Latest news with #KlimaSeniorinnen
Forbes
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Rising Displeasure With European Human Rights Court Threatens Climate Change Gains
In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights issued a ground breaking ruling establishing protection from the effects of climate change as a human right under European law. The opinion, directed at Switzerland, was quickly praised by climate activists, but met with immediate resistance that threatened the stability of the underlying treaty. Now, the issue of immigration and border security has escalated the conflict, with national leaders threatening to renegotiation or exit the Convention. In 1950, the Council of Europe adopted the European Convention of Human Rights, an international treaty drafted to protect human rights and liberties. Although sometimes confused with the European Union, and its Council of the European Union, the CoE is an independent entity with more member states. As is standard in international treaties, an enforcement mechanism must be established to allow for legal challenges. Section II of the Convention called for a European Court of Human Rights. The ECtHR, also known as the Strastbourg Court, rules on individual or State applications alleging violations of the civil and political rights set out in the Convention. The Court has issued over 10,000 opinions on a wide range of human rights issues relating to the Convention. In April 2024, it got the attention of the climate change community when it issued a ruling in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland that stated that protection from the effects of climate change is a human right under the Convention. Specifically, the Court pointed to Articles 2 (Right to life), 6, (Right to a fair trial), and 8 (Right to respect for private and family life). However, no language in the treaty discusses climate change, causing opponents to criticize the Court of overreach and misinterpretation of the law. Initially, the Swiss Parliament voted to reject the ruling. The Swiss Federal Council chose to respond to the ruling, but objected to the interpretation, stating 'the Federal Council criticises the ECHR's broad interpretation by the ECHR in the ruling on Verein KlimaSeniorinnen. The case law must not lead to an extension of the scope of the ECHR.' While the case opens to the door for a new wave of climate change litigation before the ECtHR, the limited applicability tapered wider reaction. However, recent actions by the court on relating to immigration has stirred up broader dissent. According to the Telegraph, Tories in England are prepared to quit the Convention, echoing similar concerns from the Labour Party. British Prime Minister Nigel Farage has stated that withdrawing from the ECHR may be the only way to solve the country's immigration crisis. This comes days after nine national leaders from throughout Europe issued a letter questioning the Court's interpretation of the Convention. The letter stated, 'as leaders, we also believe that there is a need to look at how the European Court of Human Rights has developed its interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Whether the Court, in some cases, has extended the scope of the Convention too far as compared with the original intentions behind the Convention, thus shifting the balance between the interests which should be protected. 'We believe that the development in the Court's interpretation has, in some cases, limited our ability to make political decisions in our own democracies. And thereby affected how we as leaders can protect our democratic societies and our populations against the challenges facing us in the world today… "We want to use our democratic mandate to launch a new and open minded conversation about the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. We have to restore the right balance. And our countries will cooperate to further this ambition." The letter was signed by Mette Frederisen, Prime Minister of Denmark; Giorgia Meloni, Prime Minister of Italy; Christian Stocker, Chancellor of Austria; Bart De Wever, Prime Minister of Belgium; Petr Fiala, Prime Minister of the Czech Republic; Kristen Michal, Prime Minister of Estonia; Evika Siliņa, Prime Minister of Latvia; Gitanas Nausėda, President of Lithuania; and Donald Tusk, Prime Minister of Poland. While the letter is directly addressing immigration issues, it indicates the broader discontent with the ECtHR's recent rulings that go beyond the text of the Convention. If countries exit the treaty, the gains made by climate activists to establish climate change as a human right will face significant setbacks. However, the real threat is that the members convene and demand a strict interpretation of the Convention, with clarifying language that limits the impact. The reaction to the rulings could also serve as a warning to the International Court of Justice. The ICJ, known as the World Court, is an international court established to handle civil disputes between nations. The International Criminal Court addresses criminal matters. Both the ICC and the ICJ have faced criticism over recent rulings. In March 2023, the United Nations General Assembly requested the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion on the legal obligations of countries in preventing climate change. The opinion, Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change, while non-binding, will give an indicator of how the court may interpret future climate related litigation and guide future legislative development. That