Why Switzerland’s Conviction Before the ECHR Marks a Historic Turning Point

Members of the Swiss association ‘Aînées pour la protection du climat’ celebrate their victory against the Swiss state before the European Court of Human Rights on April 9, 2024, in Strasbourg, France.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) condemned a state for its inaction on climate change for the first time on Tuesday. This decision will push the 46 member states of the Council of Europe to take concrete action on this issue.

This decision will go down in history. For the first time, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) condemned a state, Switzerland, on Tuesday, April 9, for its climate inaction. Switzerland was sued by the association ‘Aînées pour la protection du climat’, a group of 2,500 Swiss women, all over 65 years old. According to the ruling of the ECHR, the Swiss Confederation failed in its obligations, “by failing to act in a timely and appropriate manner to protect its citizens from the consequences of climate change.” The Court pointed out “serious shortcomings” in Switzerland’s actions, particularly because it failed to quantify national limits applicable to greenhouse gases, responsible for the average rise in temperatures.

In detail, the ECHR ruled that there had been a violation of Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which respectively ensure the right to a fair trial and the respect for private and family life.

While two other complaints – targeting one or more states accused of climate inaction – were declared inadmissible by the European institution, the decision in the Swiss case was greeted with enthusiasm by environmental activists. “This is just the beginning of climate litigation,” warned Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, who came to Strasbourg to support the plaintiffs.

Because this ruling reflects a “change of scale”

For jurist Christel Cournil, a public law professor specializing in climate litigation, Switzerland’s conviction before the ECHR marks “a change of scale.” Over the past decade, climate activists have learned to use legal tools to hold states accountable for their commitments. Across the world, national courts have been seized with new “climate litigation,” sometimes pushing governments to increase the ambitions of their climate-related legislation, as in Germany or the Netherlands.

In France, the Administrative Court of Paris condemned France twice in 2021, finding the state responsible for shortcomings in its commitments, following a complaint from NGOs Notre Affaire à tous, as well as the French branches of Greenpeace and Oxfam. However, transitioning from the national level to a regional court (European in this case) confirms “that the climate cause can be heard at this level of jurisdiction, legitimately,” notes Christel Cournil. “There are six other cases coming before the ECHR soon, some similar to the case brought by the Swiss elders’ association,” she notes.

Because the ECHR demands concrete actions from states

Jurist by training and former president of the NGO Notre Affaire à tous, Marie Toussaint welcomes what she calls “an unprecedented and revolutionary reading of the European Convention on Human Rights,” even though it “currently does not contain explicit provisions relating to the environment and climate.”

“Revolutionary” and “historic,” this ruling is nonetheless “measured,” says lawyer Arnaud Gossement, an associate professor at the University of Paris 1. This specialist in environmental and energy law considers the recognition of individuals’ right to effective protection by states against climate change, under Article 8 of the convention, as “fundamental.” He points out on the social network X that the decision of the ECHR “shows the obvious concern of the Court not to open the floodgates of litigation.”

The Court did not recognize the specificities related to the age and gender of the plaintiffs, who argued that they were more vulnerable to the effects of climate change as elderly women, some of whom suffered from chronic illnesses. Arnaud Gossement also emphasizes that requests brought by individuals were all rejected, as were those emanating from plaintiffs who had not previously exhausted all possible remedies before turning to the ECHR.

However, the lawyer notes that under this ruling, the Court asserts that “every state must go beyond mere objectives [in terms of combating climate change and adaptation] but must develop comprehensive legislation on the means to achieve them.”

Switzerland, ordered to pay €80,000 to the association for legal costs, now has the “legal obligation to implement this ruling,” said lawyer Alain Chablais, who represented Bern in this novel case. Although, according to him, “it will take some time to determine what measures will be taken” by the Swiss government to address its responsibilities.

Because it serves as a warning for all member states of the Council of Europe

Although the ECHR dismissed the request of the former mayor of Grande-Synthe (North) Damien Carême, he nevertheless welcomed the fact that “the decision that has just been made (…) will set a precedent that will put particular pressure on the states.” This optimism is shared by young Portuguese people whose complaint was also deemed inadmissible by the European court on Tuesday.

“The most important thing is that the Court considered, in the case of the Swiss women, that states must further reduce their emissions to defend human rights,” reacted one of the plaintiffs, 19-year-old Sofia Oliveira, to AFP. “Their victory is therefore a victory for us and a victory for everyone,” she enthused.

And for good reason: any decision of the ECHR applies in the 46 member states of the Council of Europe. As for the next steps? “The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe will be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the court decision,” explains jurist Christel Cournil. “There will be a dialogue with the Council of Europe, the Council of Ministers, and the government, which must now take note of this decision,” she summarizes.

The future looks eventful. Although the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ), which represents the Swiss government before the ECHR, has stated that it “takes note of the judgment of the Grand Chamber,” Switzerland’s largest party, the UDC (radical right), has called for Switzerland to leave the Council of Europe. “The judges in Strasbourg did not even take into account the fact that Switzerland is exemplary in reducing CO2 emissions,” it argued.

Because this ruling reflects a “change of scale”

Because the ECHR demands concrete actions from states

Because it serves as a warning for all member states of the Council of Europe

Related Links