The Context: Litigation over State obligations to mitigate climate change intensifies globally, with NGOs and individuals pressuring corporations to cut emissions. The European Court of.
Especially in Switzerland, the KlimaSeniorinnen ruling has been met with sharp criticism. The rightwing Swiss People’s party (Schweizerische Volkspartei, SVP) (predictably) accused the Court of judicial overreach and demanded that Switzerland leave the Council of Europe. The ECtHR decision directly addresses separation of powers and the role of the judiciary in adjudicating human rights, specifically in the context of climate change. This post unpacks the decision and argues that concerns about ECtHR overreach are unwarranted. It shows how the judgment forms an integral part of democratic governance (particularly in Switzerland) whilst being conducive to better laws and policies.
Three rulings of the European Court of Human Rights given on 9 April 2024 have set the global tone for climate protection actions before national courts. The Court found that Article 8.
On 26th February 2024, in its Giudizio Universale decision, the Tribunal of Rome penned the first Italian climate judgement. Shortly after, on 9 April 2024, the ECtHR handed down its seminal trio of KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland, Duarte Agostinho v. Portugal and Others and Carême v. France. In this monumental string of cases, the ECtHR set the new standard for climate litigation in Europe, also regarding separation of powers. This invites a critical assessment of Giudizio Universale’s stance.