[ad_1]
In Geneva, a climate activist was acquitted in the second instance after smearing the facade of a Credit Suisse branch with red hands. The appeals court considered given the justifying emergency.
The Geneva climate activist from the B Breakfastree Switzerland collective has been acquitted in the second instance.
(sda) In Geneva, a 23-year-old climate activist who stained a Credit Suisse (CS) building with red paint in 2018 was acquitted in the second instance. The cantonal court of Geneva recognized on Wednesday the “justifying emergency” of the action.
This judgment is not a blank check for other property damage, emphasized the president of the court, Gaëlle Von Hove. The Court of Appeals considers that the activist cannot be held responsible for the fault of the other participants in the action of October 18, 2018, in which they put their hands covered with red paint in the bank building to denounce the investments of CS in fossil fuels. Report of fuels. The 23-year-old activist, a former agronomy student, had used washable paint.
The Geneva cantonal court also held that the man confessed to his act, faced his responsibility and did not act with the aim of destruction. He wanted to get the bank’s attention so he could review its massive investments in fossil fuels to protect his life and limb, which are threatened by global warming. The B Breakfastree Switzerland collective has tried again and again since 2016 to get CS to react.
Role of the financial center
For the court, the “Red Hands” campaign fully corresponds to the measures advocated by the Federal Council to reduce CO2 emissions and its fears that an investment strategy harmful to the climate could pose a reputational risk for the financial center. However, CS’s official position did not correspond to the bank’s specific investment practice. Since the activist had no assets, he could not act as a customer or shareholder.
The court referred to an article in the French-speaking Swiss newspaper “Le Temps” and concluded that actions such as this one in Geneva or the one in Lausanne, in which twelve climate activists were recently convicted in the second instance eight months after their acquittal, could not be in vain. Has been. In 2019, Credit Suisse took on its role in global warming and scaled down its troubled investments.
Listen to the youth
The acquitted activist reacted relieved to the verdict and added: “Suddenly it seems that you are listening to young people.” The Judiciary recognized that the demonstrations and petitions against the financial giants were not enough.
The activist’s defender, Laïla Batou, welcomed the verdict and stated: “The judges have assumed their responsibility as a third power.” The Geneva Court of Appeal found that authorities did not take enough action against climate change in 2018 to be able to lean on politics or civil society, said Batou, who, as part of a collective of lawyers, also defends the climate movement in the case of Lausanne.
It is possible to appeal to federal court
The prosecution and the bank now have 30 days to appeal the acquittal in federal court. In February, the activist was sentenced by the Geneva Police Court in the first instance for material damage to a conditional fine of ten daily rates of 30 francs each. In addition, the man had been charged the cleaning costs of 2,250 francs demanded by the bank and the court fees.
The Federal Supreme Court is likely to have the final say in various climate trials. In the case of the twelve climate activists in the canton of Vaud, the defense has already announced an appeal.
The twelve Vaud climate activists were shockingly acquitted in January in the first instance by a single judge. However, on September 24, the Cantonal Court of Vaud annulled this acquittal.
The twelve activists were convicted by the Vaud Cantonal Court of passing to conditional fines and fines of between 100 and 150 francs for playing tennis at a Credit Suisse branch in Lausanne in November 2018 to denounce the bank’s investments in fossil fuels. Unlike the first instance, the appeals court ruled that the activists did not act on the basis of a “justifying state of emergency”.
