قاضٍ يعرض 10 قضايا مناخية لأول مرة في تاريخ المحكمة الأوروبية
Nature revealed its fangs to the countries of the Arabian Gulf, as several countries, most notably the Emirates, the Sultanate of Oman, Bahrain, and Qatar, were exposed to an unprecedented wave of torrents and floods that caused severe damage to roads and residential buildings, disrupted education, and caused casualties from Among them are school children, and great material losses.
The Earth also bared its teeth, and several countries on most of the world’s continents witnessed earthquakes, torrents, volcanoes, floods, an unprecedented rise in temperature, and hurricanes that destroyed thousands of entire cities. Millions have been displaced due to climate change caused by major economic countries that continue to raise their emissions of greenhouse gases despite environmental collapse In which the major countries stand idly by towards humanity without implementing their pledges to finance climate change.
The distinguished international study of the Egyptian thinker and judicial historian, Judge Dr. Mohamed Abdel Wahab Khafagy, was presented Vice President of the Egyptian Council of State for Climate Litigation as a Means Against Major Economic Countries, entitled “Climate Justice Shines on Humanity from the Land of Civilization and History, A Modern Global Study of Climate Change Disputes.” Considering that climate change It comes at the top of the challenges facing the world in the current era and the largest global problem, and the study aims to raise the level of public awareness of the concept of climate justice, and Egypt’s essential role in this field.
We present To study the Egyptian jurist on climate litigation invades European courts to save the planet from climate collapse (Dutch, Irish and Belgian judiciary) and (10) climate cases for the first time in the history of the European Court of Human Rights against (England, Austria, Italy, France, Norway, Switzerland, Portugal and 32 other countries) and that Egypt realized The danger came early and the major countries were called upon to fulfill their pledges 100 billion dollars annually to developing countries for the safety of humanity.
Climate litigation invades European courts to save the planet from climate collapse:
Dr. Muhammad Khafaji says, “It is through courtrooms all over the world that we find justice.” Climate change is making its way on the platform of justice, to protect planet Earth and the future of humanity from environmental destruction, and since 2015, the year of the Paris Agreement, these lawsuits of this kind have begun to multiply around the world’s courts, doubling compared to the previous period, and this is what was announced by the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and Environmental Research, Based on the annual reports of the London School of Economics (LSE), this means that environmental law has opened new doors on the threshold of the global judicial platform to express itself in order to protect a safe environment and a healthy climate that protects humanity from collapse.”
Climate conflict for the Urgenda Foundation Against the Netherlands for demanding that the government reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25%
Dr. Muhammad Khafaji says "The first climate case against Europe is a climate dispute by the Urgenda Foundation against the Netherlands to demand that the government reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25%. In the Netherlands, the Urgenda Foundation resorted to a climate dispute demanding that the Dutch government reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% until 2020, and it has considered… Case Dutch Court of Appeal Of the 900 Dutch citizens who filed the lawsuit, the district court ordered on June 24, 2015 In The Hague The Dutch state is required to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, and the court ruled that the government’s current pledge to reduce emissions by 17% is insufficient to meet the country’s fair contribution towards the UN goal of keeping global temperature increases at limits of two degrees Celsius from pre-industrial conditions, and the court relied on the fact that the state has a duty to take measures to mitigate the effects of climate change due to the severity of the consequences of climate change and the great risks of this change To reach this conclusion."
Dr. Muhammad Khafaji confirms,"The Dutch court ruling is the first judicial ruling taken by a court in the world ordering countries to limit greenhouse gas emissions for reasons other than legal mandates, in which the court resorted to innovations Legal for a safe climate based on several principles, but the Dutch government filed an appeal against this ruling that Urgenda It cannot directly invoke Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) In these procedures, in return Urgenda A conflicting appeal, and on October 9, 2018 The Hague Court of Appeal upheld the district court’s ruling, then the Dutch government appealed the appeal ruling before the Dutch Supreme Court, and at the session of December 20, 2019, the Supreme Court in the Netherlands closed the curtain on this climate dispute and decided to reject it and uphold the ruling of the lower court under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Rights. Human rights must apply and apply in the Netherlands."
Ireland’s case regarding the national mitigation plan that seeks to transition to a low-carbon economy by 2050
Dr. Muhammad Khafaji says " Lawsuits over climate disputes continued in the courts of the world. In 2017, it was Ireland’s turn with the climate issue promoted by the Irish Friends of the Environment organization, and it also prevailed in the right to a safe climate, which forced the Irish state to enact a new and more stringent law on polluting emissions, as the Friends of the Environment filed The Irish Government (FIE), took action in the High Court arguing that the Irish Government’s approval of the National Mitigation Plan in 2017 breached the Ireland Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015. “
“The case was heard before the High Court in January 22, 2019 FIE asked the Supreme Court to overturn the government’s decision , On September 19, 2019, the case was dismissed In favor of the government, and on November 22, 2019, this ruling was appealed before the Supreme Court in Ireland, and at the July 31, 2020 session, the Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of first instance and issued a ruling to cancel the plan, and the court decided that the plan does not rise to the level of definition required by the law because the average person It will not understand how Ireland will achieve its 2050 targets. The court explained that the compatible plan must be sufficiently specific in terms of policy over the entire period up to 2050."
