ECHR makes ‘climate change’ a human right – UK must obey and the Swiss fume

Once again this foreign court invents law for the British and other people, despite Brexit

Montage © Facts4EU.Org 2024

When will we ever stop being governed by unelected foreign judges?

In today’s report Facts4EU.Org summarises the implications of the latest ECHR ruling against Switzerland on Tuesday which could bring massive lawsuits against them and against the UK government.

On Tuesday (09 Apr 2024) the ‘European Court of Human Rights’ once again extended its mandate to create law across Europe – including the United Kingdom. The UK’s exit from the European Union makes no difference.

The ECHR judges (see ‘Observations’ below) ruled on three cases concerning climate change: in one of which it found in favour of the Swiss activist and the other two were only denied because of technicalities.

Dr. Stephan Rietiker, President of Pro Switzerland,
speaking exclusively to Facts4EU.Org and CIBUK.Org

"This verdict is an outrageous and unacceptable breach of the separation of powers and the fundamental democratic rights of the Swiss people.
We are currently exploring options to offset the potential consequences of this ludicrous verdict. Our lawyers are working on an action plan that may turn this verdict into a boomerang against the plaintiffs' intentions."
- Dr. Stephan Rietiker, President of Pro-Schweiz, speaking to our Chairman, 10 Apr 2024

About 'Pro Switzerland'

Headed up by the charismatic doctor and businessman Stephan Rieteker, Pro Switzerland has been formed via the amalgamation of three independence groups who decided to work together. This has created a powerful force in that country for those who believe in independence, democracy, sovereignty and freedom.

Pro Switzerland is ready to fight uncompromisingly for an independent, sovereign, safe, neutral and cosmopolitan Switzerland. Facts4EU.Org and CIBUK.Org have co-operated with them for some time and share many of the same values. They are now consulting lawyers with a view to fighting the ECHR's decision.

Brexit Facts4EU.Org Summary

This verdict was about ‘climate change’ being added to the long list of ‘human rights’

This court has continually expanded its remit

Case No.1 - Switzerland

The case Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland concerned a complaint by four women and a Swiss association, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, whose members are concerned about the consequences of global warming on their living conditions and health.

The Court found that the Swiss Confederation had failed to comply with its duties (“positive obligations”) under the Convention concerning climate change.

Behind the complainants is the environmental organisation Greenpeace, which has financed the course to the ECHR and controlled it in terms of content. The court has made a political judgment which calls into question the democratic order of Switzerland - and indeed the United Kingdom and all other ECHR signatories. This weighs heavily for Switzerland because it guarantees its citizens far-reaching powers which force the authorities to implement the political will of the people and the cantons.

Pro Switzerland notes that :-

"Increasingly foreign courts are directing and 'correcting' Switzerland's democracy. Even if a Swiss judge sits in the judges' body, the judgments of the ECtHR are anti-democratic and arbitrary acts.
The complainants have effectively taken away the traditional Swiss political participation within the framework of direct democracy (referenda) and delegated it to foreign judges.
"The term climate change is neither a fact that is occupied by scientific facts nor with comprehensible arguments. The political judgment of the ECtHR is a one-sided, sovereignty-defying action with the aim of helping an ideology with dictatorial traits to achieve a breakthrough."

Case No.2

The case Carême v. France concerned a complaint by a former inhabitant and mayor of the municipality of Grande-Synthe, who submits that France has taken insufficient steps to prevent global warming and that this failure entails a violation of the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life.

The Court only ruled against on a technicatiy, viz. that the applicant ”did not have victim status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.”

Case No.3

The case Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others concerned the current and future severe effects of climate change, which the applicants attribute to the respondent States, and which they claim impact their lives, well-being, mental health and the peaceful enjoyment of their homes.

The Court only ruled against because the complainants had not exhausted all legal routes in Portugal before presenting their case to the ECHR.

Almost unbelievable assumption of power by these foreign judges

The first verdict about climate change in favour of the claimant will now have effect in all 46 member countries of the ECHR. This now opens the door to thousands of claims against the UK government.

Facts4EU.Org consulted the ECHR’s website and here is what it says :-

“Even though the European Convention on Human Rights does not enshrine any right to a healthy environment as such, the European Court of Human Rights has been called upon to develop its case-law in environmental matters on account of the fact that the exercise of certain Convention rights may be undermined by the existence of harm to the environment and exposure to environmental risks.”
- ECHR, 09 Apr 2024

In other words, the Court admits there is nothing in the Convention about climate change but it has taken it upon itself to make case-law about it, which will then be considered to be binding by the UK’s courts.

