Court Recognizes Obligation to Protect Citizens from Climate Change
Strasbourg, France — Europe’s highest human rights court made a significant ruling on Tuesday, stating that member nations have a responsibility to safeguard their populations from the detrimental impacts of climate change. However, the court dismissed a prominent case brought by six young Portuguese individuals seeking to compel countries to lessen greenhouse gas emissions. The European Court of Human Rights favored over 2,000 Swiss members of the Senior Women for Climate Protection group, who shared similar objectives to the Portuguese youth, in a series of judgments issued on Tuesday. A third case involving a French mayor advocating for increased government action to address climate change also ended in defeat.
Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg expressed optimism about the ruling, emphasizing that it marked just the beginning of climate-related legal actions around the world. The court’s decision highlighted the right of individuals to receive effective protection from their governments against the severe adverse effects of climate change on their lives and well-being.
Significance of the Ruling
The judgments from the European Court of Human Rights serve as a legal precedent for future climate change-related lawsuits across the 46 member states of the Council of Europe. While activists have achieved victories in national courts, this ruling represents the first instance of an international court addressing climate change.
Corina Heri, a climate change litigation expert, described the decision as a turning point, affirming that countries have an obligation to shield their citizens from the consequences of climate change. This ruling is expected to pave the way for additional legal challenges globally as individuals increasingly turn to the courts to compel governments to take action.
Implications and Future Challenges
The European Union’s target of achieving climate neutrality by 2050 contrasts with the economic concerns of many governments regarding meeting a 2030 emissions reduction goal. The mixed verdict from the European Court of Human Rights may raise questions about previous climate-related rulings, such as the Urgenda decision in the Netherlands.
Despite setbacks in some cases, the urgency of the climate crisis remains paramount. The court’s expedited handling of these cases underscores the critical need for immediate action to combat climate change on a global scale.