“We keep asking our lawyers, ‘Is that right?‘. And they tell us ‘it’s the most you could have had. The biggest victory possible’.”
The Swiss Federal Office of Justice, which represented the Swiss government at the court, took note of the ruling.
“Together with the authorities concerned, we will now analyse the extensive judgment and review what measures Switzerland will take in the future,” it said in a statement.
People demonstrate outside the European Court of Human Rights/Credit: AP
Climate litigation on the rise
The cases before the 17-judge panel in Strasbourg, France, are among the increasing number of climate lawsuits brought by citizens against governments that hinge on human rights law.
The verdict in the Swiss case, which cannot be appealed, will have international ripple effects, most directly by establishing a binding legal precedent for all 46 countries that are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights.
It indicates Switzerland has a legal duty to take greater action on reducing emissions.
If Switzerland does not update its policies, further litigation could follow at the national level and courts could issue financial penalties, Lucy Maxwell, co-director of the non-profit Climate Litigation Network, said.
Switzerland has committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent by 2030, from 1990 levels. Bern had proposed stronger measures to deliver the goal, but voters rebuffed them in a 2021 referendum as too burdensome.
The verdict could also influence future rulings at the Strasbourg court, which had put six other climate cases on hold pending Tuesday’s decisions.
These include a lawsuit against the Norwegian government that alleges it violated human rights by issuing new licences for oil and gas exploration in the Barents Sea beyond 2035.
“(It) sets a crucial legally binding precedent serving as a blueprint for how to successfully sue your own government over climate failures,” Ruth Delbaere, legal campaigns director at global civic movement Avaaz, said of the Swiss case’s outcome.
In the case brought by the Portuguese youngsters, the court ruled that while a state’s greenhouse gas emissions may have an adverse impact on people living outside its borders, it did not justify prosecuting a case across multiple jurisdictions.
It also noted that the young people had not exhausted legal avenues within Portugal’s national courts before coming to the European court.
“I really hoped that we would win against all the countries,” Sofia Oliveira, one of the Portuguese teens, said in a statement.
“But the most important thing is that the Court has said in the Swiss women’s case that governments must cut their emissions more to protect human rights. So, their win is a win for us too and a win for everyone.”
Reuters
Source Agencies
