European court rules human rights violated by climate inaction in landmark case | BBC News

Summary

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Switzerland violated the human rights of elderly women by failing to take adequate action against climate change, marking a landmark case in climate litigation. The court emphasized governments' legal obligation to protect citizens from climate impacts. Climate activist Greta Thunberg supported the verdict, stressing the importance of legal responsibility for climate action. However, cases brought by Portuguese youth and a French mayor were ruled inadmissible, highlighting the challenges individuals face in holding governments accountable. The ruling signals a growing global trend of legal cases advocating for more robust climate policies.

Takeaways

• 😀 The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Switzerland violated the human rights of elderly women by failing to adequately fight climate change.
• 😀 The Court found that Switzerland's climate change policies were insufficient in meeting emission reduction targets, which harmed the health, housing, and human rights of vulnerable groups, especially elderly women.
• 😀 The case highlights that elderly people, particularly women, are more vulnerable to climate change impacts like heatwaves.
• 😀 Greta Thunberg responded to the verdict, emphasizing that European governments have a legal responsibility to protect their citizens from the effects of climate change.
• 😀 Swiss President Viola Amherd stated that sustainability, biodiversity, and Net Zero goals are important for Switzerland, and the country would continue to pursue them.
• 😀 The Court's decision is legally binding and requires Switzerland to align its climate action with human rights protections, potentially prompting more ambitious climate policies.
• 😀 Two other cases, involving Portuguese youth and a French mayor, were ruled inadmissible, underscoring the challenges faced in climate litigation.
• 😀 The Portuguese youth case was dismissed on procedural grounds, as the Court ruled they should have pursued their claim in Portuguese courts before appealing to the European Court.
• 😀 The French mayor's case was also ruled inadmissible without addressing the substance of the claim.
• 😀 Climate litigation is a growing global trend, with legal cases against governments for inadequate climate action being pursued in multiple countries, including the UK, Latin America, Africa, Australia, and the US.

Q & A

What was the ruling made by the European Court of Human Rights regarding Switzerland's climate action?

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Switzerland violated the human rights of a group of elderly women by failing to adequately combat climate change. The court found that Switzerland's efforts to reduce emissions were insufficient and that the women had been denied access to justice when their case was rejected by Swiss courts.

Why did the elderly women in Switzerland file the case against the government?

The elderly women filed the case because they believed that Switzerland's climate change policies were inadequate to protect their health and human rights. The case focused on the heightened vulnerability of elderly women to climate-related risks, such as heatwaves exacerbated by climate change.

What does the European Court of Human Rights' decision imply about governments' responsibilities regarding climate change?

The Court's decision reinforces the idea that governments have a legally binding obligation to ensure that their climate policies protect the human rights of their citizens. This includes taking sufficient action to reduce emissions and mitigate climate-related risks.

How did Swiss President Viola Amherd respond to the Court's ruling?

Swiss President Viola Amherd emphasized that sustainability, biodiversity, and achieving net-zero emissions are important priorities for Switzerland. She stated that the country would continue working on these issues, despite the Court's ruling.

What were the outcomes of the climate-related cases from Portugal and France?

The cases from Portugal and France were ruled inadmissible by the Court. In the case of Portuguese youth, the Court found that the claim should have been first addressed in Portuguese courts, not the European Court. Similarly, the French mayor's case was dismissed for procedural reasons.

What was the central argument in the Portuguese youth's case regarding climate change?

The Portuguese youth argued that the impacts of climate change, such as intense wildfires and heatwaves, were severely affecting their health and quality of life. They claimed this amounted to a violation of their human rights by the government.

What reason did the European Court give for dismissing the Portuguese youth's case?

The European Court dismissed the case on the grounds that the Portuguese youth should have first pursued their claims in national courts in Portugal before bringing the matter to the European Court of Human Rights.

What is the significance of the ruling regarding Switzerland's climate action?

The ruling is significant because it establishes a legal precedent that governments must take stronger action to reduce carbon emissions and protect vulnerable populations from climate change. It confirms that inadequate climate policies can violate human rights.

What is expected to happen in the future regarding climate litigation based on this ruling?

Given the increasing number of climate-related legal cases globally, the ruling is expected to encourage more individuals and groups to pursue legal action against governments failing to address climate change. This could result in stronger legal pressure on governments to implement more ambitious climate policies.

How widespread is the trend of climate-related litigation worldwide?

Climate-related litigation is widespread, with numerous cases being pursued across the globe, not just in Europe but also in countries like the US, Australia, Latin America, and Africa. The growing number of such cases indicates a global trend of seeking legal accountability for climate action.