Court of Justice
Is climate protection a human right? Judgment in three cases
The European Court of Human Rights has already dealt with environmental emissions such as noise or air pollution, but never with a country’s CO2 emissions. photo
© Violetta Kuhn/dpa
The plaintiffs couldn’t be more different, but they want the same thing: more climate protection. Now the Court of Human Rights is ruling. Are the accused governments now on the hook?
Pensioners and teenagers for more climate protection
The young plaintiffs from Portugal accuse 32 European countries – including Germany – of exacerbating the climate crisis and thereby endangering the future of their generation. The reason for their complaints was the devastating forest fires of 2017 in their home country. If they are right, the ECHR could call on the governments of the EU member states and co-defendants Norway, Russia, Turkey, Switzerland and Great Britain to adopt and adhere to stricter climate targets.
The group of older women from Switzerland initiated by Greenpeace wants to ensure that the Alpine republic has to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions more. The so-called climate seniors state that their right to life and to private and family life are being violated by a lack of climate protection measures. The third case concerns the lawsuit brought by a former French mayor. He believes France has not taken sufficient measures to prevent climate change.
Why the judgments are special
The Swiss women’s lawsuit is considered to be the first climate lawsuit ever to be heard by the ECHR. In addition, Strasbourg has rarely seen a trial as large as that of the six Portuguese teenagers: 80 lawyers were represented at the hearing on the part of the reprimanded states alone. Global media interest and major expressions of solidarity for the climate activists are now expected. Swedish activist Greta Thunberg is also said to be there.
The cases are also exciting in terms of content: The ECHR has previously dealt with environmental emissions such as noise or air pollution, but never with a country’s CO2 emissions. “We hope for a leading judgment that climate protection is a human rights issue and not just a mere declaration of intent,” said climate senior Stefanie Brander before the hearing of the German Press Agency.
The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe and is responsible for compliance with the Human Rights Convention. The EU states, but also other large countries such as Turkey and Great Britain, sit in the Council of Europe. If this supranational court were to speak out in favor of stricter climate protection requirements, it would definitely have a major signaling effect.
What the verdicts could mean for Germany
In principle, a ruling by the ECHR only binds the country that is convicted. “If the court finds that Portugal or Switzerland have violated human rights, this would only have indirect consequences for Germany,” explains international law expert Birgit Peters. For example, under the Human Rights Convention, the Federal Republic could then be obliged, just like the country complained about, to further reduce greenhouse gases in order to protect people’s lives and health.
The young Portuguese have not only sued their homeland, but also a large number of the Council of Europe countries – including Germany. If the judges come to the conclusion that Germany has also violated the human rights of Portuguese young people due to inadequate climate protection, the court could, for example, oblige Germany to comply with the requirements of the Paris Climate Agreement, as Peters says.
“Since the Federal Republic has implemented compliance with these obligations in the current climate protection law, nothing would change for Germany for the time being.” The only thing that would change would be if the states’ reduction obligations were defined differently, i.e. if the judges asked Germany to reduce even more CO2 than before. However, it remains to be seen whether the Court will go that far.
What are the chances?
Some observers had expected that at least the young people’s lawsuit would be dismissed outright. Normally, those affected first have to go through the courts in their home country before they can appeal to the ECHR. The Portuguese had not done that.
However, the judges made an exception and referred the case to the Grand Chamber along with the other two lawsuits. The fact that the lawsuits were heard there suggests that the judges attach particular importance to the proceedings and that the case at least does not appear entirely hopeless.
One of the crucial points in all three cases will be the so-called victim status. This means that one must be directly or indirectly affected by the potential human rights violation. The day before the verdict, the plaintiffs appeared nervous but combative: “One thing is certain: we won’t stop, no matter what the outcome,” said 15-year-old André dos Santos Oliveira.