British judge: Euro court’s ruling over climate went too far
STRASBOURG’S ruling on a climate change case went beyond the court’s ‘legitimate and permissible’ remit, its sole British judge has warned. Tim Eicke said the European Court of Human Rights’ decision could slow down the fight against climate change.
He declined to join 16 other judges who ruled that failure to take action against climate change amounted to a breach of human rights.
The case was brought by 2,500 Swiss women with an average age of 74, who argued they were at greater risk of death from heatwaves. The court’s 100,000word ruling on the case was published on Tuesday.
It said that Switzerland had breached the right to ‘private and family life’ under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by failing to impose stronger climate change policies.
Judge Eicke sat on the judicial panel which heard the case and was chaired by the court’s president Siofra O’Leary, from Ireland. In a ‘partly dissenting opinion’ attached to the main ‘majority’ ruling, Judge Eicke said that he recognised the ‘need for urgency’ in tackling climate change.
However, in a damning conclusion, he said: ‘I fear that the majority has gone beyond what it is legitimate and permissible for this court to do and, unfortunately, in doing so, may well have achieved exactly the opposite effect to what was intended.’
The case followed calls for Britain to leave the ECHR, largely over its role in frustrating ministers’ attempts to tackle illegal immigration.
Judge Eicke wrote that there was ‘significant doubt’ that the legal actions brought at Strasbourg could
‘Well beyond the normal limits’
‘make a meaningful contribution’ to addressing climate change. It could instead turn into an ‘unwelcome and unnecessary distraction’ for governments attempting to reduce emissions, he suggested.
The Strasbourg court regards the ECHR – which it oversees – as a ‘living document’. But Judge Eicke said the ruling had ‘gone well beyond’ the normal limits of gradual evolution.
The convention does not include an explicit right to a healthy environment. Judge Eicke added that the court ‘unnecessarily expanded the concept of “victim” status’ to allow the women to bring the case.
Ex-Tory MEP for the East of England, David Bannerman, said the court was ‘blatantly politicised’. Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho was also ‘concerned’ about the ruling, which cannot be appealed.