Supreme Court of New Zealand Rules that Individuals Have Standing to Bring Climate Actions

By: Suzan Elzawahry

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

WELLINGTON, New Zealand – On February 7th, 2024, the Supreme Court of New Zealand unanimously reversed a Court of Appeals decision that denied standing to a private citizen attempting to bring a tort action against New Zealand’s biggest carbon emitters. As a result, individuals in New Zealand now have standing to bring tort claims based on carbon emissions and potentially broader claims of man-made climate change. New Zealand may become the first common law jurisdiction to issue damages for a climate tort. If other jurisdictions follow suit, legal protections surrounding the right to life and freedom of belief may be significantly expanded. 

 
Power lines running through beautiful New Zealand landscapes. | Photo courtesy of Stewart Watson, Getty Images.
  

Plaintiff, Michael John Smith, is a Maori elder and the climate change spokesperson for his tribe. Initial pleadings stated that the release of greenhouse gas emissions by seven corporations in New Zealand (who made up one third of the country’s total greenhouse gas producers) risked adverse effects upon humankind and irreparable damage to the Maori’s customary and cultural interest in land. The claims were for negligence, tort of nuisance, and a novel claim of the tort of climate damage. 

The Court of Appeals struck down all three claims, stating that they did not amount to a reasonably arguable cause of action. In American Jurisprudence, this is equivalent to granting summary judgement to the defendant for the plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. 

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed this decision and reinstated Smith’s claim, reasoning that, procedurally, the Court is required to assume that the consequence of Defendant’s carbon emissions is Plaintiff’s harm and that it is the job of the trial court to hear further evidence. 

Most notably, the Court paid particular attention to the fact that Mr. Smith’s claim is partially tikanga based. Tikanga is the principle of a genealogical and kinship-based connection to land, fresh water, and sea possessed by the Maori people. Mr. Smith alleges tikanga can form the basis of a tort because an injury to the land is also an injury to himself and his descendants; he argues that the respondent’s actions are the cause of injury to his cultural, spiritual, and nutritional connection to the environment. In their analysis, the Court accepted this argument and expressly recognized the importance of allowing tikanga to inform New Zealand’s body of common law. In recognizing the importance of tikanga and extending legal protections based on it, the Court took a major step towards protecting the freedom of belief. 

Whether Mr. Smith will prevail in his tort claim is something only time will tell. However, the fact that a private citizen now has standing to sue major carbon emitters for tortious conduct is an astounding leap forward in expanding legal protection of the right to life. As carbon emissions continue to unfavorably impact global climates and human life, individuals may begin to find reprieve in their local courts. 

For further information, please see:

Climate Case Chart – Smith v Fonterra – 12 Apr. 2024 

NZSC – Smith v. Fonterra Co-Operative Group – 2024 

Supreme Court of New Zealand – Media Release Michael John Smith v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Limited and Others – 7 Feb. 2024

 

 

 

ECtHR Rules Switzerland’s Climate Inaction Violates Human Rights

By: Neha Chhablani

Visiting Impunity Watch News Writer

STRASBOURG, France – On April 9, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled on the case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, finding that Switzerland violated human rights due to its inadequate efforts to meet emissions reduction targets. This ruling marks a new era in climate and human rights litigation. 

 
Photo of the ECtHR Grand Chamber Hearing of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and others v. Switzerland. | Photo courtesy of the European Court of Human Rights.
  

The case was filed by 2,000 members of KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz (Senior Women for Climate Protection), who claimed that global warming threatens their health and living conditions. Four members of the group submitted an additional complaint that climate change-induced heat waves exacerbate their health problems. KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz had taken its case to multiple national courts and eventually to the Swiss Supreme Court, which dismissed its appeal on May 5, 2020. On December 1, 2020, KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz submitted its case to the ECtHR. A public hearing took place on March 29, 2023, with the final decision released a year later on April 9, 2024. 

KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz’s complaint contained three primary points:

  1. Switzerland’s weak climate policies violated Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
  2. The Swiss Supreme Court’s dismissal of their case violated their right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR.
  3. Swiss National Courts did not sufficiently explore the contents of their case, violating Article 13, the right to an effective remedy. 

