Strasbourg, France — The highest European court of human rights concluded on Tuesday that its member states have an obligation to protect their citizens from the harmful effects of climate change, although dismissed the prominent lawsuit by six young Portuguese people that sought to force countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
He European Court of Human Rights upheld more than 2,000 members of KlimaSeniorinnensan organization of older Swiss women, who also called for similar measures, in a disparate decision that also rejected the initiative of a French mayor calling for stronger government efforts against climate change.
The lawyers in all three cases wanted the Strasbourg court to conclude that national governments have a legal duty to ensure that global warming remains at 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial timesin line with the objectives of the Paris climate agreement.
“I really hoped we would win against all the countries, so I'm obviously disappointed that didn't happen.”said Sofia Oliveira, 19, one of the Portuguese plaintiffs. “But most importantly, the court has said in the Swiss women's case that governments must reduce their emissions further to protect human rights. So your victory is a victory for us too, and a victory for everyone!”
In a reference to the Human Rights Convention that gave rise to the formation of the institution, “The court concluded that Article 8 of the Convention includes a right of individuals to effective protection by state authorities against the serious adverse effects of climate change on their life, health, well-being and quality of life.”.
The decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are not legally binding on its 46 member states, but they set a legal precedent for future proceedings.
Although activists have had success with lawsuits at national level, this era the first time an international court decided on climate change.
“This is a turning point”said Corina Heri, an expert in climate change litigation at the University of Zurich. Tuesday's decision confirms for the first time that countries have an obligation to protect people from the effects of climate change and will open the door to more legal proceedings, she said.
Before the decision was issued, a large crowd gathered outside the court building to cheer and wave flags, including activist Greta Thunbergarriving after several arrests during a protest in The Hague over the weekend.
The decisions hadthe potential to be a turning point in the global fight for a liveable future. A victory in any of the three cases would be one of the most significant events in climate change since the signing of the Paris Agreement”said Gerry Liston, a lawyer with the Global Legal Action Network, which supports Portuguese students.
The European Union, which does not include Switzerland, now has a goal of climate neutrality by 2050. Many governments have said that reaching the goal in 2030 would be economically unviable.
The disparate decision by the 17 judges could undermine an earlier verdict issued in the Netherlands. The Dutch Supreme Court ordered the government in 2019 to reduce emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020 compared to 1990 levels..
The ruling in the case of Urgenda, the climate group that brought the lawsuit, was based on the European Convention on Human Rights. It could be overturned if Tuesday's decision concludes that countries have no legal obligation to combat climate change.
The six young Portuguese sued Portugal and 32 other countries, alleging that they violated their fundamental rights by not stopping emissions. His suit was dismissed.
But the judges did rule in favor of a group of older Swiss women who were demanding their government do more. KlimaSeniorinnens, with an average age of 74, says that the rights of older women are especially violated because they are the most affected by the extreme heat that will become more frequent due to global warming.
The Earth far broke annual heat records in 2023, touched the agreed threshold limit for warming and showed more symptoms of excessive temperatures, the European climate program Copernicus indicated in January..
The countries sued in Strasbourg had asked for the case to be dismissed and said responsibility for climate change could not be attributed to a single country.
Switzerland is not the only one affected by global warming, indicated Alain Chablais, the country's representative at last year's hearing. “Switzerland cannot solve this problem on its own.”
In recognition of the urgency of the climate crisis, the court prioritized the three cases, including an unusual measure that allowed the Portuguese case to avoid going through national courts first.