CIVICUS speaks with Dr Elisabeth Stern, board member of KlimaSeniorinnen Switzerland (Senior Women for Climate Protection), a civil society organisation representing older Swiss women who recently won a climate litigation case against Switzerland at the European Court of Human Rights.
Why did you sue the Swiss government?
Our group, KlimaSeniorinnen, made up of over 2,500 Swiss women aged 64 and over, filed a lawsuit against the Swiss state for doing far too little to respond to the current climate disaster.
Rising temperatures are causing extreme heatwaves with health consequences that kill thousands of people every year. Compared to the rest of the population, we older women are significantly more at risk of illness and death from heatwaves. These high temperatures have a major impact on our physical and mental health. We don’t think the government is doing enough to reduce the use of fossil fuels that are largely responsible for these increases.
On 29 March 2023, our complaint reached the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, which assessed whether Switzerland must do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to protect the human rights of its citizens.
We argued that by failing to address global warming adequately, Switzerland has violated our rights to life and to private and family life. These rights are guaranteed by articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which our country ratified in 1974. We argued that Switzerland should do more to keep global warming under the target set by the Paris Agreement of 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels.
There is no explicit mention of climate change or climate protection in the Convention, because in 1946 nobody was worried about climate change. However, the Court accepted our interpretation. In a landmark decision, on 9 April 2024 the Grand Chamber of the Court ruled in our favour.
What did the ruling say?
The judges agreed that the Swiss authorities hadn’t acted in time to come up with a good enough strategy to reduce emissions, and that by failing to take adequate measures to combat escalating global warming, they had violated the human rights of older women. In particular, the court found a violation of article 8, which guarantees the right to private and family life. The Court also granted our association victim status.
This ruling is incredibly important. Its most profound effect is the recognition of climate protection as a fundamental human right. This is exactly what we asked and hoped for.
Why did you take your case to a regional court?
Our legal journey began in November 2016, when we first demanded that the Swiss Federal Council, the Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications, and the Federal Offices for the Environment and Energy take more decisive action on climate change. But our request was rejected on the grounds that there hadn’t been any interference with our personal rights.
We tried again in May 2017, taking the case to the next highest court, the Federal Administrative Court. But we were rejected again in 2018. This time it was on the grounds that we were not specifically or differently affected, as all people are impacted on by climate change to some degree.
We didn’t give up and tried one last time, taking our case to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in the hope of a different outcome. But in May 2020, we were rejected once again. The court said no fundamental rights were affected to the extent that we needed to defend ourselves under the Federal Administrative Procedure Act.
Our national courts rejected our claims three times. No one considered us older women to be more affected by climate change than everyone else. The judges didn’t even look at the substance of our complaint. They thought we didn’t have the right to complain so they didn’t listen to us.
That’s why, on 26 November 2020, we applied to the ECHR, which not only heard us, but gave priority to our application. In their ruling, the judges acknowledged we hadn’t been given adequate access to justice to bring the case before our national courts.
How was your case different from other climate lawsuits that have reached the ECHR?
Our application was one of three climate cases brought before the 17-member Grand Chamber. The other two were Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Other States and Carême v. France.
In the Portuguese case, children and young people argued that, because of their age, they would suffer greater climate harm than previous generations. Forest fires and smoke caused by climate change threaten their right to life and discriminate against them because of their age. The court didn’t accept their case because they didn’t take legal action against the government in Portugal. We in contrast first tried every legal avenue available to us in Switzerland.
The French case was brought by Damien Carême, a member of the European Parliament. He argued that France’s inadequate action on climate change violated his rights to life, privacy and family life because the town of Grand-Synthe, where he was mayor when he sued, was at risk of flooding. The court did not accept the case because Carême no longer lives in the place affected by the problems he raised.
Do you think the decision in your case could set a positive legal precedent?
Yes, absolutely. This ruling marks the first time a climate case was heard by the Grand Chamber, with the ECHR holding public hearings to assess a state’s obligations regarding greenhouse gas emissions and the protection of human rights. It represents an acknowledgment that climate change has become not only the greatest threat to humanity, but an increasing threat to human rights as well.
The implications of this ruling go beyond Switzerland. It sets a precedent for the other 46 states in the Council of Europe. Any group filing a complaint can now refer to this landmark decision. Domestic courts will be able to apply the precedent set by the ECHR, and if they fail to do so, it could lead to appeals from any of the other 46 countries.
And the impact is not limited to the public sphere. It could also affect businesses. Corporate leaders around the world fear that they too could be held accountable for their inaction and environmental damage. All in all, the ECHR ruling is a milestone in the global fight against climate change.
Civic space in Switzerland is rated ‘open’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with KlimaSeniorinnen Switzerland through its website or Facebook page, and follow @KlimaSeniorin on Twitter.
