Grand Chamber rulings in the climate change cases
The ECHR has delivered Grand Chamber rulings in three climate change cases.
The case Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland concerned a complaint by four women and a Swiss association, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, whose members are concerned about the consequences of global warming on their living conditions and health. They consider that the Swiss authorities are not taking sufficient action to mitigate the effects of climate change. The Court found that the Convention encompasses a right to effective protection by the State authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on lives, health, well-being and quality of life. However, it held that the four individual applicants did not fulfil the victim-status criteria under Article 34 of the Convention and declared their complaints inadmissible. The applicant association, in contrast, had the right to bring a complaint. The Court held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for private and family life of the Convention and that there had been a violation of the right to access to the court. The Court found that the Swiss Confederation had failed to comply with its duties (“positive obligations”) under the Convention concerning climate change.
The case Carême v. France concerned a complaint by a former inhabitant and mayor of the municipality of Grande-Synthe, who submits that France has taken insufficient steps to prevent global warming and that this failure entails a violation of the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life. The Court declared inadmissible the application, on the ground that the applicant did not have victim status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.
The case Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others concerned the current and future severe effects of climate change, which the applicants attribute to the respondent States, and which they claim impact their lives, well-being, mental health and the peaceful enjoyment of their homes. As concerned the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the respondent States other than Portugal, the Court found that there were no grounds in the Convention for the extension of their extraterritorial jurisdiction in the manner requested by the applicants. Having regard to the fact that the applicants had not pursued any legal avenue in Portugal concerning their complaints, the applicants’ complaint against Portugal was also inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court declared inadmissible the applications lodged against Portugal and the other States on the issue of climate change.
- Video: Delivery of the judgments
- Press release: Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland
- Press release: Carême v. France
- Press release: Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others
- Factsheet: Climate change
- Factsheet: Environment
- Questions & Answers: Climate change cases
Chamber News
In the case of Guðmundur Gunnarsson and Magnús Davíð Norðdahl v. Iceland the ECHR held that there had been a violation of the right to free elections and of the right to an effective remedy in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention.
The case concerned alleged irregularities in the recount of votes in the Northwest constituency in the 2021 Althingi election, subsequent changes in the allocation of levelling seats, and the examination of the post-election complaints by Althingi. The applicants were the unsuccessful candidates in that constituency.
The Court found that while the procedure for the examination of the applicants’ complaints by Althingi had been fair and objective and had guaranteed a sufficiently reasoned decision, it had lacked the necessary impartiality safeguards and had been characterised by virtually unrestrained discretion.
In the case of Georgia v. Russia (IV) the Court held that there had been several violations of the Convention.
The case concerned the human-rights toll caused by the hardening of the administrative boundary lines after the armed conflict between Georgia and Russia in August 2008.
The Court found that it had sufficient evidence to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the incidents alleged were not isolated and were sufficiently numerous and interconnected to amount to a pattern or system of violations. Moreover, the apparent lack of an effective investigation into the incidents and the general application of the measures to all people concerned proved that such practices had been officially tolerated by the Russian authorities.
In the case of E.L. v. Lithuania the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment/investigation.
The case concerned the applicant’s allegation that he had been sexually abused by three older boys when placed in a children’s hom.
The Court found that both the prosecuting authorities and the courts had been reluctant to order or to explicitly address the need for a comprehensive psychiatric and psychological examination in connection with the alleged abuse, despite the applicant’s requests. The authorities had therefore failed in their Convention duty to effectively investigate the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment.
In the cases of Matthews and Johnson v. Romania and Lazăr v. Romania the Court held that there had been no violation of the right to liberty and security and that the complaint concerning the prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment was inadmissible.
The case concerned the applicants’ detention and the Romanian courts’ ordering their extradition to the United States in March 2021. All three applicants were wanted for, among other charges, racketeering, drugs and money-laundering offences.
The Court found that the applicants had failed to show that they were at risk of life imprisonment without parole if extradited to the US, noting the sentencing practice in similar cases before trial courts in the US.
Forthcoming Judgments & Decisions
...
Grand Chamber News
The Chamber to which the case C.O.C.G. and Others v. Lithuania had been allocated has relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.
The case concerns four Cuban nationals and their repeated attempts to enter Lithuania by crossing the border with Belarus. The applicants submit that on each attempt Lithuanian border guards pushed them back, at gunpoint, into Belarusian territory, without giving them an opportunity to submit asylum applications. They have eventually entered Lithuania and have been apprehended. The case also concerns their subsequent deprivation of liberty in a centre for asylum seekers.
On 8 April 2024, the Grand Chamber panel of five judges decided to reject all ten requests for referral to the Grand Chamber.
On 8 April 2024 a panel of 5 judges will examine ten Grand Chamber referral requests.
Communication of cases
The Court has communicated to the Government of Lithuania the application Al-Nashiri v. Lithuania and has asked them to submit their observations on its admissibility and merits.
The case concerns a national of Saudi Arabia currently detained in Guantánamo Bay and facing capital charges before a United States (US) military commission on suspicion of, among other things, the bombing of the US Navy ship USS Cole in 2000. The US authorities consider him to have been one of the most senior figures in al-Qaeda.
In his case before the ECHR, the applicant raises multiple complaints of torture, ill-treatment and unacknowledged detention when he was held for five months in 2005-2006 at a secret facility in Lithuania run by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Decisions
The ECHR has declared inadmissible the application in the case of Kirkorov v. Lithuania.
The case concerned the ban on the applicant, a popular singer and music producer in Russia, from entering Lithuania because he was considered a threat to national security. The Lithuanian authorities found that he was a tool for Russia’s propaganda in States of the former USSR and that, by regularly giving concerts in Crimea, he supported the Russian State’s policy of aggression.
The Court found that the Lithuanian authorities’ assessment, which had been based on the applicant’s statements and behaviour, had not been arbitrary or without basis. In particular the applicant had openly stated that he supported Russia’s actions in the Crimean peninsula and referred to himself as Vladimir Putin’s “representative on stage”. The courts had moreover weighed up the interests of national security and public order against the applicant’s actions and the ban imposed on him and not found it to be disproportionate.
The ECHR has declared inadmissible the application in the case of Energyworks Cartagena S.L. v. Spain.
The case concerned the changes to the regulations of the electricity sector and, particularly, to the subsidy regime for investment, which had affected the applicant company, an energy producer.
The Court found that there had been no retroactive deprivation of the subsidies. The changes to the system had affected future income only, and the subsidies could not be qualified as “possessions” that the applicant company had been deprived of.
Hearings
The Court held a Grand Chamber hearing in the case of Ships Waste Oil Collector B.V. and Others v. the Netherlands.
The case concerns the transmission of data, lawfully obtained in a criminal investigation, to another law enforcement authority, the Competition Authority, which used those data in an investigation into the applicant company’s involvement in price-fixing.
Other News
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has elected Alain Chablais as judge to the Court in respect of Liechtenstein for a 9-year term of office which will begin on 1 September 2024.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has elected Úna Ní Raifeartaigh as judge to the Court in respect of Ireland and Artūrs Kučs as judge to the Court in respect of Latvia.
On 17 April 2024, Inese Lībiņa-Egnere, Minister of Justice of Latvia, visited the Court and was received by President Síofra O’Leary. Mārtiņš Mits, Judge elected in respect of Latvia, and Marialena Tsirli, Registrar of the Court, also attended the meeting.
The Judge elected in respect of Bulgaria, Diana Kovatcheva, and the Judge elected in respect of Lithuania, Gediminas Sagatys, were formally sworn in in the Court's Main Hearing Room.