Climate Change Litigation and the European Court of Human Rights - A Strategic Next Step?

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 331-342
Author(s):  
Therese Karlsson Niska

Abstract The purpose of the article is to analyse if bringing a case before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) could be impactful in forcing greater climate change action. Part of this analysis is built upon the review of two climate change cases brought before national courts, since they have different outcomes even though both use the fundamental human rights of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as their legal bases. The cases are the Urgenda Foundation v. Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Union of Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection v. Swiss Federal Council and Others. The Urgenda case establishes a link between the rights in article 2 and 8 ECHR, and climate change, which creates a positive obligation for a state to protect these rights by acting to combat climate change. The Swiss Climate Protection case, however, is dismissed. Both cases highlight some of the challenges regarding climate change in relation to the fundamental human rights of the ECHR. Judgments by the ECtHR are final, and the formally and informally binding nature of case law from the court is argued to indicate the possibility of a powerful tool in relation to climate change action since 47 states will be affected by the court’s decisions. However, if a case brought before the ECtHR has an unfavourable outcome in relation to forcing greater governmental action in combating climate change, this may also have greater consequences than such an outcome of a domestic challenge, since it will set a minimum standard of care, or completely exclude climate change in relation to human rights. The article argues that it should be considered worth the identified risks to bring a claim before the ECtHR even though it is uncertain if the evolving nature of the charter is ready to establish obligations in relation to climate change, due to the unprecedented and severe threat that climate change constitutes.

2021 ◽  
pp. 249-265
Author(s):  
Ljubomir Tintor

The article comprehensively analyses the case of Urgenda v. the Netherlands as the first successful climate litigation in Europe. The article analyses the arguments on which the Dutch courts established state responsibility for human rights violations caused by the failure of the state in the implementation of policies to combat climate change. The significance of this case is pointed out not only for Dutch, but also for international law. The second part of the article will show how the Urgenda case affected climate litigation that began to appear before national courts across Europe. Through a comparative analysis of cases, it will be pointed out that there is uneven case law in climate litigation before national courts. It will be seen how the Urgenda case had an impact on the initiation of climate disputes and before the European Court of Human Rights. Particular attention is paid to the issue of the connection between the impact of climate change and the torture caused by the harmful effects of global warming, which was initiated before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. At the end of the article, the perspective of climate litigation is considered.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 112-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingrid Leijten

Climate change is a human rights issue, but what exactly can courts require States to do in this regard? This contribution discusses the Dutch Urgenda case, in which the Court of Appeals recently found a violation of Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights and ordered the State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2020. Looking at the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on environmental issues, as well as the nature of positive obligations, it appears that Urgenda involves a more abstract situation and a more precise positive obligation than is usually the case in human rights adjudication. Because ex post facto complaints are no solution, and in light of the growing number of Urgenda-like cases pending before (international) courts, efforts need to be made to ensure that human rights `fit' climate change cases and courts can provide effective protection in this regard.


Author(s):  
VLADIMÍRA PEJCHALOVÁ GRÜNWALDOVÁ

AbstractThis article deals with the implementation, at the national level, of European human rights protection standards as enshrined in theEuropean Convention on Human Rights(ECHR) and interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It discusses the principles of interpretation of theECHRby the ECtHR, the interaction and mutual dialogue between the ECtHR and national courts, and the approach of the latter to interpretation and application of the case law of the ECtHR. Using the concrete examples of France and the Czech Republic as case studies, it is shown to what extent and how European constitutional courts take into account and apply the letter of the Convention and its interpretation by the ECtHR.


