Swiss “Senior Women for Climate Protection” Win Major Climate Case
On 9 April 2024 the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg delivered a landmark judgement in this extremely important climate case: Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland
2,000 Swiss women, mainly in their 70s, brought a claim against the Swiss government based on the infringement of their rights under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). They argued that:
Switzerland’s climate policies violated their rights to life and health under Articles 2 and 8 ECHR;
Swiss Federal Supreme Court’s arbitrary rejection of their case violated their right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR;
Switzerland’s authorities provided them with no effective remedy, contrary to Article 13 ECHR.
Essentially, the Plaintiffs argued that factors such as climate-induced heatwaves threatened their health and quality of life, and put them at risk of dying. Their government’s failure to address these issues adequately breached their human rights under the Convention.
The Court HELD that Article 8 ECHR encompasses a “right to effective protection by State authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on lives, health, well-being and quality of life”. It also found a breach of Article 6.
Critical gaps in Switzerland’s response included the absence of a carbon budget, past failures to meet climate targets and inadequate greenhouse gas limitations.
There is no right of appeal, and the judgement is legally binding.
Significance
The real significance of the case is the example that its sets for other jurisdictions. It is directly applicable to other countries which are parties of the ECHR, but it will be noted as a significant precedent around the world, as increasingly important climate cases are studied, and key principles applied, across multiple jurisdictions.
Indian Supreme Court Rules on Historic Climate Case
Read our blog here
For example, it is very interesting to see the use of very similar language by the Supreme Court of India in another recent case M.K. Ranjitsinh & Others v Union of India which we reporting on in a separate blog.
In the Ranjitsinh case, the Supreme Court of India has expanded the interpretation of the “right to life” guaranteed by the Indian Constitution to include the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change. In doing so, it took full account of developments in international climate change litigation and human rights cases.
This ECtHR judgement matters therefore, both as an expression of a significant reading of general human rights laws where these apply, but also as a pointer to interpretation of relevant provisions in national constitutions.
Predictably, the case has been warmly welcomed by those concerned to see protection of the environment and effective action on climate change, and criticised by a few populist politicians with an axe to grind about the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, and sceptics about the need to progress towards net zero emissions of greenhouse gases.
Other cases
In the same session, the European Court of Human Rights ruled against the admissibility of two further claims:
Careme v France
A human rights climate challenge by a French mayor was ruled inadmissible on the grounds that he had moved and no longer lived in the place about which his claim was based; and
Duarte, Agostinho & Ors v Portugal
A human rights challenge brought by 6 young Portuguese plaintiffs, on similar grounds to the Klima Seniorrinnen against the inadequacy of climate policies in 32 European countries. This was ruled inadmissible on the grounds that the plaintiffs had not exhausted all legal avenues in their national courts, and the Court ruled against the extension of their claim to countries other than Portugal.