Articles for tag: Duarte Agostinho, EGMR, EMRK, Extraterritoriality, Klimaklage, Klimakrise

States’ Extraterritorial Jurisdiction for Climate-Related Impacts

States’ extraterritorial jurisdiction was one of the hot topics decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Duarte Agostinho. Strictly speaking, the “lack of it” led the ECtHR to declare the complaint inadmissible with respect to all defendant States except Portugal. This finding is in line with previous ECtHR case law but highlights a gap in human rights protection and creates a mismatch between the ECtHR’s case law and that of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

12. April 2024

, , , , ,

Climate Litigation Reaches Italian Courts

With Giudizio Universale, climate litigation has found its way to Italy. This case has many aspects in common with the general transnational phenomenon, both in terms of the structure and content of the legal arguments used. The case highlights the difficulties that courts face in view of the high social expectations connected to this kind of proceedings.

12. April 2024

, ,

The Meaning of Carbon Budget within a Wide Margin of Appreciation

Although the KlimaSeniorinnen judgment discusses a number of rights of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), including Article 6 (right of access to a court), Article 2 (right to life), and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the focus of this blog post is on its discussion of Article 8 (right to private, home and family life). The question raised by that discussion is whether the judgment is one that will “frighten the horses” and lead to oppositional cries of judicial overreach around the separation of powers, or if it is more an unexceptional case of “move on, nothing to see here.” My argument is that the judgment is mostly the latter but that it has what, in computer gaming terms, is known as an “Easter egg” – a hidden element included by the developers to surprise and reward those who look carefully. That could turn out to be more controversial.

11. April 2024

, , , , ,

Historic and Unprecedented

The three much-awaited judgments rendered by the European Court of Human Rights on 9 April 2024 are truly historic and unprecedented. In Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, the Grand Chamber established that climate change is 'one of the most pressing issues of our times' and poses a threat to human rights. With this ruling, the Court confirmed that States have a positive obligation to adopt measures to mitigate climate change under Article 8 ECHR, the right to family and private life. The judgments will undeniably set the tone for climate litigation in the years to come. It will impact both litigation and other procedures before other international courts.

9. April 2024

, , ,

The Transformation of European Climate Change Litigation

In a transformative moment for European and global climate litigation, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled today that the state has a positive duty to adopt, and effectively implement in practice, regulations and measures capable of mitigating the existing and potentially irreversible future effects of climate change. In Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (“KlimaSeniorinnen”), the Court held that by failing to put in place a domestic regulatory framework for climate change mitigation, the Swiss government violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the right to respect for private and family life. The judgment is a milestone for human rights protection.

9. April 2024

, , , ,

Tort Law and New Zealand’s Corporate Greenhouse Gas Emissions

In February 2024, the New Zealand Supreme Court overturned the previous strike outs in the case of Michael John Smith in tort against seven major New Zealand companies in the dairy, energy, steel, mining and infrastructure sectors. Smith asserts that the respondents are engaging in conduct that affects him and others, and has put them into legal connection with one another in ways that enable appropriate remedy. This is heartland common law territory.  Even though the climate change problems we are now grappling with may be new ones, the centuries-old practices and traditions of the common law are a part of New Zealand’s constitutional heritage and structure.  Litigation is a legitimate vehicle for members of the population to engage the law in the face of harm or threats to individuals’ rights and well-being.

17. März 2024

, , ,

Why Courts will not Stop Global Warming, but Climate Litigation is Still Useful

Despite the global trend of record temperatures and the increasing number of disasters caused by extreme weather events, the political impetus to combat global warming is weakening all over Europe. Not only far-right forces want to stop ambitious climate policy, but also other political parties tend to neglect this field. To counter those political forces, climate litigation tries to hold national governments accountable to their goals as enshrined in the Paris Agreement. Courts represent one of the arenas in the struggle for climate protection. However, the battle is ultimately won or lost in the legislative arena.

12. März 2024

, , ,

Milieudefensie v ING: Climate Breakdown and Banks’ Duty of Care

There is a trend towards climate lawsuits against companies based on their alleged duty of care not to emit more than a certain amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Currently, there are four such cases before courts in Germany, all of which have been unsuccessful so far. On 19 January 2024, Milieudefensie, a Dutch environmental group, initiated legal proceedings against the Dutch Bank ING, for the first time raising the issue of whether financial actors have such a duty of care. This case represents a significant milestone in the worldwide effort to transform the financial sector and curb its seemingly endless appetite for financing fossil fuels. In light of these proceedings, I argue that the German courts have adopted an imprecise understanding of what the duty of care entails and that an appropriate application of this duty can increase the accountability of financial actors.

1. Februar 2024

, , , , ,

The Belgian Climate Case

On November 30, the Brussels Court of Appeal rendered a landmark decision in the climate case brought by “Klimaatzaak” (“climate case” in Dutch) against Belgian public authorities (the federal and the three regional governments). In this decision, the court found the federal authority and the Brussels and Flemish regions’ climate action to be in violation of Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR and of their duty of care, and imposed a minimal GHG reduction target to be reached by Belgian authorities for the future. In their blogpost, Alice Briegleb and Antoine De Spiegeleir provide a clear overview of the case, exploring its previous stages and insisting on the continuing failures of the Belgian climate governance and its complex federal structure. We focus on our part on how the decision makes it clear that the climate justice movement is now confronted with the tension between the legally required and the ethically desirable parameters of climate effort distribution.

5. Dezember 2023

, , , ,

From Urgenda to Klimaatzaak

On November 30, the Brussels Court of Appeal handed down its ruling in VZW Klimaatzaak v. Kingdom of Belgium & Others, commonly known as “the Belgian climate case.” The ruling is clear: Belgian authorities failed to participate adequately in the global effort to curb global warming, and they must imperatively reduce their emissions. Subscribing fully to Matthias Petel and Norman Vander Putten’s sharp analysis of how this litigation saga embodies tensions between climate justice and the separation of powers, we wish to highlight three remarkable aspects of the case. After quickly summarizing the first instance judgment and last week’s ruling, we begin by touching on the elephant in the (court)room: the articulation of the available scientific evidence with the limits of courts’ power of review and injunction. Then, we say a word about the Brussels Court of Appeal’s thorough application of European human rights law. We finish by deploring, as did the Court, Belgian federalism’s inefficiencies.

5. Dezember 2023

, , ,