Belgium case for reducing emissions to 48% in 2025 And no less than 65% The year 2030
Dr. Muhammad Khafaji mentions "in Belgium as well The Belgian judiciary acknowledged that current climate laws are not completely effective in protecting the right to life stipulated in the European Convention on Human Rights, and a case was filed by the "Organization… Klimaatzaak" 58,000 citizens intervened, with the premise that Belgian law requires the Belgian government’s more aggressive approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Against the Belgian state, the Walloon region, the Flemish region and the Brussels-Capital region, the plaintiffs have asked for cuts of 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 87.5% below 1990 levels by 2050. They also called on the government to reduce emissions from 42 to 48% in 2025. And not less than 55 to 65% In the year 2030."
"At the hearing of July 17, 2021 , the Brussels Court of First Instance ruled that the Belgian government had violated its duty of care by failing to take the necessary measures to prevent the harmful effects of climate change, but it refused to set specific reduction targets on The basis of the principle of separation of powers, and the Klimaatzaak organization and its 58,000 citizens joined opponents did not despair and filed an appeal against the ruling of the Brussels Court of First Instance on November 17, 2021, insisting on their requests to set specific binding goals related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions over time, and the appeal is still in progress. This case is pending before the Supreme Court in Belgium as of this writing, regarding the extent to which federal and regional governments are forced to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
(10) Climate cases for the first time in the history of the European Court of Human Rights Against England, Austria, Italy, France, Norway, Switzerland, Portugal, and 32 other countries
Dr. Muhammad Khafaji adds "that (10) Climate cases for the first time in the history of the European Court of Human Rights against England, Austria, Italy, France, Norway, Switzerland, Portugal and 32 other countries:
The first climate case that the Court is considering against the United Kingdom is the failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. ; On July 11, 2022.
The second climate case heard by the same court against the United Kingdom Factory Agriculture, Epidemics, and Antibiotic Resistance held on July 26, 2022 .
And the third climate case that this court is considering against Austria and 11 other countries Climate change and the Energy Charter Treaty.
And the fourth climate case heard by the European Court of Human Rights against Italy and 32 other countries about global warming, winds, storms, fires and heat waves, held on March 3, 2021.
  And the fifth climate case that the court is considering against Italy and 32 other countries, respiratory distress due to global warming, filed on March 3, 2021.
And the sixth climate case that the court is considering against France, and whether there is a violation of Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights on the basis of exposure to climate risks due to insufficient government action in 2021
And the seventh climate case heard by the European Court of Human Rights against Norway and whether Norway has violated the fundamental rights of Norwegians by adopting a decision to license new blocks from the Barents Sea for the development of deep-sea oil and gas extraction and not taking the necessary measures to confront The risks of the climate crisis.
And the eighth climate case that the court is hearing against Switzerland and the adequacy of the Swiss government’s goals to mitigate the effects of climate change, implementation measures, and potential human rights violations or not.
And the ninth climate case. Which the same court is considering against Austria and whether Austria has violated the basic rights of a multiple sclerosis patient through its inaction regarding climate change.
And the tenth climate case that that court is considering against Portugal and 32 other countries is based on the premise that those countries violated Human Rights by not taking adequate action on climate change, and is seeking an order requiring them to take more ambitious action."
Egypt realized the danger early and called on major countries to fulfill their pledges 100 billion dollars annually to developing countries for the safety of humanity:
Dr. Muhammad Khafaji points out, "With the recognition that the major developed and industrialized countries are the ones who caused the crisis about four centuries ago – since the beginning of the industrial revolution– It is weakened to this day, and it must bear its responsibility, taking into account that The damage resulting from this crisis is inflicting on the Earth without exception, especially since, although the damage affects all of humanity, the developing and poor countries are the most affected, even though they did not cause it, and it is not fair for them to bear the expenses of confronting climate change in isolation from the major industrial countries that caused the crisis. ."
He concludes, "The Egyptian leadership I realized the essence of the climate change issue early and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi spoke to the world about the fundamental basis for achieving climate justice, by confronting the major countries with the necessity of assuming their responsibility, adhering to their pledges, and committing to providing $100 billion annually to developing countries so that those countries can fulfill their obligations in this framework. Because developing countries are suffering from the consequences of the climate crisis even though they did not cause that crisis. And he warned – Truly – The repercussions of the climate change crisis will worsen if major countries continue to renounce their international promises and obligations towards developing countries. This is what the state of planet Earth revealed during the last five years.
للمزيد : تابعنا هنا ، وللتواصل الاجتماعي تابعنا علي فيسبوك وتويتر .
