The European Court of Human Rights on Tuesday condemned, for the first time, a State for its inaction in the face of global warming. This decision will push the 46 member states of the Council of Europe to take concrete action on this subject.
A decision that will go down in history. For the first time, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) condemned a State on Tuesday April 9 for its climate inaction. This state is Switzerland, sued by the association Elders for Climate Protection, a group of 2,500 Swiss women all aged over 65. According to the judgment handed down by the ECHR, the Swiss Confederation has failed to fulfill its obligations, “failure to have acted in a timely, appropriate and consistent manner” to protect these citizens from the consequences of climate change. The Court points to “serious shortcomings”of Switzerland, in particular because it has not quantified the national limits applicable to greenhouse gases, responsible for the average rise in temperatures.
In detail, the ECHR ruled that there had been a violation of Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which respectively ensure the right to plead one’s case before a court and respect for private life. and family.
If two other complaints – targeting one or more States accused of climate inaction – were also deemed inadmissible by the European body, the decision rendered in the Swiss case was greeted with enthusiasm by environmental activists. “This is only the beginning in terms of climate litigation,” warned Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, who came to Strasbourg to support the complainants. Franceinfo explains to you why this court decision is historic.
Because this judgment reflects a “change of scale”
For lawyer Christel Cournil, professor of public law specializing in legal actions on climate, the conviction of Switzerland before the ECHR marks “a change of scale”. Over the last ten years, climate activists have learned to use legal tools to confront States with their commitments. All over the world, national courts have heard new cases “climate disputes”, sometimes pushing governments to increase the ambitions of their climate-related legislation, as in Germany or the Netherlands.
In France, the Paris administrative court condemned France twice in 2021, judging the State responsible in particular for breaches of its commitments, as part of a complaint from the NGO Notre Affaire à tous, as well as the French branches of Greenpeace and Oxfam . But the transition from the national level to a regional court (European in this case) confirms “that the climate case can be heard at this level of jurisdiction, in a legitimate manner”, notes Christel Cournil. “However, there are six other cases which will soon arrive before the ECHR, some of the same nature as the case brought by the Swiss seniors’ association”, she notes.
For the head of the environmentalist list in the European elections, Marie Toussaint, this ruling from the ECHR “highlights that our fundamental rights, and first and foremost the right to live (article 2) and the right to private and family life (article 8), are threatened by the consequences of global warming and especially by the culpable inaction of governments”.
Because the ECHR asks States to take concrete actions
A lawyer by training and former president of the NGO Notre Affaire à tous, Marie Toussaint is delighted with what she describes as “unpublished and revolutionary reading of the European Convention on Human Rights” even though she “still does not currently include explicit provisions relating to the environment and climate.”
“Revolutionary” And “historical”this judgment is no less “measure“, explains lawyer Arnaud Gossé, associate professor at Paris 1 University. This specialist in environmental and energy law considers “fundamental” recognition of the right of individuals to effective protection by States against climate change, with regard to Article 8 of the convention. He notes on the social network “testifies to the Court’s obvious concern not to open the floodgates of litigation.”
The Court thus did not recognize the specificities linked to the age and gender of the plaintiffs, who argued that they were more vulnerable to the effects of global warming as elderly women, some of whom suffered from chronic illnesses. Arnaud Gossé further emphasizes that the requests brought by individuals were all rejected, as were those from complainants who had not previously exhausted all possible remedies before referring the matter to the ECHR.
On the other hand, the lawyer notes that by virtue of this judgment, the Court affirms that “tAny State must not limit itself to major objectives [en matière de lutte contre le réchauffement climatique et d’adaptation] but must have complete rights regarding the means to achieve them.”.
Switzerland, ordered to pay 80,000 euros to the association for legal costs, has now “the legal obligation to implement this judgment”, lawyer Alain Chablais, who represented Berne in this new type of case, told AFP. Even if, according to him, ‘”it will take some time to determine what action will be taken” by the Swiss government to meet its responsibilities.
Because it is a warning for all member states of the Council of Europe
If the ECHR rejected the request of the former mayor of Grande-Synthe (North) Damien Carême, he still welcomed the fact that “the decision which has just been rendered (…) will create a precedent which will put particular pressure on States”. An optimism shared by young Portuguese people whose complaint was also deemed inadmissible by the European court on Tuesday.
“The most important thing is that the Court considered, in the case of the Swiss, that States must further reduce their emissions in order to defend human rights,” reacted to AFP one of the applicants, Sofia Oliveira, 19 years old. “Their victory is therefore also a victory for us and a victory for everyone,” she enthused.
And for good reason: every decision of the ECHR applies in the 46 member states of the Council of Europe. As for what’s next? “L“The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe will be responsible for monitoring the execution of the court decision”, explains lawyer Christel Cournil. “There will be a dialogue with the Council of Europe, the Council of Ministers and the government which must now take note of this decision”she summarizes.
The rest promises to be lively in any case. If the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ), which represents the Swiss government before the ECHR, has indicated that it is taking “act of the judgment of the Grand Chamber”, The leading Swiss party, the UDC (radical right) has demanded that Switzerland leave the Council of Europe. “The Strasbourg judges did not even take into account the fact that Switzerland is exemplary in terms of reducing CO2 emissions”he argued.