Fundamentos destacados: 451. De las consideraciones anteriores se deduce que, por principio, no puede excluirse la competencia del Tribunal de Justicia en el contexto de los litigios sobre el cambio climático. En efecto, dada la necesidad de hacer frente a la amenaza urgente que plantea el cambio climático, y teniendo en cuenta la aceptación general de que el cambio climático es una preocupación común de la humanidad (véanse los párrafos 420 y 436 supra), el argumento esgrimido por los Relatores Especiales de las Naciones Unidas de que la cuestión ya no es si, sino cómo, Los tribunales de derechos humanos deben abordar los efectos de los daños ambientales en el disfrute de los derechos humanos (véase el párrafo 379 supra).
[…]
519. Sobre la base de las consideraciones anteriores, y teniendo en cuenta la relación causal entre las acciones y/u omisiones del Estado relacionadas con el cambio climático y el daño o riesgo de daño que afecta a las personas (véanse los párrafos 435, 436 y 478 supra), debe considerarse que el artículo 8 abarca el derecho de las personas a una protección efectiva por parte de las autoridades estatales contra los efectos adversos graves del cambio climático en su vida, salud, bienestar y calidad de vida.
[Traducción de LP]
451. It follows from the above considerations that the Court’s competence in the context of climate-change litigation cannot, as a matter of principle, be excluded. Indeed, given the necessity of addressing the urgent threat posed by climate change, and bearing in mind the general acceptance that climate change is a common concern of humankind (see paragraphs 420 and 436 above), there is force in the argument put forward by the UN Special Rapporteurs that the question is no longer whether, but how, human rights courts should address the impacts of environmental harms on the enjoyment of human rights (see paragraph 379 above).
[…]
519. Drawing on the above considerations, and having regard to the causal relationship between State actions and/or omissions relating to climate change and the harm, or risk of harm, affecting individuals (see paragraphs 435, 436 and 478 above), Article 8 must be seen as encompassing a right for individuals to effective protection by the State authorities from serious adverse effects of climate change on their life, health, well-being and quality of life.
[Idioma original]
GRAND CHAMBER
CASE OF VEREIN KLIMASENIORINNEN SCHWEIZ AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND
(Application no. 53600/20)
In the case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland,
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:
Síofra O’Leary,
Georges Ravarani,
Marko Bošnjak,
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,
Pere Pastor Vilanova,
Arnfinn Bårdsen,
Pauliine Koskelo,
Tim Eicke,
Jovan Ilievski,
Darian Pavli,
Raffaele Sabato,
Lorraine Schembri Orland,
Anja Seibert-Fohr,
Peeter Roosma,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins,
Mattias Guyomar,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Søren Prebensen, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 30 March 2023, 6 and 7 December 2023 and 14 February 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the latter date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 53600/20) against the Swiss Confederation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an association registered under Swiss law, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, and by four Swiss nationals, Ms Ruth Schaub, Ms Marie‑Eve Volkoff Peschon, Ms Bruna Giovanna Olimpia Molinari and Ms Marie Gabrielle Thérèse Budry (“the applicants”), all members of that association, on 26 November 2020.
2. The applicants were represented by Ms C.C. Bähr and Mr M. Looser, lawyers practising in Zürich, Ms J. Simor KC and Mr M. Willers KC, lawyers practising in London, and Mr R. Mahaim, a lawyer practising in Lausanne. The Swiss Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr A. Chablais, of the Federal Office of Justice.
3. The applicants alleged, in particular, various omissions of the Swiss authorities in the area of climate‑change mitigation. They relied on Articles 2, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention.
4. The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). On 26 April 2022 the Chamber to which the case had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, none of the parties having objected to relinquishment (Article 30 of the Convention and Rule 72).
5. The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24. The President of the Court decided that in the interests of the proper administration of justice the case should be assigned to the same composition of the Grand Chamber as the cases of Carême v. France (application no. 7189/21) and Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others (application no. 39371/20) (Rule 24, Rule 42 § 2 and Rule 71), which were also relinquished by Chambers of the Fifth and Fourth Sections respectively.
6. The applicants and the Government each filed memorials on the admissibility and merits of the case. In addition, having been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3), third‑party comments were received from the Governments of Austria, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Norway, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia.
7. Upon the leave granted by the President, third‑party comments were also received from the following entities: the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; the United Nations Special Rapporteurs on toxics and human rights, and on human rights and the environment, and the Independent Expert on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons; the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the ICJ Swiss Section (ICJ‑CH); the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI); the coordinated submission of the International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR‑Net); the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University; Professors Evelyne Schmid and Véronique Boillet (University of Lausanne); Professors Sonia I. Seneviratne and Andreas Fischlin (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich); Global Justice Clinic, Climate Litigation Accelerator and Professor C. Voigt (University of Oslo); ClientEarth; Our Children’s Trust, Oxfam France and Oxfam International and its affiliates (Oxfam); a group of academics from the University of Bern (Professors Claus Beisbart, Thomas Frölicher, Martin Grosjean, Karin Ingold, Fortunat Joos, Jörg Künzli, C. Christoph Raible, Thomas Stocker, Ralph Winkler and Judith Wyttenbach, and Doctors Ana M. Vicedo‑Cabrera and Charlotte Blattner); the Center for International Environmental Law and Dr Margaretha Wewerinke‑Singh; the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School; and Germanwatch, Greenpeace Germany and Scientists for Future.
8. On 11 January 2023 the Grand Chamber decided that in the interest of the proper administration of justice, after the completion of the written stage of the proceedings in the above-mentioned cases, the oral stage would be staggered so that a hearing in the present case and in the Carême v. France case would be held on 29 March 2023, and a hearing in the Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others case would be held before the same composition of the Grand Chamber at a later stage (the hearing was held on 27 September 2023). At a later stage, Armen Harutyunyan, who was prevented from sitting in the present case, was replaced by Jovan Ilievski, substitute judge (Rule 24 § 3).
9. A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 29 March 2023 (Rule 59 § 3).
[Continúa…]
