This could be a groundbreaking ruling for the climate policies of European states and for further climate lawsuits: The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recognized in its ruling on Tuesday that climate change threatens human rights – and inadequate climate action jeopardizes them. It ruled in favor of a lawsuit by Swiss citizens against their country’s policies but rejected further lawsuits.
Because states are obligated to protect the fundamental rights of their citizens, a state duty to climate action can be derived from this.
Specifically, the Court finds:
The Court criticizes Switzerland for lacking a CO2 budget or clear limits. However, Switzerland’s Climate Change Act from last year does indeed prescribe such reduction targets for 2040 (minus 75 percent) and 2050 (net zero) – and formulates average values for the years and sectors in between. There is also the possibility to credit negative emissions. Apparently, the law came too late for the court that was previously negotiated – and it only sets the limits from 2030 onwards.
It was the first climate lawsuit ever heard before the ECHR. Formally, the judgment initially binds only Switzerland. But it is likely to have a signaling effect on courts throughout Europe. The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe and is responsible for ensuring compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights, making its judgments relevant to all member states of the Council of Europe.
The Swiss senior citizens had sued the Swiss state because it was not doing enough to combat global warming. Due to their age, they are particularly affected by the health impacts of climate change.
However, the ECHR dismissed two other climate lawsuits. Damien Carême, a Green European politician who felt his human rights were affected by rising sea levels, was not personally affected by the effects of climate change. Therefore, his lawsuit was inadmissible. The man no longer lives in his original hometown on the English Channel.
A group of Portuguese youth and young adults who had sued all member states of the Council of Europe were also dismissed. Their right to sue was limited to their home state of Portugal, the court ruled – and there, they should have exhausted the legal process before turning to the ECHR.
“This decision is definitely a turning point,” says Corina Heri, human rights expert at the University of Zurich, to Table.Briefings. It means “the impacts of global warming on people do fall under human rights, and confirms that these cases can be brought before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.”
The admission of the lawsuit by the association shows that the court signals a preference for bundled climate cases, Heri continues. With its decision, the ECHR has paved the way for future climate lawsuits in Europe: First, go to the national court and file a lawsuit as an organization, Heri explained.
The Swiss government party, the SVP, reacted angrily to the ruling. “Ideology and denial of reality reign in the European court palaces,” the party said. It is a “brazen interference in Swiss politics,” which is unacceptable for a sovereign country. Therefore, the SVP is calling for Switzerland’s withdrawal from the Council of Europe.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling, which determined that Swiss climate action policies violate the right to life and health, could have important implications for Germany, according to environmental lawyers. Firstly, a German case is currently before the ECHR: After a constitutional complaint against inadequate climate action plans was not accepted by the Federal Constitutional Court in June 2022, the plaintiffs filed a complaint with the ECHR. The complainant is 20-year-old climate activist Linus Steinmetz.
“This case is more comparable to the successful Swiss case,” said Remo Klinger, who leads this lawsuit supported by the German Environmental Aid. In Germany, as in Switzerland and unlike the dismissed case from Portugal, the national legal remedies have already been exhausted, a prerequisite for admissibility before the ECHR.
However, it remains unclear whether the German case will pass the second hurdle, namely the direct impact on the plaintiffs. In the cases currently decided, that of an organization – the “Schweizer Klimaseniorinnen” (“Swiss climate seniors”) – was successful, while the lawsuits by individuals were dismissed because their specific impact could not be proven. The German complaint is also led by individuals due to the requirements of the Federal Constitutional Court.
Nevertheless, this does not automatically mean it will also be dismissed, as the German lawsuit does not concern the endangerment of life and health but rather the violation of freedom rights, where the impact is different, explained Klinger. Complainant Steinmetz is, therefore, more hopeful. “We can clearly demonstrate that inadequate climate policy would restrict the future freedom rights of the younger generation,” he told Table.Briefings.
Secondly, the ruling could influence future proceedings. “It will definitely have repercussions in the German legal sphere,” says environmental lawyer Roda Verheyen, who was involved as an intervener in the recent proceedings in Strasbourg. Henceforth, lawsuits by organizations that have been rejected in Germany must be permissible. Verheyen also emphasized the importance of the ECHR shifting the burden of proof, she told Table.Briefings. “In the future, the state must justify that its policies are sufficient.” The enforcement of such judgments will then be the responsibility of national courts again.
ClientEarth, which supported the current proceedings with a so-called amicus curiae brief, also expects far-reaching consequences across Europe. “As the Court’s judgment is binding, the signatory states now have a clear legal obligation to ensure that their climate measures are sufficient to protect human rights,” explained Vesselina Newman. “Judges across Europe will have to apply these new principles to the growing number of climate cases before them.”
The German government responded calmly to the decision from Strasbourg. This is “not entirely new”, said Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock at a press conference, referring to the climate ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court. “We see that the climate crisis is one of the main security threats in other countries in the world, including in all European countries, and that societies must therefore confront them for security reasons.” However, she apparently does not see any additional need for action. “As the German federal government, we are addressing this with our climate action measures,” said Baerbock.
A spokesperson for the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs, led by Robert Habeck, stated in response that the proceedings “underscore the magnitude of the climate crisis and the state’s duty to protect in the context of the climate crisis”. However, Germany is already fulfilling these duties. “For the federal government, it is crucial that German climate targets are actually achieved by 2030,” the spokesperson said. “The current forecasts suggest this.” In contrast, the German Advisory Council on the Environment recently stated that Germany had already exceeded its fair share of a 1.5-degree-compatible CO2 budget and, therefore, must significantly reduce emissions.
