Anisa Metalla’s Post

Earlier this week, the European Court of Human Rights handed down decisions for three highly anticipated climate cases. In both the Portuguese children's case (Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others) and the case of Carême v. France, the court has declared the applicants' claims inadmissible on grounds related to extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Court. This means the court will not rule on the applicants' substantive claims regarding the impacts of governments' climate inaction on their human rights. In the third 'Swiss grandmas' case (Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland), the Grand Chamber of the ECHR has delivered a judgment finding a violation of the right to respect for private and family life. A majority of the judges (notably 16 to 1) held that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights encompasses a right to effective protection by the State authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on lives, health, well-being and quality of life. This represents the first time an international court has found that a state's failure to take adequate action on climate change can give rise to a violation of human rights. This case has the potential to influence the outcomes of climate litigation in other European countries, as well as other international bodies, in their decisions about the legal ramifications of inadequate climate policies. The case also represents a leap forward in the climate justice movement. Find the press releases here: https://lnkd.in/dbgVFnB2 #climatelitigation #ECHR #justice #judiciary

The European Court of Human Rights is about to deliver rulings on two landmark climate justice cases. These decisions could be a game-changer for how countries address climate change and protect human rights. It's no coincidence that the plaintiffs in these landmark cases represent groups most severely affected by climate change - women and youth. In "Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland," a group of Swiss women argue their government's inaction threatens their health, particularly during heatwaves. They believe this inaction violates their human rights. The second case, "Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others," is particularly groundbreaking. Six young Portuguese citizens are suing a record-breaking 33 European countries! They claim these nations' failure to cut emissions fast enough jeopardizes their present and future health, violating their human rights. Rising temperatures already limit their ability to play outdoors and even impact their sleep. Experts warn of even more extreme weather events if emissions aren't curbed. Save the Children has played a significant role in this historic youth case through a legal intervention. The rulings are expected on April 9th. This is a critical moment for climate justice in Europe, with global implications.

This is epochal: the european court of human rights rules against Switzerland and in favour of the Klimaseniorinnen: Switzerland does not sufficiently adress climate change: „The Court found that the Swiss Confederation had failed to comply with its duties (“positive obligations”) under the Convention concerning climate change. There had been critical gaps in the process of putting in place the relevant domestic regulatory framework, including a failure by the Swiss authorities to quantify, through a carbon budget or otherwise, national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions limitations. Switzerland had also failed to meet its past GHG emission reduction targets. While recognising that national authorities enjoy wide discretion in relation to implementation of legislation and measures, the Court held, on the basis of the material before it, that the Swiss authorities had not acted in time and in an appropriate way to devise, develop and implement relevant legislation and measures in this case.“ https://lnkd.in/ddnv8NeJ

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that effective protection from climate change is an actionable right for every signatory of the European Convention of Human Rights. Effectively, this may open up legal pathways for EU citizens to sue their state in case of insufficient climate policies. There are two contradictory main objections against this ruling. One is that courts are not democratically legitimized and therefore should not dictate state-led climate policies. The other is that climate change is a global challenge and therefore any single state cannot be legally responsible to address it. However, any existing global institution that (hypothetically) could coordinate such action (hello UN) is not - and likely never will be - more democratically legitimized than a court. In absence of viable alternatives and considering the failing self-commitment of states for effective climate policy, this critique thus falls flat. While voluntary climate action is always preferrable, new legal instruments for enforcement are, with regard to the challenges ahead, a necessity. #zerodegrees

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that effective protection from climate change is an actionable right for every signatory of the European Convention of Human Rights. Effectively, this may open up legal pathways for EU citizens to sue their state in case of insufficient climate policies. There are two contradictory main objections against this ruling. One is that courts are not democratically legitimized and therefore should not dictate state-led climate policies. The other is that climate change is a global challenge and therefore any single state cannot be legally responsible to address it. However, any existing global institution that (hypothetically) could coordinate such action (hello UN) is not - and likely never will be - more democratically legitimized than a court. In absence of viable alternatives and considering the failing self-commitment of states for effective climate policy, this critique thus falls flat. While voluntary climate action is always preferrable, new legal instruments for enforcement are, with regard to the challenges ahead, a necessity. #zerodegrees https://lnkd.in/eF2Fk48n

Fifteen judges from around the world will seek to answer two questions: What are countries obliged to do under #internationallaw to protect the #climate and #environment from human-caused #greenhousegasemissions? And what are the legal consequences for governments where their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? #climatejustice #justtransition #SIDS The second question makes particular reference to “small island developing states” likely to be hardest hit by climate change and to “members of “ the present and future generations affected by the adverse effects of #climatechange.” The judges were even briefed on the science behind rising global temperatures by the UN’s climate change body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ahead of the hearings.

🌍 "Article 8 must be seen as encompassing a right for individuals to effective protection by the State authorities from serious adverse effects of climate change on their life, health, well-being and quality of life". This is the headline conclusion from the European Court of Human Rights' judgment in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland. The case was brought by Swiss claimants who alleged that their government had not done enough to mitigate the effects of climate change. The Court found that Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) had been breached. The judgment is highly significant, and is likely to influence litigation against both governments and companies. Although related cases against France (Carême) and Portugal and 32 other states (Duarte Agostinho) failed on admissibility and jurisdiction grounds, it is the Swiss judgment which will be most closely scrutinized in the weeks and months ahead. We will be considering further the implications of this judgment for climate litigation in Europe. https://lnkd.in/egK2d28T

Insufficient action on climate change remains a global concern, but recent developments are sparking hope for meaningful change. The European Court of Human Rights landmark ruling against Switzerland, for violating the Convention on Human Rights, sets a crucial precedent. In a victory for a women's association championing climate justice, this ruling highlights the power of legal action in holding governments accountable for their environmental responsibilities. This verdict not only delivers justice but also serves as a wake-up call for nations worldwide. With approximately 2500 climate-related lawsuits filed globally, it's evident that communities are demanding urgent action on decarbonization and emission reduction. These legal actions underscore the shared responsibility we all have in safeguarding our planet's future. As professionals, entrepreneurs, and leaders, we must recognize the significance of these legal challenges. They signal a pivotal moment in our collective efforts to combat climate change. Let's heed this call to action and prioritize sustainable practices in our businesses, communities, and policy advocacy. Together, we can drive the transformative change needed to secure a greener, more sustainable future for generations to come. #ClimateAction #Sustainability #LegalJustice

The struggle of small islands for their survival concerns us fully and makes clear the gravity of the climate crisis. "A major case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) may pave the way for more climate change litigation and help for poorer and vulnerable states." Read more https://lnkd.in/ejEFYV-3 #unitednations #future #sustainability #extremeweather #climatechange