To be clear, this has not come about through any Act of Parliament where the British people’s duly elected representatives may vote. This is law made in Strasbourg, by foreign judges, about which the UK and its people have no say whatsoever.

The EU insists the UK must stay under the ECHR, but won’t sign up to it itself

In what must surely be one of the most blatant acts of EU hypocrisy, the EU insisted as part of the UK-EU ‘Trade and Cooperation Agreement’ that the UK remained signed up to the ECHR.

And yet the EU will not sign up itself. Finally in 2013 it reached an agreement to join, but was then blocked by its own court: the Court of Justice of the EU (ECJ). Ten years later the EU is STILL not a member of the ECHR.

Here is what the EU Commission has to say about the EU’s current position:-

“At present, all 46 Council of Europe member states, including the 27 EU Member States, are already parties to the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the EU itself is not. This means that actions of the EU’s institutions, agencies and other bodies cannot currently be challenged at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.”
- European External Action Service (EU Commission), 18 Oct 2021

Observations

If the public needed any more justification for leaving the ECHR, surely this latest judgement by its court has provided it. None of the judges on the European Court have any specialist knowledge of climate change. What little they know will have been provided by climate change lobbyists.

The Convention itself has nothing to say about climate change, but as with so many other issues the Court has taken it upon itself to pass judgement on it.

When will the UK Government say “enough is enough” and lead the way in leaving this undemocratic and dictatorial body which has transformed itself beyond all recognition since it was founded? This is a political court. It should be called out as such.

Prime Minister, make the announcement that the UK will leave the ECHR now. No more procrastination, just act.

While we wait - no doubt in vain - for this to happen, Brexit Facts4EU.Org and CIBUK.Org will continue to work with our colleagues in Switzerland and in other European countries to turn back the tide of creeping oligarchy engulfing the UK and the continent.

Facts4EU.Org badly needs you today

We are a 'not for profit' team (we make a loss) and any payment goes towards the actual work, not plush London offices, lunch or taxi expenses, or other luxuries of some organisations.

We badly need more of our thousands of readers to become members, to support this work. Could this be you, today? It's quick and easy, we give you a choice of two highly secure payment providers, and we do NOT ask you for further support if you pay once. We just hope you keep supporting us. Your membership stays anonymous unless you tell us otherwise.

Please don't assume that other people will keep us going - we don't receive enough to survive and we need your help today. Could you help us? We rely 100% on public contributions from readers like you.

If you believe in a fully-free, independent, and sovereign United Kingdom, please join now by clicking on one of the links below or you can use our Support page here. You will receive a personal, friendly ‘thank you’ from a member of our team within 48 hours. Thank you.

[ Sources: ECHR ] Politicians and journalists can contact us for details, as ever.

Brexit Facts4EU.Org, Thurs 11 Apr 2024

Click here to go to our news headlines

Please scroll down to COMMENT on the above article.
And don't forget actually to post your message after you have previewed it!

Something to say about this? Scroll down for reader comments

Since before the EU Referendum, Brexit Facts4EU.Org
has been the most prolific researcher and publisher of Brexit facts in the world.

Supported by MPs, MEPs, & other groups, our work has impact.

We think facts matter. Please donate today, so that we can continue to ensure a clean Brexit is finally delivered.

Any credit card user

Quick One-off

From £5 - £1,000

Monthly

From £3 per month

Paypal Users Only - Choose amount first

Quick One-off

Monthly

PLEASE NOTE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT : You can write your comment under any existing comments below. After you have clicked to preview your comment, you MUST then click on the CAPTCHA system and send you comment, for it to be published. Thank you!

Reader Comments 18

1. terence patrick hewett , Thursday, April 11, 2024, 07:06:

We will only leave the ECHR, when we get a government which is determined to act in the UK's interest and not in the interests of the EU. A government who will scour clean our over-manned, lazy and traitorous Civil Service: who will reform the quangos and reduce the HoL to 150 from 800+. In other words, a thorough-going Constitutional Reformation. This is essential to getting anything done and may be coming sooner than we think.

2. Ashley Great Britain , Thursday, April 11, 2024, 07:06:

Just the fact that the EU itself won't sign upto the ECHR tells you all you need to know.
-
The UK was supposed to have left the EU after the referendum result. As we can all see that hasn't fully happened.
What an absolute farce it is that UK negotiators agreed to remain locked to the ECHR during discussions to leave.