This could be a groundbreaking ruling for the climate policies of European states and for further climate lawsuits: The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recognized in its ruling on Tuesday that climate change threatens human rights – and inadequate climate action jeopardizes them. It ruled in favor of a lawsuit by Swiss citizens against their country’s policies but rejected further lawsuits.
Because states are obligated to protect the fundamental rights of their citizens, a state duty to climate action can be derived from this.
Specifically, the Court finds:
The Court criticizes Switzerland for lacking a CO2 budget or clear limits. However, Switzerland’s Climate Change Act from last year does indeed prescribe such reduction targets for 2040 (minus 75 percent) and 2050 (net zero) – and formulates average values for the years and sectors in between. There is also the possibility to credit negative emissions. Apparently, the law came too late for the court that was previously negotiated – and it only sets the limits from 2030 onwards.
It was the first climate lawsuit ever heard before the ECHR. Formally, the judgment initially binds only Switzerland. But it is likely to have a signaling effect on courts throughout Europe. The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe and is responsible for ensuring compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights, making its judgments relevant to all member states of the Council of Europe.
The Swiss senior citizens had sued the Swiss state because it was not doing enough to combat global warming. Due to their age, they are particularly affected by the health impacts of climate change.
However, the ECHR dismissed two other climate lawsuits. Damien Carême, a Green European politician who felt his human rights were affected by rising sea levels, was not personally affected by the effects of climate change. Therefore, his lawsuit was inadmissible. The man no longer lives in his original hometown on the English Channel.
A group of Portuguese youth and young adults who had sued all member states of the Council of Europe were also dismissed. Their right to sue was limited to their home state of Portugal, the court ruled – and there, they should have exhausted the legal process before turning to the ECHR.
“This decision is definitely a turning point,” says Corina Heri, human rights expert at the University of Zurich, to Table.Briefings. It means “the impacts of global warming on people do fall under human rights, and confirms that these cases can be brought before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.”
The admission of the lawsuit by the association shows that the court signals a preference for bundled climate cases, Heri continues. With its decision, the ECHR has paved the way for future climate lawsuits in Europe: First, go to the national court and file a lawsuit as an organization, Heri explained.
The Swiss government party, the SVP, reacted angrily to the ruling. “Ideology and denial of reality reign in the European court palaces,” the party said. It is a “brazen interference in Swiss politics,” which is unacceptable for a sovereign country. Therefore, the SVP is calling for Switzerland’s withdrawal from the Council of Europe.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling, which determined that Swiss climate action policies violate the right to life and health, could have important implications for Germany, according to environmental lawyers. Firstly, a German case is currently before the ECHR: After a constitutional complaint against inadequate climate action plans was not accepted by the Federal Constitutional Court in June 2022, the plaintiffs filed a complaint with the ECHR. The complainant is 20-year-old climate activist Linus Steinmetz.
“This case is more comparable to the successful Swiss case,” said Remo Klinger, who leads this lawsuit supported by the German Environmental Aid. In Germany, as in Switzerland and unlike the dismissed case from Portugal, the national legal remedies have already been exhausted, a prerequisite for admissibility before the ECHR.
However, it remains unclear whether the German case will pass the second hurdle, namely the direct impact on the plaintiffs. In the cases currently decided, that of an organization – the “Schweizer Klimaseniorinnen” (“Swiss climate seniors”) – was successful, while the lawsuits by individuals were dismissed because their specific impact could not be proven. The German complaint is also led by individuals due to the requirements of the Federal Constitutional Court.
Nevertheless, this does not automatically mean it will also be dismissed, as the German lawsuit does not concern the endangerment of life and health but rather the violation of freedom rights, where the impact is different, explained Klinger. Complainant Steinmetz is, therefore, more hopeful. “We can clearly demonstrate that inadequate climate policy would restrict the future freedom rights of the younger generation,” he told Table.Briefings.
Secondly, the ruling could influence future proceedings. “It will definitely have repercussions in the German legal sphere,” says environmental lawyer Roda Verheyen, who was involved as an intervener in the recent proceedings in Strasbourg. Henceforth, lawsuits by organizations that have been rejected in Germany must be permissible. Verheyen also emphasized the importance of the ECHR shifting the burden of proof, she told Table.Briefings. “In the future, the state must justify that its policies are sufficient.” The enforcement of such judgments will then be the responsibility of national courts again.
ClientEarth, which supported the current proceedings with a so-called amicus curiae brief, also expects far-reaching consequences across Europe. “As the Court’s judgment is binding, the signatory states now have a clear legal obligation to ensure that their climate measures are sufficient to protect human rights,” explained Vesselina Newman. “Judges across Europe will have to apply these new principles to the growing number of climate cases before them.”
The German government responded calmly to the decision from Strasbourg. This is “not entirely new”, said Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock at a press conference, referring to the climate ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court. “We see that the climate crisis is one of the main security threats in other countries in the world, including in all European countries, and that societies must therefore confront them for security reasons.” However, she apparently does not see any additional need for action. “As the German federal government, we are addressing this with our climate action measures,” said Baerbock.
A spokesperson for the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs, led by Robert Habeck, stated in response that the proceedings “underscore the magnitude of the climate crisis and the state’s duty to protect in the context of the climate crisis”. However, Germany is already fulfilling these duties. “For the federal government, it is crucial that German climate targets are actually achieved by 2030,” the spokesperson said. “The current forecasts suggest this.” In contrast, the German Advisory Council on the Environment recently stated that Germany had already exceeded its fair share of a 1.5-degree-compatible CO2 budget and, therefore, must significantly reduce emissions.
