Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland

Last updated
KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland
Klimademo Bern 15.jpg
KlimaSeniorinnen demonstration in 2015
Court European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber
Full case nameVerein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland
Decided9 April 2024
Citation(s)[2024] ECHR 304, 53600/20
Keywords
Climate damage, state duties

Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland (2024) was a landmark [1] European Court of Human Rights case in which the court ruled that Switzerland violated the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to adequately address climate change. It is the first climate change litigation in which an international court has ruled that state inaction violates human rights. [2]

Contents

Background

Climate change in Switzerland

As part of its effort to fight climate change caused by carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, in 2011 Switzerland passed the Federal Act on the Reduction of CO2 Emissions, more commonly called the CO2 Act, which came into force at the start of 2013. The CO2 Act, as enacted, set a target of a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions over 1990 levels by 2020. Several amendments were since added to the CO2 Act, including in response to the Paris Agreement in 2015, with a future target of 50% reductions in emissions compared to 1990 levels by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. [3]

To achieve this, Switzerland primarily worked with the European Union to engage with the established European Union Emissions Trading System (ETS), using "cap and trade" emissions trading; policy makers establish emissions caps for companies based on their industry and size. Companies that exceed their emissions allowances are fined, which is meant as an incentive to drive the company to reduce emissions in the future. Companies that fall under their emissions caps are allowed to trade their unrealized emissions on the ETS for financial profit, with companies that exceed emissions able to buy those credits towards offsetting their own excess. The EU established the ETS for all participating countries within the EU, with the intent to incentivise all emission-generating companies within the EU to participate. The EU ETS system was considered as both a means to reduce emissions under both the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement. [3]

As 2020 approached, the effectiveness of the EU ETS came into question, as the reductions achieved by the system were more modest than projected; from 2008 to 2016, emissions reductions only dropped by 3.8% greater than emissions changes without the ETS in place. Issues such as corporate profiteering off emissions allowances, emission volatility, and political factors were seen as working against the goals of achieving higher emission reductions through the ETS. [3] The Swiss government took little action and the target of a 20% reduction by 2020 failed to be met, with an emissions reduction of only 11% realized by 2019. [1]

State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation was a 2019 landmark case before the Supreme Court of the Netherlands that found the Dutch government at fault for failing to reach its targeted 25% reduction in emissions by 2020, and that established that fighting climate change was considered a human right under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the first such time the ECHR was used in relation to climate change. [3]

Lower courts

Members of KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz at the European Court of Human Rights in April 2023 KlimaSeniorinnen vor dem dem Europaischen Gerichtshof fur Menschenrechte.jpg
Members of KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz at the European Court of Human Rights in April 2023

KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz (Senior Women for Climate Protection) is a group of elderly women in Switzerland, initially formed by a group of 40 in 2016, and having grown to a membership of more than 2,500 as of April 2024. The formation of the group was triggered by concerns that the Swiss government was not taking sufficient action to meet the climate change goals of the CO2 Act, which would lead to warmer temperatures and threaten their health, particularly for their members over 75. [4] [1] [5] They started seeking demands from the Federal Council in late 2016, and with legal backing from Greenpeace, filed lawsuits against the government for their inaction. [5] The lawsuit was dismissed through multiple Swiss courts, including the Federal Supreme Court in 2020, ruling that the women's rights were not impacted and instead they should seek political actions. [6]

European Court of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Switzerland should better implement the legal framework to limit the serious adverse effects of the climate crisis. Courtroom European Court of Human Rights 02.JPG
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Switzerland should better implement the legal framework to limit the serious adverse effects of the climate crisis.

