Three organizations that filed a lawsuit against the Portuguese state for non-compliance with the Basic Climate Law criticized this Monday the refusal of the people’s action and the way the process was carried out, and announced an appeal to the Supreme Court.
In a joint statement, the association Último Recurso, Quercus and the non-governmental organization (NGO) Sciaena announced an appeal to the Supreme Court after being rejected by the Lisbon Civil Court and “acknowledged the appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.” Human Rights” (ECtHR).
Portugal’s first climate litigation is being brought to the Supreme Court to ensure that the government “complies with the commitments made in the Basic Climate Law.”
The Basic Law was approved two years ago, but in November 2023 three organizations sued the Portuguese state, claiming it was not complying with it. The government program, which came into force a week ago, acknowledges that “there is still much to be done.”
The authors of the people’s action criticized the way the process was conducted: “After more than four months of no reaction to this people’s action, last week a complaint was filed with the High Council of Justice against a judge of the Civil Court. Lisbon,” and after the complaint was reported by the weekly Expresso, “the judge issued a verdict and rejected the petition.”
“Since the claim was presented, and although the judge did not rule on it, Portugal has continued to suffer from the effects of climate change, such as drought in the Algarve and extreme or higher temperatures than normal for this time of year,” the organization lamented.
Último Recurso association president Mariana Gomes rejected the judge’s assertion that the original petition is “abstract, general and unclear” and rejected the claim that it “includes, point by point,” everything that the Basic Climate Law includes. and relevant deadlines that have not yet been met.
The three organizations listed some of what remains to be done two years later, namely the implementation of a “carbon budget, climate action portal, national energy and climate plan and sectoral mitigation plans” for a problem that is already having consequences in Portugal.
The failure to comply with the law is “particularly reprehensible in light of the extreme temperatures and other unprecedented damage occurring across the country,” added the organizations suing the state.
Lawyer Ricardo Sa Fernandez criticized the decision to dismiss the claim entirely “because the request made would be illegible, which is estimated at two paragraphs.”
“It is therefore difficult to accept that the court took four months to make a decision,” the lawyer added, increasing his criticism of the judge, who, in his opinion, demonstrated “shocking legal insensitivity and rashness,” contrasting with what the ECHR said early last week ruled in Strasbourg (France), in particular in the case of “grandmothers for climate”.
Mariana Gomes believes that the case of the Swiss elderly is “very similar” to this popular action, and believes that the presence of the Basic Law on Climate in Portugal is an additional positive element: “The case of the “grandmothers for climate” did not have a law In concrete terms, it was an even more abstract request.”
If the Portuguese courts are “not competent to decide this matter”, the three organizations agree to refer it to Strasbourg so that the ECtHR can express its opinion, after setting a historical precedent with three actions, one of which was carried out by six young Portuguese: to which they called for the fulfillment of promises made in the fight against climate change.
In its decision, the ECtHR, for example, took into account that the Portuguese case had not exhausted all the Portuguese authorities before it was referred to the European Court, which does not happen in a claim against the Portuguese state.
In the Granny for Climate case, the ECtHR found that there had been a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, namely Article 8 on respect for private and family life.
The Court considered that there had been a lack of respect for private and family life, motivated by climate change, as well as a violation of the right of access to the courts, finding that for these reasons Switzerland had failed to fulfill its obligations under the Convention.
The ECtHR’s decision in three climate inaction claims against several countries is therefore a historic decision and sets a precedent for this type of action in the future.
Author: Lusa
Source: CM Jornal
I’m Sandra Hansen, a news website Author and Reporter for 24 News Reporters. I have over 7 years of experience in the journalism field, with an extensive background in politics and political science. My passion is to tell stories that are important to people around the globe and to engage readers with compelling content.