LAbg. Manuel Krautgartner: “(Supreme) courts must not become instruments of political or ideological agendas!”
The ECHR has condemned Switzerland for inadequate climate protection. The judges ruled in favor of the “Swiss Climate Seniors” who argued that the government’s inadequate measures against climate change violated their human rights. “This decision marks a worrying trend in which even the highest courts are aligning themselves with political agendas such as the alleged climate madness and climate hysteria instead of upholding objective legal principles,” said LAbg. Manuel Krautgartner, MFG-OÖ club chairman.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recently ruled that “climate protection” is a human right. In its judgment1), the ECHR addressed both whether climate protection is a human right and who can enforce the right. The judges relied on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life. The judgment was based on a “climate lawsuit” from the Swiss association “KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz”. The lawsuit was supported by the NGO “Greenpeace”.
In their lawsuit, the “Climate Seniors” argued that the Swiss authorities were not doing enough to curb the effects of climate change. Due to their particular age, they are particularly disadvantaged as they are more exposed to the consequences of global warming, for example due to extreme heat waves. The aim of the lawsuit: Switzerland should do more to limit the rise in temperature to 1.5 degrees.
The ECHR stated: The ECHR gives rise to a right to effective protection by public authorities against the serious adverse effects of climate change on life, health, well-being and quality of life. Switzerland neglected these obligations arising from this and thus violated the rights of the plaintiffs from the “Climate Senior Women Switzerland” association.
Manuel Krautgartner: “The climate is a statistical value that cannot be protected. What can and should be protected is nature and the environment. But these questions should be resolved through democratic processes and taking into account scientific evidence. (Supreme) courts must not become instruments for political or ideological agendas – even against the will of the people!
“
In its judgment, the ECHR limits itself to relying on an alleged political and scientific consensus. It summarizes the opinions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), various states and organizations and states that “man-made climate change” exists and that it represents a “serious current and future threat to the exercise of human rights guaranteed by the Convention”2) . The Court emphasizes the urgency of limiting the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as efforts to date are not sufficient to achieve this goal. “This decision shows the increasing involvement of courts in political and ideological debates,” said Manuel Krautgartner. And LAbg. Joachim Aigner, MFG-Austria federal party chairman, is also concerned about the increasing polarization and ideologization of the jurisprudence: “We are not only seeing this now with the so-called ‘climate change’; even during the Corona pandemic, the courts have acted more as compliant stooges of politics rather than as independent judicial bodies.
“
The Swiss government correctly argued in the proceedings: “(…) (…) a “legalization” of the matter at the international level would only lead to tensions with regard to the principle of subsidiarity and the separation of powers. In any event, the Court could not act as a supreme court for the environment, particularly given the complexity of the evidence and scientific findings.”3)
1) Judgment of April 9, 2024, Association of Climate Senior Women Switzerland and Others v. Switzerland, Application no. 53600/20.
2) See paragraph 436 of the text of the judgment.
3) Paragraph 338 of the text of the judgment, German translation with deepl.com.
Questions & Contact:
MFG Austria
(+43 732) 93167 6500
presse@mfg-oe.at
https://www.mfg-oe.at/