The European Court of Human Rights rules against a country (Switzerland) for the first time for not adopting the necessary measures to meet its climate goals

On April 9, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) published its judgment on the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen and Others v. Switzerland case, which rules against a state for the first time for not sufficiently protecting its citizens from the effects of climate change.

The complaint, which was filed by an association of more than 2,000 women over the age of 65, accused the Swiss  government and its Federal Office for the environment of not having adopted a climate change policy consistent with its aim of keeping temperatures below 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels.

The association considered that the government’s failure to act  to achieve the goals set in the Paris Agreement had violated the right to respect for private and family life, given that frequent and intense heat waves had affected the health of its members.

The plaintiffs’ strategy in the Swiss courts consisted of trying to evidence that, because their age made them more vulnerable to the consequences of climate change, the government’s inaction had had a particular impact on them. However, the Swiss courts rejected their claims at the various levels of jurisdiction on the grounds that what the association truly sought was  a public interest complaint.

Once the case moved to Strasbourg, the ECtHR acknowledged that the characteristics of the subject matter allowed associations to file complaints as this one proas long as they were not general public-interest complaints (actio popularis). The ECtHR considered that this condition had been fulfilled in this specific case because the association represented people who could be more sensitive to climate change. Furthermore, the ECtHR considered that by not providing a sufficient rationale for not admitting the complaint, the Swiss courts had violated the right to a fair trial under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In examining the merits of the case, the ECtHR considered that article 8 of the Convention grants citizens the right to protection against the adverse effects that climate change may have on their lives, health, well-being and quality of life, and that States have the duty to adopt and implement measures which mitigate such effects, notwithstanding the wide margin of discretion they have when doing so.

On that basis, the ECtHR considered that the Swiss authorities had significantly breached their climate commitments, for example, by not including in their domestic regulation a key aspect such as the carbon budget, or by failing to meet their emission reduction targets; meaning, in short, that they had violated article 8 of the Convention.

Accordingly, under article 46 of the Convention, the ECtHR ordered Switzerland to take the necessary measures in its domestic law to put an end to this infringement, albeit without prejudging the specific content of such measures.

The ECtHR’s decision sets a very important precedent for climate litigation by establishing a new interpretation on the scope of the right to respect for private and family life which should be binding on the member states of the Council of Europe. It will therefore be necessary to wait and see how this may influence in prospective national court’s decisions on any similar cases that may arise.