The European Court of Human Rights held two Grand Chamber hearings on Wednesday 29 March, to consider applications relating to state failure to act on climate change, a first described by many observers as “historic”.
The first case concerns Switzerland, which is being challenged by an association of more than 2,000 retired women, “Senior Women for Swiss Climate Protection”.
The second concerns France, accused by MEP Damien Carême (Greens/EFA).
The Court has prioritised these precedent-setting cases and they are being examined by the Grand Chamber, its highest judicial bench chaired by Siofra O'Leary (Irish) and composed of 17 national judges.
The legal arguments and counter-arguments are extremely complex, and the hearings in no way prejudge the Court’s decisions, which will be handed down by the end of the year, probably after a third case of the same type, this time brought by Portuguese teenagers who have brought a claim against 32 European states, again for climate inaction.
The hearing is scheduled for next autumn.
For the representative of the Swiss State, Alain Chablais, a condemnation of his country would go beyond the functions of the Court by imposing binding measures of a “quasi-legislative” nature.
Corinne Lepage, Damien Carême’s lawyer, recalled the judgments already handed down against States by national high courts (the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, the Constitutional Court of Karlsruhe in Germany) and international courts (the American Court of Human Rights, for example) and pointed out that there were “no less than 2,000 climate cases underway in the world.
“Rarely has a decision of your Court been awaited with such hope and interest by the whole of humanity”, she concluded, addressing the European judges sitting in open court in front of a full house. (Original version in French by Véronique Leblanc)