opinion will most likely not be released until the end of 2025 or 2026. The written and oral statements before the ICJ relied heavily on the ECtHR Verein KlimaSeniorinnen opinion. If the integrity of the ECtHR's interpretation of Convention is compromised, then the ICJ may choose to ignore the ruling. The political backlash against the ECtHR may also have a chilling effect on the ICJ's opinion. International treaties are only as strong as the commitment by the signing countries. As is evident in the current debate over the ECHR, countries may chose to leave at any time if the application of the treaty no longer aligns with their priorities. We saw this in action when President Trump exited the Paris Agreement on his first day in office. If the ICJ issues an opinion that creates a legal obligation to prevent climate change, countries may choose to exit the relevant treaties rather than risk litigation. No political or legal developments occur in a vacuum. The debate of the future of the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECtHR's rulings on immigration will have broader repercussions. The aggressive reinterpretation of international treaties to insert climate change when specific language does not exist may provide an immediate legal victory, but threatens to undermine international agreements. Climate change advocates may find that short term gains have long term political consequences.
Forbes
17-04-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
See You In Court: Using The Law To Save Our Climate In Time
In a groundbreaking case, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that the government must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% from 1990 levels by 2020, citing human rights obligations. On December 20, 2019, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands upheld the decision under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This was the first time a court mandated a government to act on climate change to protect citizens' rights. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a landmark ruling in favor of the KlimaSeniorinnen, a group of over 2,000 Swiss women aged 64 and above. They argued that Switzerland's inadequate climate policies violated their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly due to their vulnerability to heatwaves exacerbated by climate change. The ECHR found that Switzerland had failed to meet its emission reduction targets and had "critical gaps" in its climate legislation. The court recognized that Article 8 of the Convention encompasses a right to effective protection by state authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on individuals' lives, health, well-being, and quality of life. This ruling sets a significant precedent, emphasizing that insufficient climate action can constitute a human rights violation. California's legal battle against major oil companies is ongoing, with the case proceeding through the state's judicial system. The lawsuit, filed in September 2023 by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, accuses ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, and the American Petroleum Institute of misleading the public about the dangers of fossil fuels, contributing to climate change impacts in the state. While the lawsuit progresses, California's legislative efforts to hold oil companies financially accountable for climate-related damages have faced challenges. A proposed bill that would have allowed victims of natural disasters to sue fossil fuel companies was recently blocked in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Critics expressed concerns about potential economic impacts and the difficulty of proving direct liability for specific disasters. The outcome of California's lawsuit against major oil companies could set a precedent for future climate litigation, potentially influencing how similar cases are approached nationwide. Greenpeace Italy and other plaintiffs sued the Italian energy company Eni, alleging that its activities contribute significantly to climate change. This case is notable as the first climate lawsuit in Italy against a privately owned company. On June 10, 2024, the applicants decided to petition the Civil Court of Rome to stay the proceedings as they filed an appeal for a regulation of jurisdiction. This legal instrument allows a party to request that the Court of Cassation (Supreme Court of Italy) determine the jurisdiction. The Civil Court of Rome granted the stay, suspending the trial and referring the matter of admissibility of the civil proceedings to the Court of Cassation. The Court of Cassation will now have the opportunity to rule on the procedural admissibility of climate change litigation cases in Italy. In Sweden, the Aurora case emerged as a significant legal challenge to the government's climate policies. Led by Greta Thunberg and over 600 young activists, the lawsuit claimed that Sweden's insufficient action to limit global warming to 1.5°C violated the European Convention on Human Rights. In February 2025, Sweden's Supreme Court dismissed the case, stating that it could not compel the government to take specific actions without infringing on the separation of powers. However, the court acknowledged the possibility of future climate litigation if presented differently. The Aurora group has vowed to continue their legal efforts, emphasizing the need for governmental accountability in addressing the climate crisis and this week announced that they will file a new case according to the legal structure the