings infused the KlimaSeniorinnen case, so while Duarte Agostinho may have been declared inadmissible, the argumentative model created by this case will certainly have an enduring legacy in the Court’s further case-law on climate change.”
The young applicants maintain that this ruling is still an urgent call to action. To ensure that it is implemented by the 32 Respondent States, the applicants call upon people across Europe to become more active in the climate movement by supporting organisations that campaign for stronger climate action.
