Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland - Other

Litigation

Sabin

Sabin Litigation

application

Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland - application

order

Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland - order

reply

Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland - reply

petition

Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland - petition

judgment

Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland - judgment

press release

Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland - press release

decision

Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland - decision

Filing Year For Action

For a summary of the Swiss case, see <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/union-of-swiss-senior-women-for-climate-protection-v-swiss-federal-parliament/">here</a>.

After having exhausted all national remedies available, with the final decision from the Swiss Supreme Court communicated to the parties in May 2020, on November 26, 2020 an association of senior women (Senior Women for Climate Protection Switzerland) took the Swiss government to the European Court of Human Rights because their health is threatened by heat waves made worse by the climate crisis. They also requested the case to be treated under the expenditure procedure pursuant to Article 41 of the Rules of the Court.

The application listed three main complaints: Switzerland's inadequate climate policies violate the women's right life and health under Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR; the Swiss Federal Supreme Court's rejected their case on arbitrary grounds, in violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 6; and the Swiss authorities and courts did not deal with the content of their complaints, in violation of the right to an effective remedy in Article 13.

The ECtHR preliminary accepted the case and communicated it to the Swiss government on March 25, 2021. The ECtHR gave the case priority status and called on Switzerland to submit a response by July 16, 2021, which was timely filed.

On September 21, 2021, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the Swiss Section of the ICJ submitted a third-party intervention providing observations on the effects of climate change on the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life and for the home and the positive obligations of States resulting from these rights, in light of principles of international environmental law, among other issues. The European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHR) also submitted a third-party intervention.

On October 13, 2021, the petitioner replied to the Swiss government's response to the ECtHR, arguing that the Swiss government failed to protect the Applicants' rights to life and private life under Arts. 2 and 8 ECHR, by failing to adopt the necessary legislative and administrative framework to do its share to prevent a global temperature increase of more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

On April 26, 2022, the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights relinquished jurisdiction in favor of the Grand Chamber of the Court. The case is now going to be examined by the ECtHR's Grand Chamber of 17 judges on account of the fact that the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention (Art 30 ECHR). 

On December 2, 2022, the applicants submitted a petition highlighting observations on the facts, admissibility and the merits. On December 5, 2022, several organizations, including the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, submitted third party interventions to the case. Hearings were held in March 2023. 

On April 9, 2024, the European Court found a violation of the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8) and access to court (Article 6 § 1). The Court found that Article 8 of the Convention encompasses a right to effective protection by the State authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on lives, health, well-being and quality of life. The Court found that Switzerland failed to comply with its positive obligations under the Convention concerning climate change, with critical gaps in establishing a relevant domestic regulatory framework, including through a carbon budget or national GHG emissions limitations. Switzerland had also failed to meet its past GHG emission reduction targets.

While recognizing that national authorities enjoy wide discretion concerning the implementation of legislation and measures, the Court held that the Swiss authorities had not acted in time and in an appropriate way to devise, develop, and implement relevant legislation and measures in this case. In addition, the Court found that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applied to the applicant association’s complaint concerning effective implementation of the mitigation measures under existing domestic law.

On March 6, 2025, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe decided that Switzerland is not yet complying with the requirements of the ECtHR judgment in the case of the KlimaSeniorinnen. Switzerland has yet to prove that it is doing enough to align its policy with a maximum global warming limit of 1.5°C.  Specifically, the CMDH  "invited also the authorities to further demonstrate that the methodology used to devise, develop and implement the relevant legislative and administrative framework responds to the Convention requirements as detailed by the Court and relies on a quantification, through a carbon budget or otherwise, of national greenhouse gas emissions limitations"

Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland