Six Portuguese teenagers sue 32 countries for “inaction on climate”

“The case concerns the effects of climate change, which the plaintiffs consider to be attributable to the States, particularly the impact on their lives and health of global warming, which translates into heatwaves and bushfires,” Grand Chamber President Siofra O’Leary told AFP. court.

The lawsuit, filed in parallel with other recent actions calling for “climate justice,” was triggered by massive forest fires in Portugal in 2017 that killed more than a hundred people.

Complainants aged 11 to 24 are considered to be directly affected They claim that they are worried about their health and experience other illnesses due to this situation, especially in the face of the climate crisis.

Violation of right to life

Some claim allergies and breathing problemsThey argue that during and after fires, their diseases will persist if the planet continues to warm.

“European governments do not protect us”complained 15-year-old André Oliveira, one of the complainants.

Due to the seriousness of the situation, André and his five colleagues accuse the 27 countries of the European Union, as well as Russia, Turkey, Switzerland, Norway and the United Kingdom, of not having sufficiently limited greenhouse gas emissions, despite scientific evidence. .

Legally, they provide: This inaction violates their right to life, their right to respect for private and family life, It was established by Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

More than 80 lawyers and jurists from the accused states attended the hearing, except for Russia, which did not enter a defense.

Initially, the complaint included Ukraine, but after the start of the war, this country was removed from the list.

The ECHR classified the case as a “priority matter” and referred it to the Grand Chamber, which is the highest body of the court and consists of 17 judges.

Condemned countries defend themselves

For your part, The countries notified claim that the ECHR is a court to be consulted in cases where national judicial remedies have been exhausted. This was something that would not happen in this case because the young people took the case directly to the European court without going to the national courts first.

Ricardo Matos, representative of the Portuguese government, gave the following assurance: young people “did not prove they were direct victims”. “Mere guesses are not enough.”

Complainants argue that trying to bring separate lawsuits in all 32 countries would be an “excessive and disproportionate burden” on a case that requires immediate attention.

Lawyers for the six young people stated that such allegations were unfounded. typical government response In climatic situations like this, AFP adds.

«This is a pattern They are trying to avoid investigation of their climate policies“Because they are only focusing on admissibility criteria,” said Gearoid O Cuinn, director of the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), a British NGO supporting the complainants.

«The best outcome is to declare: these 32 countries have violated these people’s rights and the court must make a legally binding decision “This forces them to change their policies and make deep and immediate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions,” he added.

It will likely take several months for the court to decide whether it can accept the case.

So far, the court’s environmental decisions have covered issues such as natural disasters and industrial pollution, not global warming. But activists are increasingly turning to justice to force governments to act on climate change.

Montana (USA) example

A judge in the US state of Montana in August A decision was made in favor of a group of young people who blamed local authorities It violates the rights to a clean environment.

The judge agreed with environmental activists who argued that government agencies were violating constitutional rights to a clean and healthy environment by allowing fossil fuels to be developed without considering their impact on the climate.

Failure, which isThis document, the first of its kind in the United States, joins a small number of legal decisions worldwide This established the government’s duty to protect its citizens from climate change.

District Court Judge Kathy Seeley found unconstitutional the policy the state of Montana uses to evaluate fossil fuel permit applications. does not allow agencies to assess the impacts of emissions from greenhouse gases.

“Montana’s emissions and climate change have been demonstrated to be a significant factor in causing climate impacts on Montana’s environment and harm and injury to youth,” Judge Seeley wrote in the decision.

“The biggest advance in recent years making clear that this connection between human rights and climate change is very clear“It’s very clear,” said Maria-Antonia Tigre, co-author of a report on the subject published by Columbia University’s Sabin Center.

“We can use human rights law (…) to force states and companies to take further action,” he added.

……………………

Contact address of the environmental department:krisclimatica@prensaiberica.es