The day of the climate decision has come in Strasbourg: Are human rights being violated by global warming? And can governments therefore be obliged to reduce their countries’ greenhouse gas emissions more? The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has announced that it will decide on three lawsuits filed this Tuesday at 10:30 a.m. These will be the court’s first rulings on the issue of climate change.
What cases are we talking about?
The lawsuit brought by six teenagers and young adults from Portugal against 32 Council of Europe states, including the entire European Union, is causing the most stir. It is the first time ever that so many governments have had to answer to a court.
The trigger was two violent forest fires in Portugal in 2017, in which 110 people died and several hundred were injured, some seriously. With the help of the non-governmental organization Global Legal Action Network (Glan), siblings Cláudia, Martin and Mariana Agostinho and their friends Catarina, Sofia and André then filed a complaint against all Council of Europe countries for not doing enough to combat global warming. “Climate change and the fact that governments are not protecting our future cause a lot of fears for me,” explains 19-year-old Sofia dos Santos Oliveira.
Three of the six young Portuguese suing the Council of Europe countries at the hearing of the case in the Strasbourg court in September.
(Photo: Frederick Florin/AFP)
In addition, the 17 judges decide on two lawsuits against France and Switzerland. At one point, Green MEP Damien Carême argues that his hometown of Grande-Synthe on the North Sea will be at increased risk of flooding from 2030 due to rising sea levels. The KlimaSeniorinnen association from Switzerland argues that the health of older women is particularly at risk from increasingly intense and longer heat waves. Both plaintiffs want their governments to do more to combat global warming.
What rights are the plaintiffs relying on?
Essentially, it is about articles two and eight of the European Convention on Human Rights: the “right to life” and the “right to respect for private and family life”. If there are more heat waves, forest fires, storms or floods, apartments are no longer safe and physical and mental health is impaired.
The young Portuguese also cite Article 14, according to which they are being discriminated against as a young generation because the effects of global warming will become more and more pronounced in the future. They also refer to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article three states that the best interests of children must be given priority in all measures.
How do states defend themselves?
The 32 countries of the Council of Europe have sent more than 80 lawyers into the ring to win the case against the young Portuguese. Your goal: The lawsuit should not be admissible. There was a lot to be said for this from the start. Hardly anyone expected that the Strasbourg judges would treat the case as a priority, that they invited all the defendant states to an almost historic hearing last September and that they now want to make a decision.
The most important arguments of the defenders: Plaintiffs actually have to go through the entire national legal process before they can turn to the ECHR. But Cláudia and her friends didn’t do that because it would have been hopeless in terms of time, organization and finances, as her lawyers argue. In addition, plaintiffs in environmental law have so far had to demonstrate that they are personally more affected than the general public. But this is hardly the case when it comes to climate change – because everyone is affected.
In terms of content, the states defended themselves with just one argument: It has not been proven that global warming is causally responsible for damage to health.
What verdicts are expected?
In view of global warming, the cases represent an enormous challenge for the Court of Justice. On the one hand, it would be easy to declare the lawsuits inadmissible and thus dismiss them. On the other hand, the actions of the Strasbourg judges so far suggest that they have an interest in continuing to take a leading role in human rights issues. The climate change case is waiting for international guidelines within the judiciary that other courts can follow. The same applies to the question of the extent to which current generations have to protect the interests of those born after them.
“Success in one of the three proceedings would be the most important event for climate protection since the signing of the Paris Agreement in 2015,” says Gerry Liston, lawyer for the Portuguese. Observers like Ole Pedersen, professor of international law at Aarhus University, believe that the judges can at least evaluate the content of a case and give the climate seniors from Switzerland the best chance. For others, the outcome is completely open.
What would be the consequences?
At the ECHR alone, another seven lawsuits on climate change are pending, one of them brought by nine teenagers and young adults against the German government. And this may just be the first wave of climate lawsuits in Strasbourg. Even the current record temperatures worldwide do not mean that the problem will disappear.
Since German legislation must take into account the European Convention on Human Rights, a judgment in Strasbourg also has direct consequences for the judiciary in this country. If the plaintiffs in Strasbourg are proven right, the chances of success of further climate lawsuits would increase.
Lawyer Liston says: “The ruling we are seeking would be the same as a legally binding regional treaty that would force countries to quickly reduce their emissions,” which would then apply to large companies in Europe throughout their global supply chain.