Swiss women win landmark climate victory at European Court of Human Rights

Court finds in favour of group of older Swiss women who claimed inaction on the climate crisis by their government put them at greater risk of death from heatwaves

Members of Swiss association Senior Women for Climate Protection react after the ruling (Getty)

Europe’s highest human rights court has ruled that its member nations have an obligation to protect their citizens from the effects of the climate crisis in a landmark ruling.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) sided with more than 2,000 Swiss members of Senior Women for Climate Protection, who had argued that their government’s inadequate efforts to combat climate change put them at risk of dying during heatwaves.

Court president Siofra O’Leary said the Swiss government had violated the human right to a private and family life, by failing to put in place sufficient domestic policies to tackle climate change.

“This included a failure to quantify, through a carbon budget or otherwise, national greenhouse gas emissions limitations,” president O’Leary told the courtroom. She also noted the Swiss government had failed to meet its past greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, by not putting in place measures to ensure the goals were achieved.

One of the Senior Women for Climate Protection’s leaders, Rosmarie Wydler-Walti, said she was struggling to grasp the full extent of the decision. “We keep asking our lawyers, ‘Is that right?’. And they tell us ‘it’s the most you could have had. The biggest victory possible’.”

“This ruling is not just a victory for the Senior Women for Climate Protection. Our victory is a victory for all generations,” she added in a statement.

The Federal Office of Justice, which represents the Swiss government at the court, has taken note of the ruling, the government said, adding: “Together with the authorities concerned, we will now analyse the extensive judgment and review what measures Switzerland will take in the future.”

The European court’s decision on the case could have a ripple effect across Europe and beyond, setting a precedent for how some courts deal with the rising tide of climate litigation argued on the basis of human rights infringements.

Swedish climate campaigner Greta Thunberg after the verdict (Reuters)

Although activists have had successes with lawsuits in domestic proceedings, this was the first time an international court ruled on climate change.

However, the court threw out a high-profile case brought by six Portuguese youngsters aimed at forcing countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A case brought by a French mayor similarly seeking stronger government efforts to combat climate change was also defeated.

Those involved in bringing the three cases had hoped the Strasbourg court would find that national governments have a legal duty to make sure global warming is held to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, in line with the goals of the Paris climate agreement.

“I really hoped that we would win against all the countries, so obviously I’m disappointed that this didn’t happen,” said 19-year-old Sofia Oliveira, one of the Portuguese plaintiffs. “But the most important thing is that the court has said in the Swiss women’s case that governments must cut their emissions more to protect human rights. So, their win is a win for us, too, and a win for everyone!”

In reference to its fundamental Convention of Human Rights, “the court found that Art. 8 of the Convention encompasses a right for individuals to effective protection by the state authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on their lives, health, well-being and quality of life”.

Judgments from the ECHR set a legal precedent against which future lawsuits would be judged in the Council of Europe’s 46 member states.

Protesters hold pennants during a rally before the ECHR’s decision (Getty)

“This is a turning point,” said Corina Heri, an expert in climate change litigation at the University of Zurich. She said Tuesday’s decision confirms for the first time that countries have an obligation to protect people from the effects of climate change and will open the door to more legal challenges.

Ahead of the ruling, a large crowd gathered in front of the court building to cheer and wave flags, including climate activist Greta Thunberg.

The decisions have “the potential to be a watershed moment in the global fight for a livable future. A victory for any of the three cases would be one of the most significant developments on climate change since the signing of the Paris Agreement” said Gerry Liston, a lawyer with the Global Legal Action Network, which is supporting the Portuguese students.

The European Union, which doesn’t include Switzerland, currently has a target to be climate-neutral by 2050. Many governments have said that meeting a 2030 goal would be economically unattainable.

The group of Swiss retirees, whose average age is 74, say older women’s rights are especially infringed on because they are most affected by the extreme heat that will become more frequent due to global warming.

Earth shattered global annual heat records in 2023, flirted with the world’s agreed-upon warming threshold, and showed more signs of a feverish planet, Copernicus, a European climate agency, said in January.

In all three cases, lawyers argued that the political and civil protections guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights are meaningless if the planet is uninhabitable.

Switzerland is not alone in being affected by global warming, said Alain Chablais, representative for the country at last year’s hearings. “This problem cannot be solved by Switzerland alone.”

Acknowledging the urgency of the climate crisis, the court fast-tracked all three cases, including a rare move allowing the Portuguese case to bypass domestic legal proceedings.

AP