The recent landmark decision is a significant development in international environmental law. The case started in 2016 with a complaint from the Senior Women for Climate Protection Switzerland (KlimaSeniorinnen). This association of older women argued that the Swiss authorities are not taking sufficient measures to meet the Paris Agreement goals. To strengthen their legal standing and back up their claims, the association emphasised the vulnerability of older women to heat waves. The Swiss courts had rejected the complaint on procedural grounds, causing the association to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in 2020.

No objections in proceedings

Since the KlimaSeniorinnen had exhausted all local remedies (unlike Duarte Agostinho v. Portugal) and maintained a connection to the location where the impact of climate change was claimed to take place (unlike Careme v. France), the Court found no jurisdictional or procedural objections.

This meant that the Court recognised the standing of associations to bring cases on behalf of their members without needing to demonstrate that each member was individually affected. At the same time, the Court set a high threshold for individuals to qualify as victims of the impact of climate change. This was also to avoid everyone bringing a claim in vindication of public interest. To qualify, individuals have to show they were personally and significantly affected by climate change, marked by a critical need for protection due to inadequate government measures.

A tricky match

The Court ruled that Switzerland’s inadequate climate policy infringed upon the right to life (Article 2 ECHR) and the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 ECHR). The combination of climate protection and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was considered a ‘tricky match’, but this case proved to be a clear indication of the growing trend of judicial action to compel states to address climate change effectively.

Urgent need to strengthen climate policy

This ruling highlights the urgent need for Switzerland, other members of the Council of Europe, and states around the world, to strengthen their climate change mitigation efforts in line with international human rights standards. However, it also underscores the role of domestic courts in addressing climate-related grievances.

Decision highlights Swiss climate law failures

The ECtHR’s ruling highlights the shortcomings in Swiss climate legislation. Despite Switzerland’s 2011 ‘CO2 Act’ and the Climate and Innovation Act, the Court concluded that these measures required amendment to protect citizens’ rights under Article 8 ECHR sufficiently. The Court found that the Swiss government had failed to address climate change adequately, missing previous greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets and not setting clear national GHG emission limits. Additionally, the ECtHR ruled that Switzerland had violated the right to a fair hearing under Article 6(1) ECHR because its courts did not properly consider scientific evidence on climate change.

More strict climate obligations

The Court introduced a five-step test to assess compliance, emphasising the importance of ‘national carbon budgets’ in climate policy as a core element, not just as a measurement tool. It commended EU legislation (despite Switzerland not being part of the EU) for implementing this concept in the European Climate Law and advocating its more comprehensive application. The notion of equal global emissions per capita within this framework emerged as a guiding principle. According to Judge Eicke, the Court now holds states to stricter climate obligations, allowing less leeway in setting goals but maintaining flexibility in implementation, which the Court will supervise. He expressed that he simultaneously agreed with the need for urgent action to address climate change, but disagreed with this new duty for the Court since there were concerns regarding the separation of powers.

Decision puts pressure on legislation

This decision is significant because it underscores the importance of robust climate laws and the necessity for courts to take scientific evidence seriously in climate litigation. The Swiss government’s failure to set emission limits and meet reduction targets, and the domestic courts’ failure to consider compelling scientific evidence were the inadequacies that prompted the Court to underscore strict climate obligations and ensure effective legislative and judicial responses to climate change. For Switzerland, this means it must revise its climate laws, extend emission targets beyond 2024 and ensure its courts adequately address climate change issues.

A quick look at the future

The result of the case is not just the recognition of positive obligations under the ECHR to combat climate change, but a potential game-changer in the field of climate change litigation. The case could spark increased litigation, enabling groups to hold their governments accountable under the ECHR for failing to meet climate change obligations. As the ECtHR’s decisions are binding on its Member States, this ruling is considered ‘a vital new precedent’, which means that national courts within these jurisdictions will need to consider it when adjudicating domestic cases related to climate change. This could harmonise climate litigation standards across Europe.