Human rights ruling is historic
◆ Douglas B|yth says court’s decison has confirmed a right to protection by state authorities from effects of climate change
In a historic decision, Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland (“Verein”), the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Switzerland’s response to climate change has violated the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR).
Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz (an association of individuals described as “older women”) and four other individuals challenged Swiss authorities for not taking sufficient action to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Campaign groups and individuals are increasingly turning to the Courts to address climate-related issues, often expressing frustration and dissatisfaction with government decisions or inactivity.
In the UK, challenges are often focused upon allegations of a failure to properly observe
UK obligations under the Paris Agreement or to properly devise policies consistent with the obligations arising under the Climate Change Act 2008. Such challenges have, however, struggled to gain significant traction, prompting challengers to place more emphasis on human rights arguments. But the high bar required to demonstrate the necessary “victim” status has made such challenges similarly difficult.
The decision in Verein Klimaseniorinnen, however, has the potential to significantly change matters. In Verein Klimaseniorinnen, the Court established a direct link between the ECHR and climate change by confirming that article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life) encompasses a right to protection by state authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change onc itizens ’lives, health, well-being, and quality of life.
The court ruled that contracting states have a positive duty to adopt and apply regulations and measures capable of mitigating the existing and potentially irreversible effects of climate change.
It was of the view that the specialfeature of climate change as a common concern of humankind and the need to promote intergenerational burden-sharing rendered it appropriate to make allowance for re course to legal action by associations.
This landmark ruling has the potential to open the flood gates for human rights claims against
It is likely this judgment will result in the introduction of more regulatory measures addressing climate change
authorities on climate change grounds.it also sends a clear message regarding the importance of implementation of international commitments to combat climate change. Whilst national authorities enjoy wide discretion regarding the means chosen to meet such obligations, it is clear states must take action in a timely, efficient manner to avoid human rights violations.
This case is the first example of an action able right to enforce a state’s obligation to provide effective protection against climatechange-relatedharm.the scope and extent of this obligationremains broad but it is likely this judgment will result in the introduction of more regulatory measures addressing climate change mitigation. The ECHR indicated that states should be aiming for net neutrality “within, in principle, the next three decades”.
Where states do react accordingly, this will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the private sector active within such states. it remains to be seen what implications this decision will have, for instance, for the UK’S energy industries in particular.