Will six young Portuguese succeed in imposing new human rights on Europe? -Editing

This is an exceptional audience that will likely make history. On Wednesday, September 27, the European Court of Human Rights heard the application of six Portuguese youths who accuse their country and 31 other countries (the 27 EU members plus Russia, Turkey, Switzerland and Norway) and the United Kingdom) of jointly failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Convention. Paris Climate Change 2015.

They, aged between 11 and 24, claim that the terrible forest fires that Portugal has experienced every year since 2017 are a direct result of rising temperatures fueled by these emissions; Because of these fires, they are already suffering from sleep disorders, allergies, or breathing difficulties.

“On the front line of climate change”

Two of these young people also point out that climate change is causing very strong storms in winter, and say that their house, located in Lisbon near the sea, is at risk of being damaged by these storms. Applicants also say they are concerned about these natural disasters and the prospect of living in an increasingly hot climate. Finally, given that children will disproportionately suffer the impacts of climate change over their lifetime, they assert their right to non-discrimination.

“Governments are failing to protect us, Supports Andre Oliveira, 15 years old. We are on the front line of climate change in Europe: even in February the temperature sometimes reaches 30 degrees Celsius. Heat waves are becoming more dangerous.” Their lawyer, Gerry Liston, a member of the British NGO Global Legal Action Network (Glan), hopes to obtain a decision from the European Court of Human Rights. “Which would serve as a binding treaty imposed by the court.” To the states and I will inform them “To accelerate its efforts to mitigate climate change.” In Strasbourg, the headquarters of this body, the issue is being taken very seriously: it has been classified as “priority” and was discussed on Wednesday before the most serious formation, the Grand Chamber, made up of 17 judges.

The discussions were heated. “In the courtroom [les représentants des gouvernements mis en cause] They tried to say they understand that climate change is a problem, but today it has become clear that they are denying the fact that what we are seeing is getting worse every year. Claudia Duarte Agostino, the 24-year-old plaintiff, expressed her regret. In defence, the Portuguese camp, for example, said that its compatriots had not done so “No proven damage.”

Courts are increasingly in demand

In Europe as elsewhere, courts are increasingly being called upon to challenge the inaction of governments or companies on climate action. More than 2,341 conflicts have been registered worldwide, notes the London School of Economics, including more than two-thirds since 2015. The link to human rights has already been mentioned in the Urgenda case, when the Supreme Court of the Netherlands forced the Dutch into the state in 2019 to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

On the part of the European Court of Human Rights, the case of the young Portuguese man is the third to be considered by the Grand Chamber, after the one brought in March by EE-LV European MEP Damien Carême, the former mayor of Grand-Synthes (North) involved in a legal case. fights against 'Climate inaction' From France and by the Swiss association Aînées pour la Protection du climate and its members, who accuse their country's authorities of endangering their lives in the absence of strong measures to limit the rise in temperatures as much as possible. Two cases are still in progress.

But what is new and the subject of discussion in the file that was examined on Wednesday is that the matter does not include one country, but rather 32 countries, given the “cross-border nature of the climate.” Alison McDonald, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, said during the hearing that A “A ton of greenhouse gases emitted in France has the same effect as a ton coming from Portugal.” And Portugal did not do that “And not the ability, in and of itself, to protect applicants.” Another “first”, the young Portuguese has never approached the national courts, in any of the 32 countries: she directly took over the European Court of Human Rights, while the latter usually requires that all domestic remedies be exhausted before approaching it. The six plaintiffs argue that holding separate proceedings in each of the targeted states would constitute a 'Excessive and disproportionate burden' Finance in particular.

Court could 'mark history of climate litigation'

These are two new features “Important issues from a procedural angle, one relating to extraterritorial jurisdiction over climate damage, the other to the exhaustion of domestic remedies,” Laurence Borg Larsen, professor of public law at the University of Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne, confirms. If, at a date not yet known, the Strasbourg Court declares the application admissible after examining these two procedural issues, it can then address the merits of the case.

“If it decided to put a mark on the history of climate conflicts, it could impose entirely positive obligations on countries [obligations de faire, ndlr] On the basis of Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (private and family life) as well as Article 3 (prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment)” For the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950, Lawrence Borgorg-Larsen analyzes. This is for all 46 countries that have signed this agreement.

If the European Court of Human Rights is bold in integrating the issue of climate change into human rights, can the effects of such a decision be immediately seen in “everyday life”? No, lawyer Yazan, “Because the time of justice and the time of its tangible effects are not the same.” However, she adds, In terms of public policies, it will certainly be an “environmental big bang,” to the point that states will no longer be able to “play for time” and will be forced to put in place concrete mechanisms to avoid the negative effects of climate change that does not harm the rights of individuals.