Marangopoulos Foundation for Human Rights (MFHR) v. Greece

From Climate Litigation

A human rights NGO brought a claim before the European Committee on Social Rights arguing that the Greek government was not in compliance with Greek, European, and international law because of its oversight and partial ownership of several coal mines and coal-fired power plants. The claimants argued Greece was in violation of Article 11 of the European Social Charter of 1961, which projects citizens' right to a clean environment and requires, among other things, restrictions on pollutants known to compromise human health.[1]

Background[edit]

Greece is the second-largest lignite producer in the European Union and the fifth in the world. Lignite causes air pollution through fine particles and gas emissions, which the Greek government had acknowledged.[2] The Greek government permitted the Public Power Corporation to operate coal lignite mines and lignite-fueled power stations "without an individual and specific environmental assessment for each plant".[3] In 2005, the Marangopoulos Foundation for Human Rights (MFHR) filed suit against the Greek government for its involvement with and support of lignite coal energy. The MFHR is a Greek non-profit with the mission of the research, study, defense, protection, and promotion of fundamental human rights. The plaintiff argued that the government hadn't accounted for environmental effects or public health risks when permitting the mining and use of lignite and had not put proper systems in place to mitigate the toxic effects of coal. Additionally, they argued that Greece had access to better, cleaner energy options and should comply with the European Union's requirements to use the "best available" technology in order to reduce emissions. MFHR stated that legislation protecting mine workers doesn't exist and they are subject to dangerous conditions while not benefitting from overtime or working holidays. The organization also claims that Greece has violated Articles 2, 3, and 11 of the European Social Charter, which provide the rights to just conditions of work, safe and healthy working conditions, and the protection of health, respectively.[3] The Greek government's response was that it had been tightening environmental enforcement regarding coal mines and there were no violations.[1]

Relevant Law and Principles[edit]

Ruling[edit]

In December 2006, the European Committee of Social Rights concluded that Greece had violated articles 2, 3, and 11 of the European Social Charter. The Committee pointed out that the Greek Constitution also ensures the protection of the natural environment as a state obligation and there must be more investigation and assessment by the government of the environmental impacts. They ruled that Greece had failed to "strike a reasonable balance between the interests of persons living in the lignite mining areas and the general interest" of the public and had also failed to properly monitor safety and environmental effects.[3]

In September 2020, Greece's Prime Minister announced it would phase out lignite coal-powered electricity by 2028, legislated in its 2019 National Energy and Climate Plan, with all lignite-fired plants shut down by 2023. They also introduced more aggressive energy targets.[4]

Takeaways[edit]

In its ruling, the Committee explicitly acknowledged the right to a healthy environment, linked to rights of health and life in the European Convention on Human Rights, and also referenced other international climate agreements (the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the Kyoto Protocol). The Committee aligns the right to a healthy environment with all other fundamental human rights. By referencing and enforcing international climate targets and the right to the environment, the Committee issued a "wake-up call" for European Union member states as many of them continually violate or fall short of emissions reduction targets. This case also means that a right to a healthy environment could potentially be implemented into other countries' constitutions or policies. The Committee's ruling set precedent for evaluating Kyoto Protocol violations and obligations, which was implemented into state reports on health protections. After this case, Italy's Kyoto Protocol obligations were investigated by the Committee using the precedent set in this case.[2]

Links[edit]

References[edit]