Five people between the ages of 17 and 31, who have experienced catastrophic floods, forest fires and hurricanes, are appealing to the European Court of Human Rights to argue that their governments are members of the little-known Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), a dangerous barrier. for action on the climate crisis. This is the first time the Strasbourg court has been asked to consider the treaty, a secret investor court system that allows fossil fuel companies to sue governments for lost profits. “It cannot be that the fossil fuel industry is still more protected by our human rights,” said Julia, a 17-year-old high school student from Germany who said she took part in the legal challenge after the deadly floods. in its area of origin, the Ahr Valley, last July. She and her parents had to leave their home when the floodwaters came. Recalling the flight with the water around her hips, she said: “It was really scary and going through the water felt like I was losing ground under my feet.” The floods killed at least 222 people in Germany and Belgium. “That is why I decided to take part in this legal action, to fight against the energy charter treaty that continues to protect the fuel industry.” The plaintiffs are suing 12 ECHR Member States, including France, Germany and the United Kingdom, for hosting companies that were active users of the ECT Statute. German energy company RWE is suing the Netherlands for 1.4 billion euros (2 1.2 billion) over its plans to phase out coal. The UK-based Rockhopper Exploration is suing the Italian government after banning new drilling off the coast. The plaintiffs allege that joining the ECT infringes the right to life (Article 2) and the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case comes as the ECT is subject to increasing scrutiny. The treaty – which has about 55 member states, including the EU states, the United Kingdom and Japan – has been described as a real threat to the Paris Agreement. could allow companies to sue governments for about 1.3 trillion euros by 2050 as compensation for the premature closure of coal, oil and gas plants. Activists and informants say these huge sums would block the green transition, while time is running out to stay within the 1.5 C. global warming limit. The legal action comes as a letter to EU leaders from 76 climate scientists seen by the Guardian says continued protection of fossil fuel investors under ECT rules will prevent the closure of fossil fuel plants or provide huge compensation if they continue to do so. the shutdowns. “Both options will jeopardize the EU’s goal of climate neutrality and the EU Green Pact,” the letter said, calling on the current French EU presidency to work for the withdrawal of member states from the treaty. In these days of climate and energy struggles, the EU ‘s climate leadership needs more than ever to’ make our planet beautiful again ‘. ECT members will meet again later this week to discuss the “modernization” of the 1994 treaty. The European Commission, which is negotiating on behalf of the 27 EU Member States, the end of 2040. Campaigners said it was too late or too late and that a compromise proposal believed to be designed to reassure countries seeking to protect fossil fuel investors, such as Japan, was to blame. “The options being discussed are too weak to make the ECT compatible with the Paris Agreement or EU law,” said Cornelia Maarfield, Senior Trade and Investment Policy Coordinator at Climate Action Network Europe. Subscribe to the First Edition, our free daily newsletter – every morning at 7 p.m. BST France, Germany, Poland and Spain have already commissioned the Commission to consider how the EU could pull out of the ECT amid skepticism that the treaty may ever be compatible with EU climate targets, according to documents. leaked posted on the Euractiv website last month. The ECT Secretariat, based in Brussels, argues that the ECT does not favor fossil fuels and supports the rule of law for investors. Activists have denied the allegations. “We do not claim that they are violating international law,” Maarfield said. “Even in the ECT there is a withdrawal clause. Therefore, there is absolutely no violation of the law to withdraw from an agreement, according to the rules set out in this agreement. And the ECT withdrawal process is very easy. “