Supreme Court stated. A group of young plaintiffs sued the U.S. government, alleging that its policies contribute to climate change and violate their constitutional rights to a stable climate system. While initially dismissed, the case has seen developments in state courts, particularly in Montana, where a ruling found that prohibiting the consideration of greenhouse gas emissions violated the state constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the case in March 2025. Beyond individual lawsuits, the Ecocide Law Alliance is advocating for the recognition of ecocide—severe and widespread environmental destruction—as an international crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This initiative aims to hold individuals, including corporate and government leaders, criminally responsible for actions causing significant environmental harm. The term ecocide was formulated in 2021 by 12 lawyers from around the world and presented by Stop Ecocide International. The movement has garnered support from various sectors, including business leaders who see the establishment of ecocide law as a means to ensure sustainable practices and protect natural systems. By criminalizing ecocide, the alliance seeks to deter large-scale environmental damage and promote global environmental justice. In February 2024, the EU Parliament voted to criminalize the most serious cases of ecosystem destruction, stating that countries will have two years to put the updated directive, which covers crimes 'comparable to ecocide,' into national law. The European Union with this decision became the first international body to criminalize the most serious cases of environmental damage. For individuals—such as CEOs and board members—consequences for committing environmental crimes can be prison sentences of up to eight years, rising to 10 if they cause the death of any person. These legal approaches—ranging from grassroots lawsuits to international legal reforms—demonstrate the evolving landscape of climate justice. They highlight the potential of legal systems to address environmental challenges and hold powerful entities accountable. As climate litigation continues to grow, these cases and initiatives pave the way for more robust legal frameworks to combat the climate crisis. Meanwhile there is an alarming increase in the number of activists getting arrested in many countries, such as the UK and Sweden. And big oil is fighting back. The latest and hardest blow struck Greenpeace, which in March this year was ordered to pay more than $660m for defaming the oil company Energy Transfer protests in North Dakota. Greenpeace has vowed to appeal, saying it could be forced into bankruptcy because of the case, ending over 50 years of activism. The jury is still out there who will win the battle for our future. Let's hope the legal system is strong enough to base its rulings on science.
Euronews
09-04-2025
- Politics
- Euronews
‘Their determination is heroic': Portuguese youth mount fresh climate lawsuit against government
ADVERTISEMENT Four young Portuguese people who fought a landmark claim at the European Court of Human Rights are bringing a climate lawsuit against their own government. The youth have joined Portuguese youth-led association Último Recurso to file a legal challenge that they hope will force Portugal to set tougher targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions and to lay out long-term plans for carbon neutrality. The announcement comes a year after the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Switzerland must do more to cut its emissions. The judgment in favour of a group of older Swiss women known as the KlimaSeniorinnen set a precedent that government inaction on climate change violates fundamental human rights. Related Meet the teen duo that won this year's Earth Prize Europe with their groundbreaking clean water tech From Portugal to Russia, here's how Europeans experienced the hottest March on record On the same day in 2024 the court threw out two other climate cases. One was brought against 32 European countries by a group of six young Portuguese people who argued that government inaction on climate change discriminates against them and poses a tangible risk to their lives and health. The court did not accept their claim because they had not gone through their national court system before escalating it to the regional level, and because the other countries were not considered to have any legal obligations to the Portuguese youth. Young people determined to carry on fight They are now hoping to fulfill the first requirement. 'We are as determined as ever to continue our fight for a liveable future,' says Cláudia Duarte Agostinho, who is now 25, and is the oldest of the original group of claimants. She will be joined by her siblings Martim (22) and Mariana (13), as well as Catarina dos Santos Mota (24). 'We are pleased to join forces with this courageous group that has shown great commitment to stronger climate action,' says Mariana Gomes, founder of Último Recurso. 'Their determination reflects the same values that drive Último Recurso - the urgent need to hold wrongdoers accountable for the damage they cause to our future.' Siblings Claudia Agostinho, Mariana Agostinho and Martim Agostinho pose for a picture by burnt pine trees in Leiria, Portugal, December 2017. AP Photo Portugal 's climate law and national energy plans commit it to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 55 per cent by 2030, compared with 2005. However, analysis by Climate Analytics found this target is not enough to keep average global warming under the 1.5°C threshold in the Paris Agreement . 