In a recent judgment by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, the Court found a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 6 & 1 (access to court) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case involved a complaint by four women and an association, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, regarding the Swiss government’s inadequate action to address the effects of climate change. The Court ruled that while the individual applicants did not meet the victim-status criteria, the association had the right to bring a complaint on behalf of those affected by climate change.

The Court found that Switzerland failed to fulfill its obligations under the Convention concerning climate change, including gaps in the regulatory framework and failure to meet emission reduction targets. It criticized the Swiss authorities for not acting promptly or appropriately in implementing relevant legislation and measures.

Additionally, the Court held that Swiss courts had not adequately addressed the association’s complaints regarding the implementation of mitigation measures. They had not considered the compelling scientific evidence on climate change and had not taken the complaints seriously.

Principal Facts

• The applicants include Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, an association representing over 2,000 older women, and four individual women, all aged over 80, who suffer health issues exacerbated during heat waves due to climate change.
• In November 2016, they submitted a request to Swiss authorities highlighting climate protection failings and urging action to meet the 2030 goals of the Paris climate agreement.
• The request was declared inadmissible by the Federal Department of the Environment, stating the applicants pursued general interests, not direct impacts.
• Appeals to the Federal Administrative Court and the Federal Supreme Court were dismissed, with authorities contending the applicants were not directly affected by the alleged failings in terms of their rights.
• The Federal Supreme Court also questioned the standing of the applicant association, leaving it uncertain whether it had the right to appeal.

Complaints

• The applicants alleged failures by Swiss authorities to mitigate the effects of climate change, negatively impacting their lives, living conditions, and health.
• They claimed the Swiss Confederation violated their rights under Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention by failing to introduce suitable legislation and measures to combat climate change.
• The applicants also argued a lack of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, stating domestic courts did not adequately respond to their requests concerning the State’s inaction on climate change.
• Lastly, they alleged a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), asserting no effective domestic remedy was available to submit their complaints.

Timeline

• The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 26 November 2020.
• The Swiss Government was notified of the application on 17 March 2021, with questions from the Court, and the case was granted priority.
• The case was initially allocated to a Chamber but later relinquished jurisdiction in favor of the Grand Chamber on 26 April 2022.
• The President of the Court assigned the case to the same composition of the Grand Chamber as other related cases in December 2024.
• Several governments and organizations intervened in the written and oral proceedings.

Composition of the Court

• The Grand Chamber consisted of a specific composition assigned by the President of the Court, including judges from various countries.
• Governments of Austria, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Norway, Portugal, Romania, and Slovakia intervened in the written proceedings.
• The Government of Ireland and the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) were granted leave to intervene orally.
• A public hearing was conducted on 29 March 2023.

Key Points from the Court’s Decision

• The Court recognized its role in enforcing human rights within the scope of the Convention concerning the effects of climate change on human rights.
• It acknowledged the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change and its serious threats to human rights, emphasizing the urgency for action to limit temperature rise.
• While global efforts are insufficient, States are capable of addressing climate change effectively, with the failure to do so posing significant risks to current and future generations.
• The Court outlined criteria for establishing victim status in climate change cases, emphasizing the need for individuals to demonstrate direct and personal harm from governmental actions or inactions.
• Individual applicants must show a high intensity of exposure to adverse climate effects and a pressing need for individual protection, with a high threshold for establishing victim status.
• Despite the Court finding the individual applicants did not meet the victim-status criteria, it recognized the right of associations to bring cases concerning climate change on behalf of affected individuals.
• Associations must meet specific conditions to act on behalf of individuals and lodge complaints against States for inadequate climate measures.
• In this case, the applicant association met the criteria and had standing to act on behalf of its members, with Article 8 of the Convention applicable to its complaint.