Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz ve Diğerleri V İsviçre Kararında Öne Çıkan Hukuki Meselelerin İncelenmesi
9 Nisan 2024 tarihinde Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi (kısaca Mahkeme veya AİHM) tarihi bir karara imza atmış ve tarihinde ilk kez iklim değişikliği alanında bir ihlal kararı vermiştir. İsviçre’ye karşı açılmış olan Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz ve Diğerleri kararıyla birlikte Mahkeme, iklim değişikliği konusunda devletlerin kendilerine düşen yükümlülükleri yerine getirip getirmediklerini denetleme noktasında yetkili olduğunu göstermiştir. Karar gerek insan hakları alanında gerekse çevre ve iklim hukuku alanında büyük bir yankı uyandırmıştır. Karar, hem AİHM önüne hem de ulusal mahkemeler önüne iklim değişikliği alanında çok sayıda başvurunun gelmesine zemin hazırlayacaktır. Eldeki çalışma Mahkeme’nin tarihinde bir dönüm noktası olan bu davayı detaylı bir şekilde incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmada ilk olarak Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz ve Diğerleri davasında başvuru sahiplerinin şikâyetleri ve mağduriyet iddiaları incelenmiştir. Başvuru sahipleri, iklim değişikliğinin Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’nde yer alan temel hak ve özgürlüklerine etkisi üzerinden başvurularını şekillendirmişlerdir. Çalışmada daha sonra İsviçre Hükümeti’nin karşıt argümanlarına (counter arguments) yer verilecektir. İsviçre Hükümeti, bu davada, iklim davalarında sıklıkla karşımıza çıkan tezleri (okyanusta bir damla tezi ve güçler ayrılığı tezi) öne sürmüştür. Bu argümanlar, benzer argümanların öne sürüldüğü farklı iklim davaları ile birlikte, detaylı bir şekilde analiz edilecektir. Çalışmada son olarak, AİHM’in İsviçre Hükümeti’nin karşıt argümanlarına yönelik değerlendirmeleri incelenmiştir. Mahkeme’nin karardaki bu önemli değerlendirmeleri, iklim değişikliğinin insan haklarını çok yakından ilgilendiren bir problem olduğunu açık bir şekilde tespit etmektedir.
Examining the Legal Issues Raised in the Case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others V Switzerland
On April 9, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter the Court or the ECtHR) for the first time found a State Party in violation of its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. In Verein KlimaSe niorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland, the ECtHR for the first time showed that it has authority to examine whether state parties are fulfilling their human rights obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of climate change. The judgment has already created important discussions in fields of human rights and environmental and climate law. With this judgment, the number of applications both before the Court and domestic courts – is likely to increase. This article aims to thoroughly examine this landmark case. In the article, f irst, the complaints and claims of the applicants in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland are scrutinized. It is shown that the applicants designed their application by considerably focusing on the impacts of climate change on their fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights. The article then discusses the counter arguments put forward by the Swiss Government. In the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland case, the Swiss Government rejected the applicants’ arguments by relying on very common counter arguments that we frequently observe in climate litigation (namely, a drop in the ocean argument and separation of powers argument). These arguments are analysed, along with similar arguments presented in other climate cases. Finally, the article examines the ECtHR’s responses to the Swiss Government. This f inal section of the article highlights the Court’s significant findings which importantly underline the intrinsic links between climate change and human rights.
On April 9, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter the Court or the ECtHR) for the first time found a State Party in violation of its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of climate change. In the case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland, the Swiss Government faced allegations of violating the rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights, namely the right to life (Article 2), right to a fair trial (Article 6) and the right to private and family life (Article 8). Whereas the applicants claimed that the Swiss Government’s climate policies interfere with their rights and freedoms, the Government in response argued that it was in compliance with fundamental international agreements on climate change (like the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 and the Paris Agreement of 2015). In its defence, the Government presented its efforts in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and underlined its national legislation to combat climate change. The Government highlighted its initiatives such as CO₂ taxes on fossil fuels and mandatory participation in emission trading systems (ETS). This article focuses on the Government’s two main counter arguments: a drop in the ocean argument and separation of powers argument. Regarding the former, the Government argued that the climate crisis is a global problem and stated that a permanent solution for this issue can only be achieved with the collective efforts of all states. Underlining that its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale is very low, the Swiss Government emphasised that climate change is not a problem that can be solved by Switzerland itself. Under this argument, the Government claimed that it cannot be held responsible for a global scale crisis. As discussed in this article, similar arguments were put forward in different climate change cases (like Urgenda v the State of the Netherlands ve Friends of the Irish Environment v Ireland). In its response to this, the ECtHR held that all state parties to the European Convention on Human Rights have responsibilities in the face of the climate change crisis. Therefore, the Court stated that the state parties’ responsibilities can be claimed at points where climate change hinders the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights. Under the scope of the latter argument, the Swiss Government argued that climate policies, concerning the allocation of resources, should be left to the consideration of legislative and executive bodies. The Government contended that judicial interference in such technical and scientific matters exceeds the competence of human rights courts and claimed that climate policies should be regulated by democratic institutions. In its response to this, the ECtHR held that whereas state parties are granted a wide margin of appreciation in determining climate policies, it cannot be denied that the Court plays a complementary role. Thus, the Court held that under the European Convention on Human Rights it is given a role to monitor whether state parties fulfil their positive obligations in order to protect their citizens from the climate crisis. In its judgment, the Court unanimously held that the applicants’ right to a fair trial (Article 6) was breached, and a majority of 16/1 held that the applicants’ right to respect for private and family life (Article 8) was infringed. The article overall analyses the landmark case in detail and highlights the significant legal issues raised in the judgment. The judgment has already had great impact both in human rights law and in the f ield of environmental and climate law and demonstrated that there are intrinsic links between climate change and human rights.
