Credit Suisse Protesters Trials

In November 2018, climate activists wearing sports clothes and wigs simultaneously staged tennis matches in local branches of Credit Suisse in Lausanne, Basel and Geneva to protest the bank's fossil fuel investments and pressure tennis star Roger Federer to end his sponsorship arrangement with the institution. Whereas in Geneva and Basel the activists got away with it, the activists from the collective “Lausanne Action Climat” were charged with trespassing and fined 21,600 Swiss Francs ($22,000) on the grounds of unlawful entry (art. 186 CC), prevention of an official act (art. 286 CC) and various violations of local police reglementation. January 13, 2020, Judge Philippe Colelough concluded on appeal that the activists had acted proportionately to the imminence of climate danger and waived the fine. He wrote, "Because of the insufficient measures taken to date in Switzerland, whether they be economic or political, the average warming will not diminish nor even stabilize, it will increase," the judge explained. "In view of this, the tribunal considers that the imminence of danger is established. . . . The act for which they were incriminated was a necessary and proportional means to achieve the goal they sought." The acquittal was overturned by the Swiss Court of Appeals in Renens on September 22, 2020. The Court convicted the defendants and ordered them to pay fines of up to 150 francs ($160). The Court reasoned that although the danger from climate change is imminent, the protesters could have used other means to protest against the bank and had thus violated the absolute subsidiarity principle. The third instance confirmed in substance the cantonal judges’ decision. In a ruling that is shaping other criminal trials of Swiss climate activists to this day, the court opposed the application of a state of necessity to the case, arguing that climate change could not be understood as an “imminent danger” in the sense of the law, nor that it threatened the individual legal assets of the activists. The judges also dismissed the application of articles 10 & 11 CEDH (freedoms of expression and assembly) since the protest took place on private property of the bank. After this key decision by the Supreme Court, further appeals and counterappeals have been exchanged between activists and their lawyers, and the prosecution. Essentially, the parties have been in disagreement as to whether the activists had hindered the police during the evacuation and whether the protest was protected under Art. 10 and 11 (freedom of expression and assembly) of the ECHR or not. As of the time of writing, the case is pending before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, where the activists are challenging the Swiss government on the ground of the violation of their fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly.