\n
![](\"https:\/\/fortune.com\/img-assets\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/GettyImages-2144462841-e1712756901492.jpg?w=2048\")
<\/p>\n [ad_1]
\n<\/p>\n
Europe\u2019s highest human rights court ruled Tuesday that countries must better protect their people from the\u00a0consequences of climate change<\/a>, siding with a group of older Swiss women against their government in a landmark ruling that could have implications across the continent.<\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights rejected two other, similar cases on procedural grounds \u2014 a high-profile one brought by\u00a0Portuguese young people<\/a>\u00a0and another by a French mayor that sought to force governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.<\/p>\n But the Swiss case, nonetheless, sets a legal precedent in the Council of Europe\u2019s 46 member states against which future lawsuits will be judged.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is a turning point,\u201d said Corina Heri, an expert in climate change litigation at the University of Zurich.<\/p>\n Although activists have had success with lawsuits in domestic proceedings, this was the first time an international court ruled on climate change \u2014 and the first decision confirming that countries have an obligation to protect people from its effects, according to Heri.<\/p>\n She said it would open the door to more legal challenges in the countries that are members of the Council of Europe, which includes the 27 EU nations as well as many others from Britain to Turkey.<\/p>\n The Swiss ruling softened the blow for those who lost Tuesday.<\/p>\n \u201cThe most important thing is that the court has said in the Swiss women\u2019s case that governments must cut their emissions more to protect human rights,\u201d said 19-year-od Sofia Oliveira, one of the Portuguese plaintiffs. \u201cTheir win is a win for us, too, and a win for everyone!\u201d<\/p>\n The court \u2014 which is unrelated to the European Union \u2014 ruled that Switzerland \u201chad failed to comply with its duties\u201d to combat climate change and meet emissions targets.<\/p>\n That, the court said, was a violation of the women\u2019s rights, noting that the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees people \u201ceffective protection by the state authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on their lives, health, well-being and quality of life.\u201d<\/p>\n A group called Senior Women for Climate Protection, whose average age is 74, had argued that they were particularly affected because older women are most vulnerable to the\u00a0extreme heat that is becoming more frequent<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cThe court recognized our fundamental right to a healthy climate and to have our country do what it failed to do until now: that is to say taking ambitious measures to protect our health and protect the future of all,\u201d said Anne Mahrer, a member of the group.<\/p>\n Switzerland said it would study the decision to see what steps would be needed. \u201cWe have to, in good faith, implement and execute the judgment,\u201d Alain Chablais, who represented the country at last year\u2019s hearings, told The Associated Press.<\/p>\n Judge Siofra O\u2019Leary, the court\u2019s president, stressed that it would be up to governments to decide how to approach climate change obligations \u2014 and experts noted that was a limit of the ruling.<\/p>\n \u201cThe European Court of Human Rights stopped short of ordering the Swiss government to take any specific action, underscoring that relief from the Swiss government \u2018necessarily depends on democratic decision-making\u2019 to enact the laws necessary to impose such a remedy,\u201d said Richard Lazarus, a professor at Harvard Law School who specializes in environmental and natural resources law.<\/p>\n Activists have argued that many governments have not grasped the gravity of the climate change \u2014 and are increasingly looking to the courts to force them to do more to ensure global warming is held to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, in line with the goals of the\u00a0Paris climate agreement<\/a>.<\/p>\n A judge in Montana ruled last year that state agencies were\u00a0violating the constitutional right<\/a>\u00a0to a clean environment by allowing fossil fuel development \u2014 a\u00a0first-of-its- kind trial<\/a>\u00a0in the U.S. that added to a small number of\u00a0similar legal decisions<\/a>\u00a0around the world.<\/p>\n As part of trying to meet climate goals, the European Union, which doesn\u2019t include Switzerland, currently has a\u00a0target to be climate-neutral by 2050<\/a>. Despite those efforts, the Earth\u00a0shattered global annual heat records<\/a>\u00a0in 2023 and flirted with the world\u2019s agreed-upon warming threshold, Copernicus, a European climate agency, said in January.<\/p>\n Celebrity climate activist Greta Thunberg was in the courtroom as the decision was announced. \u201cThese rulings are a call to action. They underscore the importance of taking our national governments to court,\u201d the 21-year-old Swede told the AP.<\/p>\n \u201cThe first ruling by an international human rights court on the inadequacy of states\u2019 climate action leaves no doubt,\u201d said Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney with the Center for International Environmental Law, \u201cthe climate crisis is a human rights crisis.\u201d<\/p>\n ___<\/p>\n Casert reported from Brussels.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\nSubscribe to the new Fortune CEO Weekly Europe newsletter to get corner office insights on the biggest business stories in Europe. Sign up<\/a> for free.<\/div>\n