European court rules on cases trying to force countries to change their ways
A ruling of Europe’s highest human rights court suppressing a possible obligation to act against global climate change on carbon emissions reduction by 2030
The European Convention of Human Rights was the basis for the Urgenda decision. Tuesday’s decision may be thrown out if it concludes that there is no legal obligation for countries to combat climate change.
STRASBOURG, France — Europe’s highest human rights court began its session Tuesday on a group of landmark climate change cases aimed at forcing countries to meet international obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
A decision against any of the countries involved could force them to reduce net emissions to zero by 2030. The EU currently has a goal to be climate-neutral by the year 2050. Many governments have said that meeting a 2030 goal would be economically unattainable.
Ahead of the ruling, a crowd of people gathered in front of the court building to 888-269-5556 888-269-5556 888-269-5556 888-269-5556 888-269-5556 888-269-5556 888-269-5556 888-269-5556 888-269-5556
“We’re nervous. A member of the group of Portuguese who brought the case to the court said that she was excited and nervous.
Climate Change Action a Human Right? A European Court will Rule for the First Time: The Italian-PeVienna-Parisi case
The groups are confident that the 17 judges will rule in their favor, but a decision in the other direction could undermine a previous ruling in the Netherlands. In 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court ordered the government to cut emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020 from benchmark 1990 levels.
“The extreme heat waves, the rainfalls, followed by heat waves, it is just choking us with greenhouse effects. And what worries me is the frequency in which they started happening more and more. That scared me the most. I pondered, well, what can I do? She said so.
Together with five more young people, Santos Oliveira took Portugal and 32 other nations to court, arguing the failure to stop emissions violated their fundamental rights.
A group of retired Swiss people want their government to do more. Senior Women for Climate Protection, whose average age is 74, say that older women’s rights have been infringed on because of the extreme heat that will become more frequent due to global warming.
The world’s agreed-upon threshold for warming was reached in 2023, and the Earth showed many signs of a feverish planet.
Source: Is climate change action a human right? A European court will rule for the first time
The EU Court of Human Rights is “non-conserving” if the planet is not unsafe to live on: The case of Portugal
The lawyers all argued that the political and civil protections of the European Convention on Human Rights are meaningless if the planet is not safe to live on.
The representative of Switzerland at last year’s hearings said that it was not alone in being affected by global warming. “This problem cannot be solved by Switzerland alone.”
Acknowledging the urgency of the climate crisis, the court fast-tracked all three cases, including a rare move allowing the Portuguese case to bypass domestic legal proceedings.
Judgments from the European Court of Human Rights aren’t legally binding but they set a precedent against which future lawsuits would be judged.
