On the “green” transition and the procedural revolution. An overview of the decisions of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights of April 9, 2024 in Carême v. France (application no. 7189/21), Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and Others and 32 Others (application no. 39371/ 20), Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (application no. 53600/20)

The article analyzes the facts and legal positions in three recent landmark judgements of the European Court of Human Rights in climate change cases. In two rulings, complaints (against Russia and others) about the inadequacy of States in overcoming the consequences of global warming were declared inadmissible. The third ruling (against Switzerland) was used by the Strasbourg judges for the first time to open the “climate” dimension of a number of articles in the European Convention on Human Rights and to determine the criteria for admissibility of referring the relevant issues to the ECtHR from national jurisdictions. To do this, the Court had to radically reconsider its own approaches to determining the victim status, procedural standing, and the possibility of filing complaints in the public interest (actio popularis). Particular attention in the article is paid to the increased opportunities in the ECtHR for non-governmental organizations, which will now be able to appeal to Strasbourg justice in environmental cases without having in hand complaints from individual victims. Apparently, the Court fears a flood of applications from those inspired by its willingness to evaluate environmental policy and hopes that influential NGOs will become for it what the Human Rights Commission once was — a filter. There are advantages of expanding the procedural rights of the NGOs in the ECtHR: giving the Court’s positions greater publicity, monitoring the actual execution of court decisions, increasing access to justice, attracting attention to the most painful and pressing problems, and improving the quality of the preparation of complaint materials. Despite these, there are significant risks: distraction of attention from “ordinary” applicants; an increase in the number of disputes which the ECtHR previously tried to avoid for various reasons, including political ones; and the emergence of suspicions about the favor of the European Court towards “friendly” organizations which ensure their own opportunistic interests and are dependent on wealthy sponsors. Despite the importance of recognition at the level of the European Court of the global nature of the problem of climate change, these judgements for a number of reasons cannot be considered an example of an effective legal resolution of a sensitive “political” issue like the environmental policy of the parties to the Convention, and therefore are unlikely to influence real improvement of the situation.

About the author: Mikhail Galperin – Doctor of Sciences in Law, Master of Laws, University of London, Professor of International Law, Faculty of Law, Head of the Chair of International Justice, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia.

Citation: Galperin M. (2024) O “zelyonom” perekhode i protsessual'noy revolyutsii: obzor postanovleniy Bol'shoy Palaty Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka ot 9 aprelya 2024 goda po delam Karem protiv Frantsii (zhaloba Nº 7189/21), Duarte Agustino i drugie protiv Portugalii i 32 drugikh (zhaloba Nº 39371/20), Vereyn Klimasen'orinen Shvayts i drugie protiv Shveytsarii (zhaloba Nº 53600/20) [On the “green” transition and the procedural revolution: an overview of the decisions of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights of April 9, 2024 in Carême v. France (application no. 7189/21), Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and Others and 32 Others (application no. 39371/20), Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (application no. 53600/20)]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 3–19. (In Russian).

References