Nevertheless, the positive verdict for the climate seniors is touted by legal experts as extremely significant. In this case, the court did not accept complaints from individuals within the group, but did accept complaints from the group itself as an organization – a distinction that could influence how people collectivize and approach European courts with similar cases in the future, Heri says .
She adds that the court might have ruled that the European Convention on Human Rights does not actually require climate action. Had this happened, it could have undermined existing rulings from European domestic courts that have called for governments to adopt tougher climate policies. Last year, the Brussels Court of Appeal ruled that Belgium must cut its emissions by 55 percent by 2030 compared to 1990 levels.
Today’s ruling follows years of climate change-related legal battles gaining momentum in courts around the world. In the United States, for example, a judge ruled in 2023 that the state of Montana was violating the right of 16 young people to a “clean and healthy environment.”
Higham says the ECtHR ruling is “likely to have repercussions around the world”. She points out that around 100 similar cases are pending in various courts around the world, also challenging governments over their efforts to curb climate change. Heri agrees and points out that the ECtHR is seen worldwide as a highly influential international court.
Jorge Viñuales of the University of Cambridge, who specializes in law and environmental policy, says it is notable that Switzerland was found to have violated human rights laws despite the country having relatively good climate policies. However, he criticizes the ECHR’s decision not to recognize the case of the Portuguese teenagers. Part of the court’s reasoning was that their case was not just against Portugal, but against all EU member states and five other countries. “The court seems to misunderstand that the climate system is everywhere and that what matters is effective control of the source of the damage,” says Viñuales.
A big question in legal cases related to climate change is their impact: Do they actually have enough influence to force countries and large companies to reduce their emissions faster than planned? Higham says there is evidence this is already happening. In the Netherlands, the country’s Supreme Court ordered the government to cut emissions by 15 megatons in 2020, leading to a drastic drop in emissions. “We are seeing political changes in the Netherlands that seem to be influenced by this ruling,” says Higham.
The ECtHR ruling could also reignite cases that have been difficult to resolve in some countries subject to the ECtHR’s jurisdiction, such as the United Kingdom. That’s “immensely significant,” says Tim Crosland, director of Plan B, a legal group that challenged the British government over its climate policy but ultimately lost the case in 2021. “The Supreme Court said: ‘Your fundamental problem is that there is no precedent from Strasbourg that supports your position that fundamental rights have been violated,'” says Crosland. “Well, now there is.”
Defendants in future cases may feel that their country’s own emissions represent only a fraction of those responsible for climate change and that it is therefore unfair to single out one state over many others. However, the ECHR ruling does not exaggerate the individual obligations of nations, says Crosland. Each country has a share of the global CO2 budget in order to limit global warming to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius, for example.
“Of course, Switzerland is not responsible for the emissions of the USA or China, but for its own emissions – and that is what the judgment says,” he explains.