Amnesty International says ECHR sets ‘vital and historic’ precedent

Amnesty International (AI) on Tuesday concluded that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) had set a “vital historical precedent” by upholding, albeit partially, the climate-related complaint of elderly Swiss women.

On Tuesday, the ECHR ruled on three critical first-time cases involving elderly Swiss women, six young Portuguese men and a former French mayor. The court rejected the case of six young Portuguese and a Frenchman, but partially upheld the complaint of the Swiss women.

AI’s Mandi Mudarikwa, in a statement, said the ECHR’s decision was historic given that the Swiss government had failed to meet its obligations under the European Climate Change Convention, “including failing to set clear limits on greenhouse gas emissions and failing to meet its previous greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets gases.”

In a statement, the person in charge described the determination and tenacity of the applicants in the three cases as “remarkable and encouraging”.

He added: “We especially recognize the courage of young people in seeking to protect not only their future, but the future of future generations.”

AI understands that the Swiss decision “strengthens the legal path to climate justice through the ECtHR”, and it is important that the Court recognized the harm caused to plaintiffs by climate change, and that the Swiss government has done very little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and ensure they are adequately protected.

The decision, the international organization says, sends a strong signal to European policymakers that they must step up efforts to combat climate change. Moreover, he also emphasizes that the ECtHR’s decision to dismiss the other two cases was based on procedural considerations and not on the merits of each case.

Although only one of three cases against countries for climate inaction was recognized, the day was hailed as historic by all activists, including six young Portuguese who filed a complaint with the ECHR against 32 European countries, including Portugal.

The six young men and their accompanying team of lawyers refused to present the case in Portuguese courts, which was one of the reasons why a panel of 17 judges found it inadmissible.

The collective’s president, Siofra O’Leary, explained that Portugal has all the mechanisms to discuss the process of inaction on climate change, and that the country has tools to counteract the slowness of the courts.

The outcome of the case was the same as that of Damien Carême, former mayor of Grande-Synthe v. France, but Verein KlimaSeniornnen Schewz and others v. Switzerland managed to emerge victorious, albeit partially.

The decision was greeted with applause at the end of the hearing as young Portuguese and “climate grannies” walked up the stairs to the main atrium.

There was disappointment, according to Martim Duarte Agostinho, the young Portuguese who led the largest of the three trials. But the expression used by Katarina Mota, who was also involved in this process, was the same one that was echoed in the international media: “We did not tear down the wall, but we made a big crack.”