{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024051803885291396, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.880434782608695, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Playing Second Fiddle to the Aarhus Convention: Why the ECtHR Can and Should Go Further


 The European Convention of Human Rights (echr) does not contain any provisions oriented towards environmental rights. Yet, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has a tradition of steering that instrument towards more substantial environmental protections. Often inspired by the Aarhus Convention (ac), Strasbourg seems intent on infusing the echr with environmental concerns, but appears to view its role as secondary. Through an analysis of the Court’s case-law, we argue that the ECtHR can and should stop playing second fiddle to Aarhus; it is time for it to embrace its crucial role in implementing the procedural rights enshrined in the ac. This article also outlines the different ways that the jurisprudence of the ECtHR already goes, in some respects, far beyond the ac. We will discuss whether the ECtHR is living up to its potential when it comes to promoting environmental rights – particularly the potential to establish substantive rights, e.g. in the field of clean air.