3. Captain Thunderbolt , Thursday, April 11, 2024, 09:48:

I was always of the opinion that once the UK invoked A50 the withdrawal agreement should have only talked about one thing and that was the financial settlement.
The government of the day should kept it simple any cooperation agreements should have been after the fact with the financial settlement payable on completion of trade agreement

4. Andy , Thursday, April 11, 2024, 10:30:

C.3. But under the terms of the Treaties there was and could be no 'financial settlement'. This was invented by the EU for its own dishonest reasons and our stupid politicians and Civil Servants were only too happy to oblige. Once the UK left the EU there were no obligations on the UK under the Treaties, which the UK was no longer a signatory.
The UK should merely have given notice of leaving the EU and done nothing. There was no obligation for the UK to conclude any agreement at all, and as has been shown it was a very bad idea to use this procedure.
As to the ECHR the UK should just negate this Treaty and leave the convention. There is no basis in Law, that is to say in the Convention, whatsoever for the Judges to have reached this absurd judgement.

5. Harry Potter , Thursday, April 11, 2024, 10:51:

Were is any agreements to be found that were agreed to be locked into the ECHR? Where is the link to it?
We all keep seeing facts4eu saying this but they never show any link.

6. Captain Thunderbolt , Thursday, April 11, 2024, 13:24:

4. Andy
Agree that there wasn’t a formal requirement to enter into a Agreement, but it would have been te right thing to do. After all it was stipulation that Scotland would have to take part of the UK if it voted to leave even thought it alsohad no requirement to do so under odious debt
https://assets.publishing.s...

7. NH , Thursday, April 11, 2024, 14:33:

5. Harry Potter, "Were is any agreements to be found that were agreed to be locked into the ECHR?"
It's referenced in "Article 524" "Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" as an obligation to respect fundamental rights and obligations and in particular the ECHR etc.

8. Sparky , Thursday, April 11, 2024, 15:03:

The UK will not leave the ECHR. Russia left in 2022 and the UK will not want to be seen to be in the same company. Membership of the ECHR is written into The Good Friday Agreement and the TCA. Peter Hain, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 2005-2007 wrote a piece for the Guardian in 2023 in which he states "The Good Friday agreement is an international treaty, and the ECHR is directly referenced in its text, guaranteeing people in Northern Ireland protections under its terms".
.
The judgement from the ECHR has said that climate change exists, member states are aware of it, and are capable of taking measures to decrease further warming. The ECHR found that member states have an obligation to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, and that the Swiss government had failed to do.
.
This will just place additional pressure on Govt's to take action and produce genuine evidence of results. Global temperatures are currently at their highest for 100,000 years and there is a clear link with CO2 levels. We can't keep boasting that our emissions are low whilst ignoring goods imported from countries that produce high levels of CO2.
.
Crux of this is whether you believe the rise in global temperatures has been made worse by human activity.

9. NH , Thursday, April 11, 2024, 18:14:

8. Sparky, "The judgement from the ECHR"
You are returning to your hated of democracy. The Swiss have already had a democratic referendum on this issue and they voted against excessive measures to reduce emissions. The ECHR has foolishly, unilaterally, decided this is a human rights issue and they can over rule democratic economic policies. This is not the role of a legal court !
.
At the same time India is celebrating the fact it's now producing 1 Trillion Tonnes of Coal per year for burning. The ECHR ruling will not change the level of global emissions so it will just impose economic hardship on it's member nations. If the ECHR continues it's abuse of power the UK will not have to leave, everbody will start to ignore the ECHR.

10. Gazzablack , Thursday, April 11, 2024, 19:04:

9 sparkless
.
Gawd's sake Hiroo, grow up.
.
The ECHR isn't written Into the GFA.
The bill incorporating ECHR membership into UK law became active 2 years AFTER the GFA was signed.
.
Cuprinol man is talking out of his rear end.
The GFA is NOT an international agreement, it is a bi-!lateral agreement, between the UK and Ireland
It is NOT an agreement with the USA, China, India or the EU. Just Ireland and the UK.
.
But the real crux of the matter is that the ECHR should not impose their sovereignty over sovereign nations..
.
If the UK leaves the ECHR it be just like the EU, which likewise is not in the ECHR.
Except that the UK has "Habeas Corpus" which gives protections to the individual that are far superior in nature than the EU member's "Corpus Juris"
.
Are these ECHR judges pre-eminent in the field of climate science then"?
.
And no, climate scientists are not agreed on the main causes of climate change, or that it's an "existential threat" or even undesirable.
.

18 comments, page 1 of 2

Add comment:

Please note: Your email address is never published unless you choose to enter it.