In a landmark decision: The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR") grants individuals a right to effective protection by the state from the severe adverse effects of climate change on life, health, well-being and quality of life. The European Court of Human Rights also dealt with the right of appeal of climate protection organisations and clearly stated that states parties to the ECHR must facilitate access to national courts for climate protection organisations.

It marks the first time the court has ruled on climate litigation 

The affected parties (applicants) are, on the one hand, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, an association under Swiss law established to promote and implement effective climate protection on behalf of its members, who are more than 2,000 older women (one-third of whom are over 75) and, on the other, four women, all members of the association and aged over 80 years, who complain of health problems that are exacerbated during heatwaves, significantly affecting their lives, living conditions and well-being. They argued that climate change-fueled heat waves undermined their health and quality of life and put them at risk of death. 

The European Court of Human Rights and climate protection

However, it should be noted that the four individual applicants did not fulfil the vic-tim-status criteria. The applicant association, in contrast, had the right to bring a complaint regarding the threats arising from climate change.
The European Court of Human Rights has found that inadequate state measures to combat climate change increases the risk of harmful consequences and resulting threats to the enjoyment of human rights. According to the Court, there is suffi-cient reliable evidence that human-induced climate change constitutes a serious present and future threat to the enjoyment of human rights guaranteed by the Eu-ropean Court of Human Rights. States are aware of this and are in a position to take measures to address the problem effectively.

Although the European Court of Human Rights emphasised that it was only compe-tent to interpret the provisions of the ECHR and its protocols, it found that this was done in accordance with the international obligations of the contracting states, in particular under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, and in the light of convincing scientific evidence; in particular due to the determinations of the Intergovernmen-tal Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the states are obliged to introduce or take the necessary regulations and measures to prevent an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. 
However, the European Court of Human Rights does not explicitly require the adoption of a climate protection law but grants a relatively wide margin of discre-tion. It is therefore up to the contracting state (in this specific case: Switzerland) to take all measures to achieve the climate protection targets.

What are the consequences for Austria? 

The European Court of Human Rights bases its decision on Article 8 ECHR. The Court found that Article 8 ECHR 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. 

The European Court of Human Rights has constitutional status in Austria and there-fore it is directly applicable. Even if the judgement has no direct impact on the Re-public of Austria. The Austrian Constitutional Court will be guided by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. As a result, the right to climate protection will be applied in Austria in the future.

Lack of enforceability of climate protection measures

One question that repeatedly arises in connection with the case law of the Europe-an Court of Human Rights is the question of the (legal) enforceability. The Court is not empowered to overrule national decisions or annul national laws. Once it has passed judgement, responsibility passes to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which has the power to exert pressure on the State Party.

Conclusion 

Climate organisations in particular are likely to try to use the strong leverage pro-vided by the ruling to fight climate change going forward. In this respect this judgement will have a far-reaching influence on the case law of (national) courts and tribunals in the future.