Switzerland is the first European state condemned by the ECHR for "climate inaction"

For the first time in history, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has condemned a nation for failing to meet climate obligations.We are talking about Switzerland, which was notably condemned after an association made up of over 2,000 elderly women sued it for climate inaction.The ECHR, more specifically, condemned the Swiss State for violating Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, i.e. the right to respect for private and family life, since it did not adopt adequate measures to mitigate the effects of climate change.A judgment which, by linking the protection of human rights to compliance with climate obligations, she is destined to do law.The ruling is, among other things, binding and has the potential to influence the law in the 46 countries of the Council of Europe, i.e. all those belonging to the European human rights jurisdiction.On the same day, the ECHR also expressed its opinion on two other climate justice cases, however, both of which were rejected.The first is an appeal brought forward by a group of young Portuguese against 32 countries accused of not doing enough to reduce climate-altering emissions, while the second has as its protagonist a former mayor of a transalpine country who accused France of not having adopted sufficient measures to limit global warming.

The verdict which instead accepted the position of the Swiss appellants is related to the case 'Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v.Switzerland', a legal procedure initiated following the appeal presented by the association Senior Women for Climate Protection Switzerland (Elders for the Climate Switzerland) and other individual plaintiffs supported by Greenpeace Switzerland.The appellants specifically asked the Court to "oblige Switzerland to intervene to protect their human rights, and to adopt the legislative and administrative measures necessary to help avoid an increase in the average global temperature of more than 1.5°C, applying concrete objectives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions“.In the ruling, the ECtHR initially specified that it “can deal with issues arising from climate change only within the limits of the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 19 (Establishment of the Court) of the Convention”.At the same time, he specified “that inadequate state action to combat climate change exacerbated the risk of harmful consequences and threats to the enjoyment of human rights."Consequently - added the ECHR - "the current situation involves the adoption of stringent constraints, confirmed by scientific knowledge, which the Court could not ignore in its role as a judicial body responsible for respecting human rights".In particular, he recognized that “there are sufficiently reliable indications of the existence of anthropogenic climate change”.Therefore, this “constitutes a serious current and future threat to the enjoyment of the human rights guaranteed by the Convention, which States are aware of and are able to take measures to address climate change effectively, that relevant risks should be lower if temperature increases are limited to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and if urgent action is taken."Furthermore - the Court specified - "current global mitigation efforts have not, however, been sufficient to achieve this objective".

In this context, the ECHR emphasized that “the primary duty of a Contracting State is to adopt and apply in practice regulations and measures capable of mitigating potentially irreversible, existing and future climate effects”.And that, in the specific case of Switzerland, “there have been critical gaps in the process of implementing the relevant national legislation, including the failure of the Swiss authorities to quantify a carbon budget and the absence of a national limitation on gas emissions greenhouse.Finally, the ECHR recalled that, already in the past, Switzerland "has failed to achieve its previous objectives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and that the Swiss authorities they did not act in time and adequately to design and implement measures compliant with the obligations set out in Article 8 of the Convention, which are relevant in the context of climate change".«It's an indescribable moment.This decision will be of great importance for further climate lawsuits against states and companies around the world and will increase their chances of success,” commented Cordelia Bähr, lawyer leading the legal team of Climate Elders.

[by Simone Valeri]