On 9 April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered Grand Chamber judgments in three climate-related cases, marking the first time the Court has ruled on whether inadequate climate action can breach the European Convention on Human Rights.
Historic ruling against Switzerland
In the case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, the Court examined a complaint brought by the Swiss association Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, made up of older women concerned about the health impacts of rising temperatures. Four individual applicants were also involved.
The Court declared the applications of the four individuals inadmissible, finding they did not meet the Convention’s victim-status criteria. By contrast, the association was accepted as a valid applicant.
The Grand Chamber ruled that Switzerland had failed to comply with its positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private and family life) in relation to climate change. It also found a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court). The judgment establishes that states can be held responsible under the Convention when their climate policies are inadequate to protect people from serious impacts.
Louise Holck, director of the Danish Institute for Human Rights, commented: “The Court’s decision in the case against Switzerland establishes that states have a duty to protect their citizens from severe climate changes.”
Inadmissibility in French and Portuguese cases
In Carême v. France, the applicant was the former mayor of Grande-Synthe, who argued that France had not taken sufficient steps to prevent global warming. The Court declared the application inadmissible, holding that he lacked victim status under Article 34 of the Convention because he no longer lived in the municipality or in France.
In Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others, six young Portuguese nationals alleged that climate change threatened their lives, well-being, and mental health, and sought to hold Portugal and 32 other states accountable. The Court found the application inadmissible, reasoning that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies in Portugal, and that there were no grounds for extending jurisdiction to the other respondent states.
Recognition of climate change as a human rights issue
“For the first time, the European Court of Human Rights concludes that states have a positive obligation to ensure climate action and concrete climate targets,” said Holck.
Although only the Swiss case resulted in findings of violation, the rulings mark a significant step in recognising that inadequate climate measures can raise issues under the Convention, particularly Article 8. They also clarify the procedural hurdles – such as victim status and exhaustion of domestic remedies – that applicants must meet to pursue such cases.
As climate impacts intensify, the decisions highlight the growing connection between climate action and human rights, setting a legal precedent for future cases in Europe.
Article Source:
Press Release/Material by European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
Featured image credit: Freepik
