The European Court rules that failure to reduce greenhouse gases violates citizens’ rights

Stay informed with free updates

Just sign up to Climate change myFT Digest: delivered straight to your inbox.

Europe’s top human rights court has ruled that a government’s failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can be considered a violation of citizens’ rights, in a decision that will set a benchmark for future climate disputes.

The case brought against Switzerland by a group of 2,000 elderly Swiss women, mostly aged in their seventies, was successful because it failed to protect citizens from the “serious negative effects of climate change on life, health, well-being and quality of life” by failing to achieve its climate objectives.

In the same period, judges in Strasbourg rejected the case brought by six young Portuguese against 32 European governments, deeming that the group had not exhausted legal actions through national courts.

“The fact that the Court has stated unequivocally that the climate crisis is a human rights crisis will have enormous significance,” said Joie Chowdhury, senior lawyer at the Center for International Environmental Law, who was present at the European Court of Justice ruling. human rights.

He said the court had also “made a strong statement” on the science of climate change in a ruling that “will have influence across Europe”.

The ruling marks the first time an international court has ruled on governments’ legal obligations in the face of the climate crisis.

This comes as the EU’s Earth observation agency confirmed that temperatures in March hit a record for the tenth consecutive month. The Copernicus Climate Change Service said this marked a year of temperatures above the 1.5°C threshold at which governments agreed to try to limit global warming under the 2015 Paris Agreement, although this the latter refers to a long-term increase over a period of more than one year. decade.

According to Gerry Liston, the lawyer of the Portuguese youth, although the judges rejected the case of the younger generations, the court’s decision on the Swiss women’s action was “a great victory for all generations”.

“It means that all European countries must urgently review their targets so that they are based on science and aligned to 1.5 degrees,” he said.

Catarina dos Santos Mota, a 23-year-old appellant in the Portuguese case, said “the ruling is a victory for solidarity between young and old and recognizes the existential threat of climate change.”

“We didn’t break the wall but we made a huge crack. I want the victory against Switzerland to be used against all European countries and in national courts,” she said.

The courtroom in Strasbourg was packed for the sentence, with the young climate activist Greta Thunberg also present.

The judges voted that the Swiss government had “critical gaps” in its national climate change legislation, including the failure to quantify “through a carbon budget or otherwise” national greenhouse gas emissions.

WWF Switzerland, a non-governmental organisation, said the ruling would set “a far-reaching precedent”.

“It couldn’t be more official: Switzerland must finally act,” we read on the social platform

The Swiss government said it would “take note of the ruling” and analyze it “with the authorities concerned and the measures Switzerland will need to take going forward will be examined.”

A third case brought to court by Damien Carême, former French mayor of the municipality of Grande-Synthe, a low-lying north-eastern coastal area vulnerable to rising seas, was ruled inadmissible because Carême had subsequently moved to Brussels and could not thus “claiming victim status” under the human rights convention, the court said.

Tom Cummins, partner at law firm Ashurst, said companies and financial institutions should “scrutinize these cases carefully. Corporate climate disputes often rely on human rights arguments. . . The decision in the case against Switzerland will likely encourage such claims.”

This year the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are all hearing similar cases relating to governments’ responsibility to protect citizens from climate change.