Europe’s top human rights court ruled Tuesday that countries must do a better job of protecting their citizens from consequences of climate changeby supporting a group of elderly Swiss women against their government in a landmark decision that could have repercussions across the continent.
The European Court of Human Rights rejected two other similar cases on procedural grounds. Portuguese youth and another from a French mayor who sought to force governments to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
But the Swiss case nevertheless sets a legal precedent in the 46 member states of the Council of Europe against which future legal action will be considered.
“This is a turning point,” said Corina Hery, an expert on climate change litigation at the University of Zurich.
While activists were successful in their legal challenges in domestic proceedings, this was the first time an international court had ruled on climate change — and the first to affirm that countries have a duty to protect people from its effects, according to Heri.
She said it would open the door to more legal challenges in countries that are members of the Council of Europe, which includes the 27-nation EU and many others from Britain to Turkey.
Switzerland’s decision softened the blow for those who lost on Tuesday.
“The most important thing is that in the Swiss women’s case, the court said governments must cut emissions further to protect human rights,” said Sofia Oliveira, 19, one of the Portuguese plaintiffs. “Their victory is a victory for us and a victory for everyone!”
A court outside the European Union ruled that Switzerland had “failed to meet its obligations” to combat climate change and meet emissions targets.
This, the court said, was a violation of women’s rights, noting that the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees people “effective protection by public authorities against the serious adverse effects of climate change on their lives, health, well-being and quality of life.” life.”
A group called Senior Women for Climate Action, which has an average age of 74, says they have been particularly affected because older women are the most vulnerable to climate change. extreme heat that is becoming more frequent.
“The court recognized our fundamental right to a healthy climate and to have our country do what it has failed to do so far: take ambitious action to protect our health and the future of everyone,” said Anne Marer, a member of the group.
Switzerland said it would study the decision to see what steps would be required. “We must implement this decision in good faith,” Alain Chablais, who represented the country at last year’s hearing, told The Associated Press.
Justice Siofra O’Leary, the court’s chief justice, stressed that governments would have to decide how to approach climate change commitments, and experts noted that was the limit of the ruling.
“The European Court of Human Rights stopped short of ordering the Swiss government to take any specific action, emphasizing that assistance from the Swiss government is “necessarily subject to democratic decision-making” to pass the laws necessary to introduce such a remedy,” it said Richard Lazarus is a professor at Harvard Law School specializing in environmental and natural resources law.
Activists say many governments do not understand the seriousness of climate change and are increasingly turning to the courts to force them to do more to ensure global warming is kept to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. in accordance with goals Paris Climate Agreement.
Last year, a judge in Montana ruled that government agencies were violation of constitutional law to a clean environment, allowing the development of fossil fuels – first trial of its kind in the USA, which added to the small number similar legal decisions worldwide.
As part of its efforts to meet climate goals, the European Union, which does not include Switzerland, currently has the goal is to become climate neutral by 2050. Despite these efforts, the Earth broke global annual heat records in 2023 and flirted with the world’s agreed warming threshold, European climate agency Copernicus said in January.
Famed climate activist Greta Thunberg was present in the courtroom when the decision was announced. “These decisions are a call to action. They emphasize the importance of bringing our national governments to justice,” the 21-year-old Swede told the AP.
“The first decision by an international human rights court on the inadequacy of state action to combat climate change leaves no doubt,” said Joy Chowdhury, senior lawyer at the Center for International Environmental Law. “The climate crisis is a human rights crisis.”