The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has issued a landmark judgement that allows individuals and associations to file complaints against countries whose climate protection activities are considered insufficiently ambitious. For Poland, this is an crucial informing – according to experts from the Polish Institute of global Affairs (PISM).
The ETPC Decision stated that the inactivity of climate protection politicians violates human rights with serious consequences for wellness and quality of life. This may consequence in increased force on European countries to take more decisive pro-climate measures, and those which are little active may be required to pay financial compensation in the future.
With 3 circumstantial cases in which the complainants demanded a greater commitment from the states to climate protection, ETPCz took this decision. In the first case, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen, 4 aged women, and the climate protection association that belongs to him brought a complaint against Switzerland.
The second case, Caręme, was brought by the erstwhile French mayor of Grande-Synthe v France, presently surviving in Belgium. The third, Agostinho, submitted six young Portuguese citizens against Portugal and 32 another countries, mainly EU members specified as France, Germany and Poland, but besides Turkey and the UK. ETPCz yet took into account the complaint by Verein KlimaSeniorinnen.
– Its judgement is final and it is simply a precedent that opens up the anticipation of punishing states for not very decisive measures to defend the climate. There are inactive a number of specified cases before ETPC, including Austria, Germany and Sweden, and at least 2 against Poland: Uricchio and De Conto, spoken by the Italian – reminds Szymon Zaręba, expert of the Polish Institute of global Affairs.
What is the key to success in the event of a win before the Climate Court? Zaręba stresses that the complainants must show that the State's failure to comply with climate protection has an impact on their rights under the Convention.
In practice, in the cases analysed, all raised a violation of the right to life (Article 2) and respect for private and household life due to the impact of climate change on their wellness and quality of life (Article 8). In the judgement Verein KlimaSeniorinnen The Court accepted the argument concerning Article 8, although it did not exclude the anticipation of a breach in any cases besides Article 2. – explains.
What is crucial in suing the state?
In addition, the European Court of Human Rights in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen held that these people must be straight affected by the effects of the state's inactivity in climate policy, while at the same time seriously threatened by the adverse consequences of climate change. Moreover, there must be an urgent request to guarantee the protection of their rights.
According to Zaręba, the judgement states that states are required to introduce timely and effective legal, administrative and judicial solutions to mitigate the current and future effects of climate change.
The Court takes into account, inter alia, the request to establish a national timetable for achieving carbon neutrality, the establishment of targets and paths to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the efficiency of the implementation of these measures. In examining Switzerland's actions, the Court found that, although the country's government aimed at reducing heat emissions on a global scale, it was not ambitious adequate to meet global commitments that were besides not achieved. He besides ruled that the authorities were not acting with due care and timelyness.
Interestingly, this judgement is besides a criticism of Switzerland itself. The Court found a breach of the right to a fair trial against the association complainant, criticising the insufficient treatment and rejection of his complaints by Swiss courts, including the national ultimate Court. This means that Switzerland will gotta supply its citizens and associations with a real chance for judicial enforcement of climate action.
The most crucial aspect, according to the PISM expert, is the anticipation of granting the applicants future compensation, in peculiar to natural persons who will prove to have suffered crucial losses as a consequence of climate change.
For Poland too, the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights will have crucial consequences, according to Zaręba.
Although the judgement formally concerns only Switzerland, its findings will apply to all countries covered by the European Convention on Human Rights, including Poland. The Court will treat these cases as a precedent, which increases the force on European countries to act effectively to defend the climate and to supply the anticipation of judicial control of the administration in this area to citizens and their organisations. Otherwise, they can themselves be deemed to be in breach of the Convention and obliged to take appropriate action, as well as to cover the procedural costs of subsequent cases and the possible payment of compensation, the analyst argues.
He so recommends preparing for possible proceedings before national courts initiated by persons and associations from Poland, and, in the event of an adverse decision, to lodge an action with the Court, which, in his opinion, may consequence in adverse sentences for Poland.
– Due to the comparatively strict restrictions on individual complaints, the problem is so far more crucial for associations. It seems crucial to increase the credibility and strength of Polish climate protection activities, especially the revision of the National Energy and Climate Plan for the period 2021-2030 and Poland's Energy Policy by 2040, which were not up to date already at the time of their adoption and are presently not adapted to the reality. Further energy transformation, including the improvement of RES and atomic energy, is besides desirable – the PISM expert concludes.
Continued here:
Breakthrough conviction of the ETPCz. The lawsuits are coming against Poland
