Thread by @duycks

⚡️⚖️a few snapshots from the landmark #ClimateJustice decision delivered today by the 🇪🇺European Court of Human Rights in Klimaseniorinnen v. 🇨🇭Switzerland
🧵a short thread focusing on the scope of substantive obligations of States...⬇️

🆕🇪🇺while the European Court has a long track record of protecting environmental rights, today provided the first opportunity for the Court to consider the scope of States' existing obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of climate change...

... in fact this was the first case to be heard by an international human rights court on matters related to human rights and climate change.
Three cases have already been adjudicated by 🇺🇳UN human rights monitoring bodies but those are not judicial institutions.

📕Let's review the law first.
The case relied on the obligation of States related to:
the right to life (ECHR art. 2)
the right to a fair trial (art. 6)
the right to respect for private and family life (art. 8)
the right to an effective remedy (art. 13)

🧑‍⚖️In its jurisprudence related to environmental threats to human rights, the Court has emphasised that States have two key positive obligations with regards to risks of harms:
🔹they must establish an adequate regulatory framework
🔸they must apply this framework effectively

🤷States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in determining what specific measures must be put in place (principle of subsidiarity), but the adequacy of their overall policies, balancing of competing interests, and due diligence in implementation can be subject to judicial review

🗣️Now turning to today's decision!
Citing level of scientific evidence, severity of consequences, irreversibility of impacts & global nature of phenomenon, the Court finds that climate protection should carry considerable weight in the weighing-up of any competing considerations.

The Court then distinguishes betwn:
🎯setting of overall ambition, in relation to which the scientific and political consensus limits the discretion of individual States
🧰selection of individual measures to meet such targets, for which States have a wider margin of appreciation

📉transposed to the context of climate risks, this requires States to set in place effective measures aiming at "net neutrality" within 3 decades and at acting in good time and in an appropriate and consistent manner

⏳echoing an argument already recognized in the landmark 🧑‍⚖️Neubauer v. 🇩🇪Germany case (German Constitutional Tribunal), the Court finds that short term action is necessary to avoid shifting the burden to future generations

5⃣The Court then lays out a 5-prone test to assess whether a State's climate policies complies with obligations under the ECHR: States must:
🔹specify a target timeline for achieving carbon neutrality
🔸 set out intermediate GHG emissions reduction targets and pathways

🔹provide evidence showing whether they have duly complied
🔸 keep the relevant GHG reduction targets updated with due diligence
🔹act in good time and in an appropriate and consistent manner

The Court also lays out two requirements with regards to the public's procedural rights in climate policies:
ℹ️govs must make all relevant studies (incl. re: risks) publicly available
🙋the pubic - esp. the most vulnerable - must be able to take part in climate decision making

🇨🇭In relation to compliance by Switzerland with these obligations, the Court notes several deficiencies:
⚫️absence of regulatory framework post 2024
❓absence of quantified national GHG budget
🟥past failure to meet GHG targets...

🧑‍⚖️The conclusions then naturally follow: the Court finds a violation of the right to privacy & family life (which the Court interprets as freedom from enviro'al threats to one's personal life).
Switzerland will need to revise its climate policies to meet the Court's requirements!

2⃣The Court questions whether sufficient info was provided by the lead plaintiff to establish a violation of her right to life/ art.2 (which comes with more stringent requirements) and notes that having established a violation of article 8, such consideration is not required.

⚖️Now (briefly) in relation to the right to access to a court (art. 6)...
The Klimaseniorinnen had brought their case to three levels of judicial bodies in Switzerland, only to see their cases rejected.

🧑‍⚖️The European Court delivers a blow to Swiss tribunals, questioning the serious of their work in relation to the severity of the climate science...
It also note that the Swiss tribunals ignore the question whether Klimaseniorinnen should, as an NGO, have standing.

⚖️The Court thus finds a violation of the right to access to a court - but also seizes the opportunity to emphasizes that domestic court have and will play a key role in climate litigation and that it falls primarily on them to ensure compliance w ith ECHR obligations.

📌In complement, here is @ciel_tweets' reaction, via @Joie_Chowdhury to today's judgement by the European Court of Human Rights!

https://twitter.com/ciel_tweets/status/1777635076320162141

👀for a live coverage of this morning's hearings at the @ECHR_CEDH, see this thread:
🔖for the decision itself, please see here (scroll down to para 558):

https://twitter.com/duycks/status/1777613103993061767

hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-2332…