Human rights: Climate seniors successful in court

When the “climate seniors” came out of the courtroom, there was great cheering. The Court of Human Rights (ECHR) had just ruled that states can be prosecuted for human rights violations if they do not do enough to protect the climate. The judges in Strasbourg, France, condemned Switzerland for violating the plaintiffs’ right to family and private life through a lack of climate protection. This was the first time that the Court had handed down a judgment in a lawsuit that advocated for more climate protection.

The human rights convention grants states an obligation to protect the population from the serious adverse effects of climate change on life and health, the judges said. The plaintiffs had argued that their age made them particularly vulnerable to climate change, for example due to extreme heat waves. The “Climate Seniors” are an association supported and initiated by Greenpeace with more than 2,000 members in Switzerland. Their average age is 73 years.

The association’s co-president, Anne Mahrer, described the decision as satisfaction: “We have been fighting for climate justice with the support of Greenpeace for nine years. After the Swiss courts did not hear us, the ECHR has now confirmed: climate protection is a human right.” Green Party parliamentary group leader Katharina Dröge spoke of a historic success.

Precedent for future lawsuits

The decision has consequences for Germany, even if a ruling by the ECHR is generally only binding on the country that was convicted. The human rights convention to which the ECHR refers is binding for all Council of Europe countries. This includes 46 European countries, as well as the EU members and other large countries such as Turkey and Great Britain. The fact that the ECHR is now so clearly deriving an obligation for countries to protect climate change from the Human Rights Convention is a strong sign and could open doors for further lawsuits – both before the ECHR and before national courts.

“The importance of this decision cannot be overestimated. It will be of great importance for further climate lawsuits against states and companies worldwide and will increase their chances of success,” said the lead lawyer for the “Climate Seniors”, Cordelia Bähr. The “climate seniors” complained, among other things, that Switzerland had not passed appropriate laws to combat climate change. The court criticized, among other things, the fact that the country had not achieved its goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the past. The Swiss authorities did not act in a timely and appropriate manner to develop relevant laws.

What will happen next in Switzerland remains to be seen. The Alpine republic must absolutely comply with the ruling, but there is scope for decision-making when it comes to implementation. It is conceivable that the plaintiffs will go to court again in their home country after the ECHR also ruled that their right to a fair trial was violated in Switzerland. In any case, Switzerland must reimburse the climate seniors for their costs of 80,000 euros. The women did not demand compensation for the human rights violations they suffered.

Other lawsuits less successful: “A victory for all of us”

Two other climate lawsuits from France and Portugal were dismissed by the Court. A former French mayor had complained because his hometown on the English Channel was threatened by rising sea levels. However, the judges declared his lawsuit inadmissible. He no longer lives in the coastal town. Therefore, he lacks the so-called victim status because he is not directly or indirectly affected by a potential human rights violation.

Particular attention was also paid to the lawsuit brought by six Portuguese young people. After the devastating forest fires in their homeland in 2017, they decided to sue not only their home country, but more than 30 other European countries – including Germany. Here, too, the judges ruled that the case was inadmissible: the teenagers would have first had to go through the courts in Portugal before appealing to the court. Furthermore, there is no basis in the Human Rights Convention for states to be held liable to such an extent outside their territory.

Plaintiff Sofia Oliveira, 19, said she was “of course disappointed.” “But the most important thing is that in the Swiss women’s case the Court said that governments must reduce their emissions more to protect human rights. So their victory is also a victory for us and a victory for everyone!”

One of the largest trials Strasbourg has ever seen

Strasbourg has rarely seen such great interest in a procedure. The great importance that the judges attached to the trials was demonstrated by the fact that all three proceedings before the Grand Chamber were decided with a special priority. Already in the morning there were demonstrations of solidarity in front of the building from young and old. Several hundred people traveled to the verdict, and the Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg was also there.

Press release ECtHR