This wiki has had no edits or log actions made within the last 45 days and has been automatically marked as inactive. If you would like to prevent this wiki from being closed, please start showing signs of activity here. If there are no signs of this wiki being used within the next 15 days, this wiki will be closed in accordance to the Youth for Climate Justice v. Austria, et al.
In 2020, six Portuguese youth and the Global Legal Action Network filed suit in the European Court of Human Rights against 33 European countries, alleging countries had violated their human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to address climate change.[1]
Background[edit]
The case was inspired by the Portuguese fires of 2017, which were the country's worst forest fires in its history and claimed 60 people's lives. These increasing natural disasters and their growing severity can be attributed to climate change and would allow for a case against these countries with significant emission rates and no plans to reduce them properly.[2] A group of children from ages five to fourteen hit by the forest fires alleges that the 33 countries' collective failure to form an adequate climate change response threatens their right to life. The countries they are targeting are responsible for 15 percent of global greenhouse emissions.[3] The group is joined by Global Legal Action Network, a human rights litigation nonprofit. The countries included in the suit are all European Union member states (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Croatia, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden) and Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom.[1]
The plaintiffs argue that the countries are failing their human rights obligations and are in violation of the Paris Agreement. The suit is based on Articles 2, 8, and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protect the right to life, right to privacy, and right to not experience discrimination. After the initial complaint submission, the court also asked the parties to comment on Articles 1 and 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, along with the ones mentioned in the complaint. Article 1 refers to the right to property and Article 3 is the prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment.[4] The plaintiffs are seeking a declaration from the court that the countries must make stronger emission reduction policies and they also must commit to stopping fossil fuel extraction.[3]
Relevant Law and Principles[edit]
- European Convention on Human Rights
- Article 1, right to property
- Article 2, right to life
- Article 3, right to freedom from torture and inhuman and degrading treatment
- Article 8, right to private and family life
- Article 14, right to freedom from discrimination
- Paris Agreement
Status[edit]
In November 2020, the European Court of Human Rights accepted and fast-tracked the case. Only a tiny minority of cases are fast-tracked before the European Court of Human Rights. On February 26th, 2021, the European Court of Human Rights denied a motion to overturn the fast-track decision. The defendants must submit their defense by May 27th, 2021.[5]
The case continues to use an innovative source of funding, crowdsourcing resources on the platform Crowd Justice.
Takeaways[edit]
The case is part of a broader wave of international Youth Lawsuits but is precedential in its targeting of so many countries at once. The lead counsel on the case, Marc Willers QC, says “It will be unique because it will be the first case in which multiple governments are brought before a court at the one time in relation to their failure to properly tackle climate change".[2] Notably, the Court's addition of Articles 1 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights is groundbreaking for climate change law. Although it is common practice for the Court to consider other Articles not mentioned in a claim, Article 3 is not commonly invoked in climate change litigation--it was not raised in the Urgenda decision, one of the most influential climate cases for Europe. The possibility of a judgement in a climate-related Article 3 claim is significant since the Convention doesn't contain a right to a healthy environment and the Court has not made decisions in this context.[4]
Links[edit]
- Global Legal Action Network
- Brief by human rights groups on why human rights do not stop at borders - Relevant for cases in which citizens sue countries they do not live in
- Crowd Justice crowdfunding case page
- Interventions (amicus briefs) filled in the case
- Climate Change on Trial Before the European Court of Human Rights - webinar from Climate Litigation Accelerator
- European Convention on Human Rights