2019 ◽  
pp. 17-20
Author(s):  
Kristina NIKONOROVA

More than twenty years have passed since Ukraine ratified the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in 1997 and recognized the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). On September 16, 2014 the European Parliament ratified the Association Agreement with the EU synchronously with the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. European integration processes have once again begun to play a leading role in the implementation of legal reform in Ukraine aimed at introducing the fundamental provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). First and foremost, the implementation of the rule of law principle based on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. In connection with this starting point, the ECtHR's case-law is considered to be a source of law, in particular in administrative proceedings. The main findings are based on the fact that the ECtHR's practice is inextricably linked to the Convention, which the ECtHR interprets in its decisions when dealing with specific cases. Some attention has been paid to the analysis of the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On the enforcement of decisions and the application of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights”. Article 17 of this Law provides for the courts using the ECHR and practicing the case-law of the ECtHR's as a source of law. Article 18 of the aforementioned Law defines the order of reference in national courts’ decisions to the ECHR and ECtHR's practice. It is emphasized that according to Article 1 of the above Law, it is necessary to talk about the ECtHR’s practice in a broad aspect, and not only about decisions regarding Ukraine. It is revealed that the main discussion is on the precedental nature of ECtHR’s decisions. As scientists understand the precedental nature of EctHR’s decisions, this question has taken the appropriate place in the study. As a result, it is concluded that the practice of the ECtHR has a precedent form the content of which is based on the legal position of the official interpretation of the provisions of the ECHR. It is in this form that it is appropriate to apply the case-law of the ECtHR's in the area of administrative justice.


2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 197-208
Author(s):  
Przemysław Siwior

Abstract The purpose of this article is to analyse the existing case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in environmental cases in order to determine whether the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) ensures protection in cases related to climate change and its adverse impacts. Due to the fact that to date the ECtHR has not yet ruled on the issue of climate change, the article analyses environmental cases addressed by the ECtHR based on article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and article 2 (right to life) of the ECHR taking into account potential application of their conclusions to climate change.


2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 393-414
Author(s):  
José M. Cortés-Martín

Abstract It is likely that the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) objection in Opinion 2/13 regarding the absence of judicial remedies in certain Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) areas can hardly be accommodated in a future revised Accession Project to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This is basically due to obstacles to proceeding with reform of the EU Treaties or establishing an ECHR reservation clause. However, as a matter of fact, the exact dimension of this problem seems to be quite relative. First of all, this is because recent ECJ case-law is gradually eroding the Court’s lack of competence, in particular, after Rosneft. Next, this is because, in those cases where there is still an absence of effective judicial protection, national courts – as EU ordinary courts – could fill this gap. Finally, this gap could also be filled by creating accountability mechanisms in the area of human rights within the framework of Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions.


2013 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 289-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
EIRIK BJORGE

AbstractThe way in which the courts in the United Kingdom have interpreted and applied the Ullah principle has created problems in the national application of the European Convention on Human Rights. As is evident particularly in Ambrose, this is partly because Lord Bingham's approach in Ullah has been misunderstood. The article analyses these issues in relation to the notion of binding precedent, finding that judicial authority belongs to principles. The national courts ought not, though that is what the Ullah–Ambrose approach enjoins, to expend their energies seeking to align the case before them with the least dissimilar of the reported cases. Rather they should stand back from the case law of the European Court, and apply the broad principles upon which the jurisprudence is founded.


2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 144-163
Author(s):  
Jean-Baptiste Bukuru

The article considers the recent case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in cases related to the use of the achievements of biomedicine in the light of the implementation of human rights and freedoms provided for by the European Convention on Human Rights and its additional protocols. In fact, the author pays special attention to the case of Boljević v. Serbia , in which the applicant, a Serbian citizen, alleged that his right to respect for private and family life had been violated as a result of the refusal of the Serbian national courts to reopen paternity proceedings, in which the applicant intended to prove, through DNA testing, that Mr. A was his biological father. It has to be mentioned that in this case in the 1970s the Serbian national courts issued final decision according to which Mr. A was not recognized as the applicant's biological father, and the applicant indicated that at that time it was impossible to carry out DNA test and he did not know about the existence of such decision (during the proceedings, the applicant was represented by a lawyer appointed by local authorities, since he was a minor), and that now there is such a possibility. In this connection, the applicant argued that the denial to satisfy his claims on procedural basis by the domestic courts violated his right to family and private life. The ECtHR ruled that Art. 8 of the Convention has been violated. In that case, the issues of compliance with a balance of private and public interests were dealt with (the interests of the applicant to establish his biological father identity and the interests of the state in maintaining legal certainty).


