Listen to the audio version of the article
The European Court of Human Rights’ climate ruling is set to have far-reaching effects, as demonstrated by the numerous states that intervened in the proceedings (including Italy).
Firstly, because the Strasbourg Court recognized, for the first time, the enforceability of the right to climate in the context of human rights (in the past the Inter-American Court of Human Rights had done so) due to the effects that global warming produces global impact on the quality of life of individuals. The Court, in fact, ascertained that the prevention of climate change is an integral part of the positive obligations of States in the protection of human rights: the failure to adopt mitigation measures for climate change entails a violation of article 8 which ensures the right to respect for private and family life.
The Convention lacks an express recognition of the right to the environment and, therefore, of the right to the climate, but the Court, taking into account that the European Convention is a living instrument, has recognised, over the years, that the protection of the environment is included in some conventional rights. Now, a further step: Strasbourg, in fact, has broadened the scope of application of Article 8, which includes an individual’s right to well-being, to cases of overheating. And it did even more because it did not limit itself to transposing already established principles, but identified new ones, ad hoc, for the climate issue, essentially recognizing that the acceleration of global warming has an impact on the quality of life of every individual because there is a significant risk of decline in a person’s life expectancy. Hence the obligation of states to intervene.
The Court’s affirmation will therefore inevitably lead to new appeals to Strasbourg regarding climate justice.
Several appeals are already pending, including two actions concerning Italy, initiated by young people who believe they have suffered an infringement of the right to respect for private life precisely due to the lack of adequate interventions by the State in question (Uricchio and Deconto appeal against Italy and 32 other states). Beyond the actions in Strasbourg, the principles affirmed by the Court are already making their way into the States that have ratified the Convention, obliging national judges (and also the legislator) to take the ruling into account in climate cases involving domestic courts. With a certain increase in climate litigation which has already had a boom in recent years, between successful cases, as in the Netherlands (Urgenda case) and actions that have so far been rejected (as in Italy, the “Last Judgment” case).