The keys to the climate case of the 6 young Portuguese against 32 European countries

Mariana, Martim, Cláudia, André, Sofía and Catarina are the six young people who went to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to be confronted 32 countries, the 27 of the European Union plus Great Britain, Switzerland, Norway, Russia and Turkey. The plaintiffs are between 11 and 24 years old, so at first it might seem like a David vs. Goliath duel. However, the case in legal terms “Duarte Agostinho and others, v. Portugal and others”. is already considered historic by many European media because never before has a climate case with so many defendants with these characteristics reached this court.

The young people claim that all these countries (initially they included Ukraine in the lawsuit, but at the beginning of the war they decided to remove it) violate their human rights because “they are not doing enough to stop climate change, such as reducing gas emissions.” In this sense they refer to various articles of the European Convention on Human RightsFor example, Article 2 that recognizes the right to life.

Some of the claimants live in the Leiria region Portugal, where a series of forest fires took place in 2017, killing more than 65 people. For example, in 2020, with the support of various NGOs, these young people decided to go before the European Court of Human Rights. Young They do not ask for any form of compensation. Their request is that defendants adhere to the Paris Agreementan agreement that they all committed to in 2015, and that they will do everything they can to limit the increase in the average temperature on earth to less than 2ºC.

After several months of proceedings, the first and only hearing of this case took place last September (henceforth the exchange of documentation will continue). The six young people and their team of lawyers sat opposite the 87 lawyers for the defendants and the 17 judges of the ECHR hearing the case.

Several members of the legal teams of the defense questioned the procedure of this case and stated that the plaintiffs should have gone to national courts sooner. They also wondered whether the ECHR could have jurisdiction over the case because “the plaintiffs are not citizens of the countries they sued, with the exception of Portugal.”

However, Itziar Eizagirre, expert in sustainable governance, is of the opinion that the case can continue its course and a judgment can be reached by this court. Eizagirre assures that there is legal support for this, as “the human right to a healthy environment has been recognized by the UN Assembly and the EU common legislative stream also takes into account climate aspects in many treaties and directives.”

In this sense, the expert in the field of sustainable governance attaches great importance to the case. In his words, The ECtHR intends to establish a uniform doctrine that the courts of the various countries could later apply their case. In fact, the court wants to resolve three climate cases on the same timeline: the so-called ‘Duarte Agostinho’, one against the government of Switzerland and another against the government of France.

Another important aspect of this case is that, should the ECtHR rule in favor of the claimants, could force several countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions global warming, although it is possible that different measures will be proposed for each country indicted.

However, it will take the Strasbourg court several months to make a decision.