2002 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Riley

In September 2000 the European Commission published its long-awaited proposed replacement for Regulation 17, the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Implementation of the Rules on Competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (hereafter the draft regulation).1 The debate on the draft regulation has focused on the abolition of the notification system, the role of the national courts, and the role of the national competition authorities (hereafter the NCAs). However, there is one significant overlooked issue, namely the extent to which the investigation provisions of the draft regulation comply with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter ECtHR).2 Given the paucity of the ECtHR's case law in 1961 it is understandable that the implications of the European Convention of Human Rights (hereafter ECHR) for the investigative provisions of what was to become Regulation 17 were not at that time given any great consideration by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. However, there is now an extensive human rights case law, developed by the Strasbourg authorities which, it is argued, casts a major shadow over the Commission's existing and proposed investigative powers. It is further argued that the case law of the European Court of Justice (hereafter ECJ) and the Court of First Instance (hereafter CFI) in respect of fundamental rights as general principles of law, does not provide an equivalent standard of protection to that offered by the ECtHR.


2022 ◽  
Vol 20 (33) ◽  
pp. 103
Author(s):  
Elena Evgenyevna Guliaeva

Objective:The author seeks to understand the content and legal guarantees of the right to sustainable, healthy and favorable environment in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. The researcher seeks to list the case law of the ECtHR corresponding to environmental issues in order to define concrete aspects related to responsibility of the States for the climate change and global warming. The author analyzes new legal trends on the protection of the rights of individuals and groups to complain for violations of their rights to a healthy and favorable environment in the light of the European Convention on Human Rights. The article is focused on positive state obligations on a healthy and sustainable environment under the Convention provisions, Russian experience in eco-cases, admissibility criteria for complaints to the European Court of Human Rights in “environmental cases”. The writer gives an overview of the ECtHR’s legal positions on the right to a healthy and favorable (i.e. prosperous, clean, safe, quiet, calm, quality) environment by type of its pollution. The author considers the importance of facilitating the right to healthy environment according to the UN Sustainable Development Goals.Methodology: The research uses general scientific and special cognitive techniques wherein legal analysis and synthesis, systemic, formal-legal, comparative-legal, historical-legal and dialectical methods are applied. The author applied a case study method to select the most recent and pilot cases of the ECtHR practice.Results: The author founds out that despite the fact of a non-exhaustive list of the legal positions of the ECtHR concerning the environment effect on human life and health, there is a certain trend in Council of Europe towards an extended interpretation of the human right to healthy ecological situation responding to new challenges to the realization that right, such as, the decarbonization of industrial processes, right to light, right to fresh air, clean water and clean atmosphere, etc. The study concludes with an idea that right to sustainable, healthy and favorable right is a collective right. From the practical perspective, potentially group of individuals should complain to the international judicial institutions to the violation of this right. The importance of the protection of that right is increasing within the technological progress. The right to healthy environment imposes to the European States a legal obligation to ensure right to life, prohibition of torture, right to privacy, right to a fair trial, right to an effective remedy and prohibition of discrimination. The researcher also point out that cases of environmental rights violations are complicated in terms of preparing a complaint and processing by the ECtHR. Due to this fact, it is hard to do so with regard to the causal link between the acts (omission) of state agencies, the violation of environmental rights and the consequences that occurred. It is not clear from the text of the Convention which article directly should be applied.Contributions: Following a review of the content, the author raised possible problems, strategies, suggestions and guidelines for the protection of the right to sustainable and healthy environment. The author concluded that near future new categories of legal cases related to the state responsibility for global warming and climate change will appear in international and national judicial system. The author encourages the complement to the international legal regulation of the protection of the right to healthy, sustainable and favorable ecology on universal and regional level.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document