The ECHR has delivered Grand Chamber rulings in three climate change cases.
The case Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland concerned a complaint by four women and a Swiss association, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, whose members are concerned about the consequences of global warming on their living conditions and health. They consider that the Swiss authorities are not taking sufficient action to mitigate the effects of climate change. The Court found that the Convention 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. However, it held that the four individual applicants did not fulfil the victim-status criteria under Article 34 of the Convention and declared their complaints inadmissible. The applicant association, in contrast, had the right to bring a complaint. The Court held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for private and family life of the Convention and that there had been a violation of the right to access to the court. The Court found that the Swiss Confederation had failed to comply with its duties (“positive obligations”) under the Convention concerning climate change.
The case Carême v. France concerned a complaint by a former inhabitant and mayor of the municipality of Grande-Synthe, who submits that France has taken insufficient steps to prevent global warming and that this failure entails a violation of the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life. The Court declared inadmissible the application, on the ground that the applicant did not have victim status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.
The case Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others concerned the current and future severe effects of climate change, which the applicants attribute to the respondent States, and which they claim impact their lives, well-being, mental health and the peaceful enjoyment of their homes. As concerned the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the respondent States other than Portugal, the Court found that there were no grounds in the Convention for the extension of their extraterritorial jurisdiction in the manner requested by the applicants. Having regard to the fact that the applicants had not pursued any legal avenue in Portugal concerning their complaints, the applicants’ complaint against Portugal was also inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court declared inadmissible the applications lodged against Portugal and the other States on the issue of climate change.
- 377 reads