'Strong climate targets must be a priority for all, and we want Portugal to lead by example in tackling this crisis head-on,' says Gomes. The Portuguese government has been approached for comment. Related Meet the climate catastrophe victim filing a criminal case against the bosses of oil firm Total This decade-long climate lawsuit saw its plaintiffs grow from children into adults. Now, it is over A new chapter in an eight-year legal battle Gerry Liston is a senior lawyer at Global Legal Action Network, which supported the young people in their lawsuit at European Court of Human Rights and is continuing to help with the domestic case. 'By joining forces with Último Recurso, this group are beginning a new chapter in their now eight-year legal battle for urgent climate action,' he tells Euronews Green. 'Their determination is heroic and should inspire others to join the fight for a habitable planet.' Último Recurso previously filed the first climate lawsuit against Portugal together with NGOs Quercus and Sciaena, which challenged the government for not complying with its own climate law. Judges did not initially want to accept the case but the Supreme Court said it was valid, and it has been sent back to the lower courts for a new hearing. Liston says the new case would rely heavily on the KlimaSeniorinnen ruling and the evidence and arguments previously advanced before the European Court of Human Rights. He expects the case to be formally filed in the summer. Even if they succeed, however, implementing a judgment is not straightforward. Switzerland has pushed back against the European Court of Human Rights' ruling and was recently ordered by the Council of Europe to do more to comply with it. ADVERTISEMENT As well as prompting the government into action, Último Recurso hopes that litigation will help spark debate in Portugal to help design fairer climate policies that protect present and future generations of citizens.
Euronews
11-03-2025
- Politics
- Euronews
Switzerland told it isn't doing enough to comply with climate ruling
The Swiss government has been pushing back against a landmark legal climate ruling last year. ADVERTISEMENT Switzerland hasn't shown that it's meeting the requirements of a landmark climate change decision from Europe's highest human rights court, the Council of Europe announced on Friday. Last April the European Court of Human Rights sided with a group of older Swiss women against their government. It ruled that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change and that Switzerland 'had failed to comply with its duties' to combat climate change and meet emissions targets. Six months after the decision, Switzerland asked for the case to be shut, arguing it was fully in compliance with the obligations set by the Strasbourg-based court. The intergovernmental body that supervises the court's judgments, the Committee of Ministers, recognised that Switzerland had made some progress but hadn't demonstrated it was meeting all of the requirements. Environmentalists hail the decision as a victory 'The Swiss Federal Council is not getting away with its arguments at the Committee of Ministers. Switzerland must improve its climate policy to remedy the violation of our human rights,' Rosmarie Wydler-Wälti, co-president of Senior Women for Climate Protection (KlimaSeniorinnen) and one of the plaintiffs in the case, said in a statement. The group, which counts around 2,000 members across Switzerland with an average age of 73, argued that older women's rights are especially infringed on because they are most affected by the extreme heat that will become more frequent due to global warming. What happens next in the KlimaSeniorinnen case? Following a three-day meeting this week, Bern was asked to provide more information on a number of topics including 'concrete measures being taken to alleviate the most severe or imminent consequences of climate change in Switzerland, including any particular needs for protection, especially for persons in vulnerable situation.' This includes helping people adapt to heatwaves, for example, and involving citizens in the development of climate protection measures. The Committee of Ministers, composed of the foreign affairs ministers from the body's 46 member states, will meet again in September 2025. By then, the Swiss Federal Council must also declare the foundations of its climate strategy - including quantifying emissions within a national CO2 budget framework. The decision ignited debate in Switzerland and the government claims the court has overstepped its mandate. Corina Heri, an expert in climate change litigation at Tilburg Law School, said the decision to ask for more information was typical of the compliance process at the ECHR. 'Nothing is final yet,' she told The Associated Press. Climate litigation is on the rise Environmental groups, frustrated by what they see as the failure of elected officials to combat climate change, have increasingly turned to courts to advance their cause. ADVERTISEMENT Late last year, the International Court of Justice took up the largest case in its history, hearing the plight of several small island nations helpless in combating the devastating impact of climate change that they feel endangers their very survival. The world has already warmed 1.3 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels. Between 1990 and 2020, sea levels rose by a global average of 10 centimetres and parts of the South Pacific have seen significantly more.