The ECtHR ruled that Switzerland violated Article 8 in a 16-to-1 vote and unanimously voted that it violated Article 6. The court dismissed the complaint related to climate change-induced heat waves, stating that four complainants did not meet victim-status criteria (high intensity of exposure to the adverse effects of climate change and a pressing need to ensure individual protection). The court did not examine potential violations of Articles 2 or 13 given their similarity to those of 6 and 8.

The Court found that Article 8 of the ECHR “encompasses a right to effective protection by the State authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on lives, health, well-being and quality of life.” Furthermore, it found significant gaps between Switzerland’s legislative goals regarding emission reduction and its actions such as failing to meet its greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets, quantify greenhouse gas emission limitations, or establish other domestic regulatory frameworks.

Pursuant to Article 6 subsection 1, which states that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable timeframe, the Court found that Switzerland did not take KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz’s case seriously, failing to consider scientific evidence and unjustly dismissing the case’s merits.

The Court’s decision is legally binding; the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers will supervise Switzerland’s implementation of emission reduction frameworks to redress its violation of the Convention’s Articles.

This ruling not only pressures European governments to reduce GHG emissions but effectively intertwines human rights protection with climate change action; this was the first climate case heard at a regional human rights court. The precedent set by the outcome of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland strengthens numerous pending climate-based cases at the ECtHR. Ultimately, the ruling sets new standards for human rights protection and climate action.

For further information, please see:

Climate Change Litigation Database – KlimaSeniorinnen v Switzerland – 12 Apr. 2024

European Court of Human Rights –  Judgment Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland: Violations of the Convention for failing to implement sufficient measures to combat climate change – 9 Apr. 2024

European Court of Human Rights – European Convention on Human Rights – 12 Apr. 2024

KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz – Climate Action – 12 Apr. 2024

Reuters – Climate verdict for Swiss women a warning for European states, oil industry – 12 Apr. 2024

 

 

ECHR Rules That Portuguese Defamation Judgement Violated Right to Freedom of Expression

By: Firdevs Okatan

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

STRASBOURG, France – On March 19, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered its judgment in the case of Almeida Arroja v. Portugal, raising important questions about the balance between the right to freedom of expression and the protection of individual reputation.

 
An aerial view of the European Court of Human Rights building in Strasbourg, France. | Photo Courtesy of European Court of Human Rights.
  

The case revolves around the conviction of José Pedro Almeida Arroja, an economist and university professor, for his comments on a private TV channel about a law firm and its director, P.R., a known politician and member of the European Parliament.

The background of the case lies in a dispute over the construction of a pediatric wing at São João Hospital in Porto. Almeida Arroja, chair of an association supporting the construction, criticized the legal advice provided by the law firm C., directed by P.R., accusing it of politically motivated interference. The domestic courts in Portugal found Almeida Arroja guilty of aggravated defamation and causing offense to a legal person, leading to his appeal to the ECHR.

The ECHR judgment focused on whether Almeida Arroja’s freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, was unjustly violated. The Court acknowledged the importance of protecting reputation but emphasized that restrictions on freedom of expression must be carefully weighed, especially when public figures and matters of public interest are involved.

The Court observed that Almeida Arroja’s comments, although potentially harmful to P.R. and the law firm’s reputation, were part of a debate of significant public interest. The Court also considered P.R.’s status as a public figure, which requires a higher tolerance for criticism. Crucially, it found that the Portuguese courts had not balanced these factors correctly and that the penalties imposed had a disproportionate “chilling effect” on free speech.

The ruling has highlighted the complex relationship between the right to free expression and the need to protect individuals’ and legal entities’ reputations. It underscores the ECHR’s approach that public discussion, especially on matters of public concern, should be solid and that public figures like politicians must tolerate more scrutiny and potentially damaging statements.

This judgment does not only impact Portuguese law but resonates across Europe, where similar tensions exist between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation. It serves as a reminder of the delicate and nuanced judgments required in upholding fundamental human rights in a democratic society.

For further information, please see:

ECHR – Case of Almeida Arroja V. Portugal – 19 Mar. 2024

ECHR – Judgment concerning Portugal – 19 Mar. 2024

ECHRCaseLaw –  The size of the criminal conviction against the defendant for defamation of a lawyer and law firm for his comments on a television show was disproportionate. Violation of freedom of expression – 22 Mar. 2024

European Convention on Human Rights – 1950

 

 

 

 

ECHR Rules Poland Violated Rights of Asylum Seekers

By: Cynthia Achieng

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

 STRASBOURG, France – On Thursday, April 4, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Poland, in its expulsion of four Tajikistani nationals back to Ukraine, had violated Articles 3, 4, and 13 of Protocol No. 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 
Refugees crossing into Poland from Ukraine. | Photo courtesy of Al-Jazeera.
  

The individuals traveled to the Polish-Ukrainian border on at least four occasions between 2016-2017. On each occasion, they expressly stated their wish to apply for international protection stating that they were at risk of political persecution in Tajikistan. Administrative decisions were issued denying them entry into Poland on grounds that they did not have documentation to support their claim of risk of persecution.

The ECHR noted that sending the applicants to Ukraine without examining whether the receiving State was safe for them, whether they would have adequate asylum procedure there, or whether they would be exposed to the risk of a chain of refoulement was a violation of the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention. The action of the Polish officials amounted to expulsion of aliens which is a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.

The Court further awarded the applicants damages in the amount of EUR 13,000 each against Poland.

This decision comes at a time when the refugee crisis is hitting Europe and applications for asylum especially from Ukrainian and Syrian refugees are multiplying.

For further information, please see:

ECHR – SHEROV AND OTHERS v. POLAND – 4 Apr. 2024

EDAL – Communicated Cases against Poland (Application No. 54029/17), the Netherlands, and Russia – 22 Jan. 2021

Case of SHEROV and Others V. PolandIUS INFO – Case of SHEROV and Others V. Poland – ND

 

ECHR Rules Russian Removal of North Korean Citizens to the DPRK Violated European Convention of Human Rights

By: Garrison Funk

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

STRASBOURG, France – On Tuesday, March 19, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the Russian Federation violated Articles 2, 3, and 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights in its treatment, and later expulsion, of three North Korean citizens to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).

 
Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin meet in Vladivostok, Russia in April 2019. | Photo Credit Alexy Nikolsky/Sputnik/AFP via Getty Images.
  

While Russia has not been a member of the European Convention since September 16, 2020, the relevant events took place prior to Russia’s separation, therefore granting the ECHR jurisdiction to review the case.

Two of the individuals in the case, referred to as K.J. and C.C., were captured in Russian territorial waters and convicted of illegal fishing in 2019, and sentenced to serve two years and one month in Russian prison. The third individual, S.K., was a student studying at the Far Eastern Federal university in Vladivostok, who later applied for asylum in 2020.

After finishing their prison terms, K.J. and C.C. were both detained for two more years pending expulsion to the DPRK, before finally being released again in 2022. In particular, the ECHR noted that Russian authorities took no steps to verify the reason for their detention. Additionally, foreign nationals detained in Russia pending an expulsion are unable to have their detention reviewed by Russian courts, thereby finding violations of Article 5 § 1 and Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

Following S.K.’s asylum application in 2020, he was detained by Russian police before being handed over to DPRK consular staff by the Russian Federal Security Service. The same day, the ECHR issued an interim ruling barring the Russian government from expelling S.K. However, S.K. has not been heard from since then. Because of the high risk of torture and failure of the Russian court system to provide an adequate remedy to detainees, the ECHR found that this expulsion constituted violations of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture), as it is presumed S.K. was abducted.

This is not the first instance of North Korean citizens attempting to gain refuge in Russia. Many North Koreans study in Vladivostok, often under the watchful eye of DPRK surveillance, and some attempt to escape to pursue their freedom. However, Russian security forces often assist the DPRK in the return of its citizens despite repeated admonishment from the ECHR and international community. Only a small fraction of the hundreds of North Korean refugees had their applications accepted.  

For more information, please see:

ECHR – Missing Student Risks Torture if Returned to North Korea – Mar. 19, 2024

ECHR – Judgment Concerning the Russian Federation – Mar. 19, 2024

Human Rights Watch – North Koreans Face Repatriation From Russia – Feb. 17, 2022

Crossing Borders – Why North Koreans Don’t Escape to Russia Instead of China – Oct. 16, 2021

Reuters – Russia Wants North Korea’s Money, Not Its Refugees – Jan. 25, 2017