Grand Chamber rulings in the climate change cases
The ECHR has delivered Grand Chamber rulings in three climate change cases.
The case Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland concerned a complaint by four women and a Swiss association, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, whose members are concerned about the consequences of global warming on their living conditions and health. They consider that the Swiss authorities are not taking sufficient action to mitigate the effects of climate change. The Court found that the Convention encompasses a right to effective protection by the State authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on lives, health, well-being and quality of life. However, it held that the four individual applicants did not fulfil the victim-status criteria under Article 34 of the Convention and declared their complaints inadmissible. The applicant association, in contrast, had the right to bring a complaint. The Court held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for private and family life of the Convention and that there had been a violation of the right to access to the court. The Court found that the Swiss Confederation had failed to comply with its duties (“positive obligations”) under the Convention concerning climate change.
The case Carême v. France concerned a complaint by a former inhabitant and mayor of the municipality of Grande-Synthe, who submits that France has taken insufficient steps to prevent global warming and that this failure entails a violation of the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life. The Court declared inadmissible the application, on the ground that the applicant did not have victim status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.
The case Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others concerned the current and future severe effects of climate change, which the applicants attribute to the respondent States, and which they claim impact their lives, well-being, mental health and the peaceful enjoyment of their homes. As concerned the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the respondent States other than Portugal, the Court found that there were no grounds in the Convention for the extension of their extraterritorial jurisdiction in the manner requested by the applicants. Having regard to the fact that the applicants had not pursued any legal avenue in Portugal concerning their complaints, the applicants’ complaint against Portugal was also inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court declared inadmissible the applications lodged against Portugal and the other States on the issue of climate change.
- Video: Delivery of the judgments
- Press release: Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland
- Press release: Carême v. France
- Press release: Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others
- Factsheet: Climate change
- Factsheet: Environment
- Questions & Answers: Climate change cases
Chamber News
In the case of Georgia v. Russia (IV) the Court held that there had been several violations of the Convention.
The case concerned the human-rights toll caused by the hardening of the administrative boundary lines after the armed conflict between Georgia and Russia in August 2008.
The Court found that it had sufficient evidence to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the incidents alleged were not isolated and were sufficiently numerous and interconnected to amount to a pattern or system of violations. Moreover, the apparent lack of an effective investigation into the incidents and the general application of the measures to all people concerned proved that such practices had been officially tolerated by the Russian authorities.
In the case of E.L. v. Lithuania the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment/investigation.
The case concerned the applicant’s allegation that he had been sexually abused by three older boys when placed in a children’s hom.
The Court found that both the prosecuting authorities and the courts had been reluctant to order or to explicitly address the need for a comprehensive psychiatric and psychological examination in connection with the alleged abuse, despite the applicant’s requests. The authorities had therefore failed in their Convention duty to effectively investigate the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment.
In the cases of Matthews and Johnson v. Romania and Lazăr v. Romania the Court held that there had been no violation of the right to liberty and security and that the complaint concerning the prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment was inadmissible.
The case concerned the applicants’ detention and the Romanian courts’ ordering their extradition to the United States in March 2021. All three applicants were wanted for, among other charges, racketeering, drugs and money-laundering offences.
The Court found that the applicants had failed to show that they were at risk of life imprisonment without parole if extradited to the US, noting the sentencing practice in similar cases before trial courts in the US.
In the case of Tamazount and Others v. France, the Court found several violations of the Convention and no violation of the right to access to a court.
The case concerned five French nationals who are the descendants of “Harkis” (auxiliary forces of Algerian origin who fought alongside the French army during the Algerian War of Independence).
The Court found that the day-to-day living conditions of the residents of the Bias camp had not been compatible with respect for human dignity and had moreover involved infringements of their individual freedoms and that the sums awarded by the domestic courts in the present case had not afforded appropriate and sufficient redress for the violations found.
Grand Chamber News
On 8 April 2024, the Grand Chamber panel of five judges decided to reject all ten requests for referral to the Grand Chamber.
On 8 April 2024 a panel of 5 judges will examine ten Grand Chamber referral requests.
The Court will be delivering Grand Chamber rulings in the cases of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, Carême v. France and Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others on 9 April 2024.
The case Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland concerns a complaint by a Swiss association and its members, who are a group of older women concerned about the consequences of global warming on their living conditions and health, that the Swiss authorities are not taking enough action to mitigate climate change.
The case Carême v. France concerns a complaint by a former inhabitant and mayor of the municipality of Grande-Synthe, who submits that France has taken insufficient steps to prevent global warming and that this failure entails a violation of the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life.
The case Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others concerns the current and future severe effects of climate change, which the applicants attribute to the respondent States, and which they claim impact their lives, well-being, mental health and the peaceful enjoyment of their homes.
Communication of cases
The Court has communicated to the Government of Lithuania the application Al-Nashiri v. Lithuania and has asked them to submit their observations on its admissibility and merits.
The case concerns a national of Saudi Arabia currently detained in Guantánamo Bay and facing capital charges before a United States (US) military commission on suspicion of, among other things, the bombing of the US Navy ship USS Cole in 2000. The US authorities consider him to have been one of the most senior figures in al-Qaeda.
In his case before the ECHR, the applicant raises multiple complaints of torture, ill-treatment and unacknowledged detention when he was held for five months in 2005-2006 at a secret facility in Lithuania run by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Hearings
The Court held a Grand Chamber hearing in the case of Ships Waste Oil Collector B.V. and Others v. the Netherlands.
The case concerns the transmission of data, lawfully obtained in a criminal investigation, to another law enforcement authority, the Competition Authority, which used those data in an investigation into the applicant company’s involvement in price-fixing.
Decisions
The ECHR has declared inadmissible the application in the case of Ramadan v. France.
The case concerned the applicant’s conviction for having disseminated information about the identity of the presumed victim of a rape for which he was facing trial.
The Court noted that the domestic courts had clarified the concept of a “victim” for the purposes of the Freedom of the Press Act and had reaffirmed that only written authorisation from the person who had lodged the criminal complaint and joined the proceedings as a civil party could have released the applicant from his criminal liability under the law by waiving the duty of secrecy and allowing the dissemination of her identity.
The Court saw no reason to question the assessment by the domestic courts, which had weighed the applicant’s rights and those of the victim in the balance and had arrived at a solution based on relevant and sufficient grounds and found that the impugned interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression had been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
Other News
On 15 April 2024, Abdelkarim Boujradi, Secretary General of the Inter-Ministerial Delegation for Human Rights of Morocco, visited the Court and was received by Vice-President Georges Ravarani. Abel Campos, Deputy Registrar of the Court, also attended the meeting.
On 12 April 2024 President Síofra O’Leary received an official visit by a high-level delegation of judges from the United Kingdom Superior Courts, composed of: The Right Honourable Lord Philip Sales, Justice of the UK Supreme Court; The Right Honourable the Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill, Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales; The Right Honourable Dame Siobhan Keegan, Lady Chief Justice of Northern Ireland; The Right Honourable Lord Andrew Burrows, Justice of the UK Supreme Court; The Right Honourable Lord Justice James Dingemans, Court of Appeal Judge, England and Wales; and The Right Honourable Lord Raymond Doherty, Court of Session Judge, Scotland. During the visit the delegation took part in roundtable discussions with judges of the Court and members of the Registry.
President Síofra O’Leary delivered a speech on the occasion of her exchange of views with the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 10 April 2024. She was accompanied by Marialena Tsirli, Registrar of the Court, and Abel Campos, Deputy Registrar of the Court.