The Guardian
07-03-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Switzerland told it must do better on climate after older women's ECHR win
The Swiss government has been told it must do more to show that its national climate plans are ambitious enough to comply with a landmark legal ruling. The Council of Europe's committee of ministers, in a meeting this week, decided that Switzerland was not doing enough to respect a decision by the European court of human rights last year that it must do more to cut its greenhouse gas emissions and rejected the government's plea to close the case. The KlimaSeniorinnen organisation of more than 2,000 older Swiss women successfully argued that its members' rights to privacy and family life were being breached because they were particularly vulnerable to the health impacts of heatwaves. It was seen as a historic decision in Europe, where it was the court's first ruling on climate, with direct ramifications for all 46 Council of Europe member states. It has also influenced climate litigation around the world. However, there was resistance within Switzerland from the start, and by the summer the Swiss federal council had rebuffed the ruling. While it acknowledged the importance of the underlying European convention on human rights, the Swiss government said the court's interpretation was too broad in extending it to the climate crisis and in accepting a complaint from an organisation. It claimed it was already doing enough to cut national emissions, and submitted an 'action report' in October rather than the required action plan. This maintained that the judgment did not require it to set specific carbon budgets and that there was no internationally recognised method for doing so. The committee of ministers, which is responsible for upholding the judgment, noted this week that Switzerland had closed some legislative gaps, including revising its CO2 act and setting goals up to 2030. But it invited Switzerland to provide more information showing how its climate framework aligned with the court's ruling, 'through a carbon budget or otherwise, of national greenhouse gas emissions limitations'. The committee took note of methodologies put forward by a broad coalition of NGOs to calculate this. Georg Klingler, a project coordinator and climate campaigner at Greenpeace, which supported the Swiss women's case, said this essentially meant setting budgets that reflect Switzerland's 'fair share' of emission reductions in line with the Paris agreement's goal of limiting warming to under 1.5C. That could mean toughening up existing goals, he said. The Swiss government was also told to keep the committee of ministers informed about planned adaptation measures to protect vulnerable citizens during events such as heatwaves. And it must provide 'concrete examples' of citizens' involvement in developing climate policies. Switzerland has until September to provide this information. Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion The KlimaSeniorinnen co-president Rosmarie Wydler-Wälti welcomed the decision. She called on the Swiss federal council and parliament 'to take the dangers of global warming seriously and finally take decisive action against the climate crisis'. Sébastien Duyck, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, said European governments had 'reaffirmed the rule of law'. 'The decision … makes clear that the Swiss federal council must fulfil its legal obligation to protect its citizens' human rights by ramping up its climate ambition.' Başak Çalı, a professor of international law at the Oxford Bonavero Institute of Human Rights, said: 'It is a good day for respect for European court judgments and international law. This decision also shows just how important international institutions – such as the European court – are for helping to improve the lives of people everywhere.' In a statement, the Swiss federal government said the 'competent authorities' would analyse the decision and determine what further information they would submit, adding: 'The aim is to demonstrate that Switzerland is complying with the climate policy requirements of the ruling.'
