In a historic ruling, Europe’s top human rights court, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, found that the Swiss government had violated its citizens’ human rights by not taking adequate action to address climate change. However, the court dismissed similar cases brought by a former mayor of a French coastal town and a group of young people in Portugal as inadmissible. These cases are part of a growing movement of climate-related lawsuits using human rights law to persuade governments to take action against global warming.
The three cases focused on complaints from members of the public in Switzerland, France, and Portugal, who argued that their governments were violating their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights by not doing enough to combat climate change. The court’s ruling against Switzerland, in particular, has been hailed as significant by experts in environmental law, as it effectively acknowledges the violation of citizens’ rights by failing to meet climate targets. This decision is likely to have implications for national courts across Europe.
The first case involved a group of Swiss women over the age of 64, known as KlimaSeniorinnen, who argued that the Swiss government’s insufficient efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions had put their lives and autonomy at risk. With Switzerland experiencing heat waves in recent summers, older women are particularly vulnerable to heat-related illnesses. The Swiss government maintains that human rights law is not applicable to climate change and sees addressing it as a political matter.
In the second case, Damien Carême, a former mayor of Grande-Synthe, a town on the French coast, challenged France’s inadequate response to global warming, which he believed endangered his town’s future. Carême argued that France’s failure to prevent climate change violated the right to life enshrined in European law. With Grande-Synthe facing increased flooding risks due to climate change, this case highlights the real and immediate consequences of inaction on climate change.
The third case involved six young people from Portugal who were born between 1999 and 2012. They argued that the current and future impacts of climate change, including heat waves, wildfires, and associated health effects, were negatively affecting their well-being and mental health. They held 33 countries in the region accountable for failing to meet their commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as outlined in the Paris Climate Agreement. These young plaintiffs are among a growing number of youth activists worldwide who are using legal avenues to demand action on climate change.
Overall, the rulings from the European Court of Human Rights signal a significant development in using human rights law to address climate change. By acknowledging that governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens from the impacts of global warming, the court’s decisions could pave the way for more climate-related cases to be brought before national and international courts. This landmark ruling underscores the urgency of taking meaningful action to combat climate change and uphold the rights of present and future generations.
