Members of the Swiss Association of Senior Women for Climate Protection react after the announcement of the decision at a European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) hearing to decide in three separate cases whether countries are doing enough in the face of global warming. The rulings may Forcing them to carry out more activities in Strasbourg, eastern France, on April 9, 2024.
Frédéric Florin | AFP | Getty Images
Europe’s top human rights court ruled on Tuesday in favor of more than 2,000 elderly Swiss women who believe government efforts to tackle the climate crisis are insufficient to protect them from more frequent and intense heat waves.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling was hailed by campaigners as a seminal moment that could serve as a blueprint for other climate litigation cases argued on human rights grounds.
The decision is expected to have repercussions far beyond Europe’s borders.
In a non-appealable ruling, the European Court of Human Rights established The Swiss government violated the human right to respect for private and family life and failed to meet its obligations under the climate change convention.
The decision could force the Swiss government to revise its climate policy, including upgrading its near-term emissions reduction targets to align with the landmark Paris Agreement.
Vesselina Newman, head of fundamental rights at environmental law firm ClientEarth, said: “This is not only a victory for these inspiring advocates, but also a huge victory for those around the world who seek to use the power of the law to hold governments accountable for climate inaction.” statement.
“This outcome from one of the world’s highest courts sends a clear message: Governments must take real action on emissions to safeguard the human rights of their citizens.”
Climate activists Catarina dos Santos Mota (left), Greta Thunberg (second from left) and Martim Agostinho (second from right) before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ) held placards at rallies ahead of rulings in three separate cases grappling with whether countries were doing enough. In Strasbourg, eastern France, on April 9, 2024, a ruling on global warming may force them to take more action.
Frédéric Florin | AFP | Getty Images
Newman said the court’s decision was a first in the field of climate litigation in Europe. She added that judges across the continent must now apply the new principles to a growing number of climate cases, while signatories have clear legal obligations to ensure their climate actions are adequate to protect human rights.
“Courts in Brazil, Peru, Australia and South Korea are hearing human rights-based climate cases, and these rulings could also have an impact on these key lawsuits,” Newman said.
She added: “We will spend the coming days combing through this landmark judgment to assess the full legal ramifications of their victory.”
The Swiss Ministry of Justice did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment.
Swiss President Viola Amherd declined to comment in detail on the ruling on Tuesday, saying she first needed to read the European Court of Human Rights’ decision, and said climate policy was a top priority, Reuters reported.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled on Tuesday that two other similar climate cases were inadmissible: one brought by six Portuguese youths who petitioned more than 30 European governments, and the other by the former mayor of a French town.
‘Historic verdict’
Joie Chowdhury, a senior associate at the Center for International Environmental Law, said: “Today’s historic judgment in Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz et al v. Switzerland is the first time that an international human rights court has ruled on insufficient climate action by states. . (CIEL) said in a statement.
“The climate crisis is a human rights crisis, and states have a human rights obligation to take urgent, effective action based on the best available science to prevent further damage and harm to people and the environment,” Chaudhry said.
About The Author
