On April 9th, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgments in the much anticipated climate change cases. In the case Verein KlimaSeniorinnen v Switzerland, the Court ruled, by a majority of sixteen votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 8 on the right to respect for private and family life. For more information see the press release here and judgment here. The two other cases, Careme and Duarte, were both dismissed.
Ane and Heidi Sydnes Egeland, both writing their PhDs in climate change law, wish to discuss some key takeaways from - and questions concerning - the judgment in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen v Switzerland, in particular:
- Associations and the “victim” requirement: effectively allowing actio popularis?
- The applicability and substantive obligations under Article 8 in climate change cases
- Fragmentation or unity in European climate change law: does EU climate policy meet the ECHR standard on climate change?
Biography
Ane Sydnes Egeland is writing her thesis on climate targets and the separation of powers. She was formerly a lawyer for the attorney general for civil affairs (Regjeringsadvokaten), where she worked on climate cases, including Duarte. Heidi Sydnes Egeland is writing her thesis on EU/EEA climate law.