European Court of Human Rights rules on first three climate cases: Lack of climate action can violate human rights

For the first time, the European Court of Human Rights concludes that states have a positive obligation to ensure climate action and concrete climate targets. This follows from Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the right to private and family life.

"The Court's decision in the case against Switzerland establishes that states have a duty to protect their citizens from severe climate changes," says Louise Holck, director of the Danish Institute for Human Rights.

Today, the European Court of Human Rights ruled on three climate cases: Duarte Agostinho et al. vs. Portugal, Denmark, and 31 other countries, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz vs. Switzerland, and Carême vs. France.

In the case against Switzerland, the court ruled in favour of the applicants. The Court accepts the argument that states have a duty to ensure climate action and thus recognizes for the first time that climate change is a matter of human rights.

In the other two cases, the court did not test if the applicants human rights were violated because the applicants do not meet the Court's requirements for processing complaints.

In the Portuguese case, where a group of young people has filed a direct lawsuit at the European Court of Human Rights against 33 states - including Denmark - the complaints are dismissed because the young people have not first had their case tried at the national courts. Moreover, the Court highlights that the complaint could not be processed for all 33 countries but only Portugal, where the young people are citizens.

In the French case, the complaint is dismissed because the citizen who had filed the complaint no longer lives in the country concerned.

"When delving deeper into the cases, it's the right to private and family life that has been decisive. The Court now establishes that severe consequences of climate change are protected by human rights," says Louise Holck.