The government's weak climate policies violate basic human rights, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled. In a landmark decision on one of three major climate cases, the first such ruling by an international court, the ECHR put judicial pressure on governments to stop filling the atmosphere with gases that make extreme weather more violent, the Guardian reports.
The Supreme Court ruled that Switzerland had violated the rights of a group of elderly Swiss women to family life, but rejected a lawsuit by a French mayor against France and a group of young Portuguese against 32 European countries.
"It feels like mixed results because two of those cases are inadmissible," said Korina Heri, a law researcher at the University of Zurich. "But actually, it's a huge success."
The court, which calls itself the "conscience of Europe", found that Switzerland had failed to fulfill its obligations to stop climate change. It also paved the way for organizations to pursue further cases on behalf of claimants.
The Swiss ruling opens up all 46 members of the Council of Europe to similar cases in national courts that they are likely to lose.
Sva Chodri, a campaign lawyer at the Center for International Environmental Law, said the ruling leaves no doubt that the climate crisis is a human rights crisis. "We expect this ruling to have an impact on climate action and climate litigation across Europe and far beyond," she said.
The facts of the three cases differed widely, but they all hinged on whether government inaction on climate change violated basic human rights. Some of the governments argued that the cases should not be accepted and that climate policy should be the subject of national governments, not international courts.
Prosecutors who attended the Strasbourg court hearing, some as young as 12, celebrated after a member of the 17-judge panel read the verdicts. Climate activist Greta Thunberg joined a rally outside the court before the hearing to urge faster action, the Guardian reports.
"KlimaSeniorinnen", a group of 2.400 elderly Swiss women, told the court that several of their rights had been violated. As older women are more likely to die in heatwaves - made hotter and more frequent by fossil fuels - they argued that Switzerland should do its part to stop the planet from warming towards the Paris Agreement's target of 1,5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels .
The court ruled that the Swiss authorities did not react in time to come up with a good enough strategy to reduce emissions. It also found that the applicants did not have adequate access to justice in Switzerland. But he also dismissed the cases of four individual applicants who joined KlimaSeniorinnen.
"I'm very happy," said Nicole Barbie (70), a member of "KlimaSeniorinnen" who came to Strasbourg. "It's good that they finally listen to us."
Portuguese children and young people - who, because of their age, will experience more climate damage than previous generations - argued that climate disasters, such as fires and smoke, threaten their right to life and discriminate against them on the basis of age.
The court dismissed the case, ruling that the applicants could not bring claims against countries other than Portugal and adding that they had not sought legal recourse in Portugal against the government.
"Their (Swiss) victory is also a victory for us," said Sofija Oliveira, a 19-year-old petitioner in the Portuguese case. "And a victory for everyone."
The French case, brought by the MEP, Damien Karem, claims that France's failure to do enough to stop climate change violated his rights to life and privacy and family life. Karem filed the suit when he was mayor of Grand-Sint, a coastal town prone to flooding. The court did not accept the case, because Kareme no longer lives there.
The European Court of Human Rights rejects around 90% of all applications it receives as inadmissible, but it accelerated three climate cases due to their urgency. He adjourned hearings on six more climate cases in order to deliver the results of the verdicts today.
The rulings will affect three other international courts, which are examining the role of the government's climate policy on human rights.
Charlotte Blattner, a researcher at the University of Bern who specializes in climate law, said the court made a bold ruling in favor of a sustainable future. "The nature and severity of the threat of climate change - and the urgency to respond effectively - require that governments can and must be held accountable for their lack of adequate action," she said.
Bonus video:
