.png)
.png)
In a landmark ruling, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has issued a verdict with profound implications for climate change policy and human rights protection. The case, originating from Switzerland, was championed by a group representing older women who argued that climate change-induced heatwaves posed significant risks to their lives and well-being. The court's decision, which favored the applicants, asserted the obligation of states to shield citizens from the adverse effects of climate change as stipulated in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
“The court found that Article 8 of the [European Convention on Human Rights] encompasses a right to effective protection by the state authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on lives, health, well-being, and quality of life,” according to a press release issued April 9 by the registrar of the court.
Cordelia Bähr, the lead lawyer representing the applicants, hailed the ruling as a groundbreaking development. She emphasized its potential to set a precedent for future climate-related litigation globally, stressing the imperative for governments to implement robust climate protection measures to safeguard human rights effectively. Bähr's remarks underscored the pivotal role of the judgment in delineating the responsibilities of governments in combatting climate change.
“The significance of this decision cannot be overestimated,” said Cordelia Bähr, the lead lawyer for the applicants, in a press release. “It will be of great importance for further climate lawsuits against states and companies worldwide and increase their chances of success."
Louise Fournier, legal counsel for climate justice and liability at Greenpeace International, elucidated the broader implications of the ruling for corporate entities. Fournier underscored that businesses are also duty-bound to address climate change and adhere to emissions reduction targets and human rights obligations. The ECHR's emphasis on scrutinizing emissions across the entire supply chain, including Scope 3 emissions from overseas, signifies a paradigm shift in corporate accountability towards climate action.
“For companies, it is particularly important to review the full scope of the emissions in their business to meet their obligations,” she warned. “With this groundbreaking decision, companies are on notice: reduce now or prepare to be sued.”
Furthermore, Fournier cautioned that companies failing to mitigate emissions risk legal repercussions in light of the ECHR's ruling. The decision's ripple effect is expected to compel governments to enact more stringent climate legislation and enhance oversight mechanisms. States are increasingly under pressure to regulate businesses to prevent human rights violations stemming from climate change and other environmental factors.
In essence, the ECHR's landmark ruling signifies a pivotal juncture in climate litigation, elevating the nexus between climate action and human rights to the forefront of legal discourse. It underscores the imperative for concerted efforts from governments, businesses, and civil society to address the existential threat posed by climate change while upholding fundamental human rights principles.
By fLEXI tEAM