KlimaSeniorinnen Judgment: Strasbourg Court Finds Switzerland Breached Climate Duties

According to the Court's press release, the Grand Chamber found that Article 8 encompasses a right to effective protection by the State from the serious adverse effects of climate change on lives, health, well-being and quality of life. The applicant association, whose members are more than 2,000 older women, had standing to bring the complaint. The four individual applicants did not meet the victim-status criteria, and their complaints were declared inadmissible.

Why Switzerland was found in breach

The Court identified critical gaps in the Swiss regulatory framework, including a failure to quantify national greenhouse gas emission limits through a carbon budget or otherwise, and a failure to meet past emission reduction targets. While recognising that national authorities enjoy wide discretion in how they implement legislation and measures, it held that the Swiss authorities had not acted in time and in an appropriate way. On Article 6, it found that the Swiss courts had not given convincing reasons for declining to examine the merits of the association's complaints and had not taken the scientific evidence into account.

The other two climate cases

The same Grand Chamber ruled on two other climate cases the same day, declaring both inadmissible, as explained in the Court's questions and answers. In Carême v. France, the former mayor of Grande-Synthe did not have victim status because he no longer lives there or in France. In Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others, the complaint against Portugal failed because domestic remedies had not been exhausted, and the Court found no basis for extending the other States' extraterritorial jurisdiction.

What the KlimaSeniorinnen judgment means

Grand Chamber judgments are final and are transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which supervises their execution. Switzerland will need to address the gaps the Court identified. For governments across the Council of Europe, the ruling confirms that climate policy can be reviewed under Article 8, and it sets out a route for associations, rather than individuals, to bring such claims. The KlimaSeniorinnen judgment also requires domestic courts to engage seriously with complaints about the implementation of climate measures.

Sources

• European Court of Human Rights: Violations of the European Convention for failing to implement sufficient measures to combat climate change
• European Court of Human Rights: Questions and answers on the three Grand Chamber climate change cases