-
.
- Ελληνικά
The case, concerning the environment, attracted intense international interest
An interesting decision on the environment and the alleged, on 9 April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in the case of Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others. The case concerns individual actions brought by six Portuguese nationals against Portugal and 32 other member states of the Council of Europe (CoE), including Cyprus. It is stated at the outset that the ECtHR dismissed this case for the reasons set out below, without going further and examining its merits. The case attracted intense international interest.
In particular, the applicants, six young Portuguese nationals living in Portugal, complained about the effects of climate change affecting their lives. Their appeals were based on various articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), such as Article 2 protecting the right to life, Article 8 protecting private and family life and Article 14 prohibiting discrimination. They also relied on international texts, such as the 2015 Paris Agreement, as well as expert reports and findings on the effects of climate change.
The petitioners took action against 33 Council of Europe member states, holding them responsible for the effects of climate change affecting both themselves and their own generation.
After considering the applications together and first addressing the issue of jurisdiction, the Broad Composition decided that territorial jurisdiction was established with regard to Portugal, as the applicants reside in Portugal (a territorial State) and therefore Portugal would have to answer for any violation of ECHR rights in relation to them. However, the applicants did not seek any legal remedy in Portugal to claim their rights. Therefore, the ECtHR held that they had not exhausted Portugal's domestic remedies and unanimously dismissed the application.
With regard to the other states, including Cyprus, the Broad Composition acknowledged the developments at international and national level on issues related to addressing climate change. However, in the present case, it held that it could not extend the concept of extraterritorial jurisdiction in the manner suggested by the applicants. It therefore held that jurisdiction did not arise for any of the other States and dismissed the applications for lack of jurisdiction.
The hearing of the case was held in Strasbourg in September 2023.
The Advocate General of the Republic was represented by Ms Theodora Christodoulides, Senior Advocate of the Republic, and Ms Leto Kariolou, lawyer.
Contents of this article including associated images are owned by PIO
Views & opinions expressed are those of the author and/or PIO
Source
