The European Court of Human Rights recently issued a groundbreaking opinion recognizing protection from the impacts of climate change as a human right under European law. The Court found Switzerland in violation of their legal obligations under the Paris Agreement, stating that the country’s inaction violated the plaintiffs’ right to respect for their private and family life. This opinion was released on the same day as a higher profile climate change case was dismissed, setting an important precedent for future climate-related litigation.
The case, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, was brought by a group of women and a Swiss association concerned about the consequences of global warming on their living conditions and health. They argued that Switzerland had not taken sufficient legislative action to mitigate the effects of climate change as required under the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement aims to limit global warming to 1.5° C by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reaching net zero by 2050, but enforcement of these obligations has not been tested.
In March 2023, the United Nations General Assembly requested the International Court of Justice to issue an advisory opinion on the legal obligations of countries in preventing climate change. This opinion, while non-binding, will provide guidance on how future climate-related litigation may be interpreted and could influence future legislative development. The opinion is not expected to be released until 2025, but it will likely have a significant impact on climate change litigation.
The plaintiffs in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland argued that the enforcement of the Paris Agreement could be achieved through the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically citing Articles 2, 6, and 8. The Court agreed, stating that individuals have a right to effective protection from the serious adverse effects of climate change on their life, health, well-being, and quality of life. The Court found that Switzerland failed to comply with its duties under the Convention regarding climate change and ordered the government to pay legal costs but did not award further damages.
While the Court found Switzerland in violation of the Convention, it did not direct specific action to be taken by the Swiss government. The Court stated that its judgments are primarily declaratory and that it is up to the state concerned to choose the means to comply with the judgment. The dismissal of the higher profile case, Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others, due to procedural reasons highlights the importance of properly availing oneself of the courts before appealing to the ECHR.
Overall, the ruling in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland is a major victory for climate change activists, establishing a legal basis for holding countries accountable for their actions related to climate change. While the impact may be limited to Switzerland in this case, it sets a precedent for future litigation and could influence how states’ obligations regarding climate change are interpreted in their respective courts. Additionally, it may play a role in shaping the upcoming opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legal obligations of countries in preventing climate change.