With the Federal Supreme Court's dismissal of their case, KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz took their complaints to the European Court of Human Rights, which has jurisdiction across the member states of the Council of Europe, in 2020. The case was accepted by the Court and assigned to the Grand Chamber, which typically is reserved for the most important issues related to human rights under the ECHR. The lawsuit was the first environmental-related case heard by the Court. [6] [7] Eight other countries – Romania, Latvia, Austria, Slovakia, Norway, Italy, Portugal and Ireland – joined Switzerland's side in seeking dismissal of the case with the intent that individual states should determine their own climate policies. [7]

The Grand Chamber heard arguments on 29 March 2023. [7] The Court issued its decision on 9 April 2024, ruling in favour of the KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz. In its decision, the Court stated that Switzerland failed to protect its citizens from climate change "in good time and in an appropriate and consistent manner", and required the state to reassess and address its climate change goals, with these efforts to be overseen by government representatives from the Council of Europe. [1]

Rosmarie Wydler-Wälti, co-president of the KlimaSeniorinnen, called the ruling "a victory for all generations", while a Swiss federal office of justice stated the country will evaluate the decision and determine what actions they can take. [1] The decision is considered the first decision from an international court emphasizing that climate change endangers human rights; the ruling applies to all states within the Council of Europe. While the ruling is not expected to directly impact other countries such as the United States, where multiple environmental lawsuits have been filed directly at companies, "the idea that climate change impaired fundamental rights resonated throughout these cases", according to Michael Gerrard, a law professor at Columbia Law School. [1]

Reactions

Domestic

The current President of the Swiss Confederation, Viola Amherd, expressed surprise in her first reaction to the judgment. [8] The Federal Department of Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications said that it will inspect the judgement together with the Federal Swiss office for justice. This office additionally stressed the environmental protection undertakings of the past years, including the 2023 Climate and Innovation Act, which provides for a complete phase-out of fossil energy by 2050. [9]

The judgement was widely commented on in Swiss media, with critical reactions dominating domestically. The paper Neue Zürcher Zeitung described the judgement as "absurd" and called for a debate about the "sense and purpose of the European Convention on Human Rights". [10] The paper Blick said that while the judgement was a "sensation", it criticised it as "alienating, possibly even counterproductive". [11] The paper Tages-Anzeiger expressed fears of pressures on democracy if "courts start to determine the course of climate policies". [12] The paper Republik said the decision was "significant", a worldwide precedent. [13]

Reactions from politicians in Switzerland were aligned with the relevant political spectrum. Leftist and green parties, among them the Social Democratic Party [14] and the Green Party, [15] praised the court's decision, calling it "historic". Mattea Meyer, co-head of the Social Democratic Party, described the judgement of "Europe's highest court" as a "slap in the face for the lower house of the Swiss Parliament". The head of the Green Liberal Party, Jürg Grossen, described the judgement as "not surprising", as it is apparently known that politics does too little for the climate. [8] The liberal FDP and the right-wing conservative Swiss People's Party (SVP) were critical of the decision. FDP member of parliament Christian Wasserfallen described the court's decision as "absolutely incomprehensible". The party itself provided no initial reaction. The SVP echoed its criticism of international treaties such as the ECHR, and even called on Switzerland to withdraw from the Council of Europe. [16]

International

The German news show Tagesschau believed in its commentary that "future generations [will] be thankful" for this judgement, and that future governments will have to face the possibility of other cases like this. [17] Britain's The Guardian spoke of a groundbreaking decision that would increase pressure on governments so that they would not fill the atmosphere with gases that contribute to extreme weather conditions any more. [18] Austria's Der Standard disclosed in its reporting an Austrian climate change case that is still pending. The judgement against Switzerland seems to be "of significance for all Europe". [19]

Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg celebrated the court's decision at the European Court of Human Rights building. [20]

Richard Ekins of the University of Oxford condemned the judgment as "inventing new obligations on member states in relation to climate change and proclaiming a new power to superintend environmental policy across Europe" and predicted that it would reignite the debate about British withdrawal from the ECHR. [21] Former Supreme Court of the United Kingdom justice Lord Sumption said that the European Court of Human Rights "has become an avowed enemy not just of democratic decision-making but of good government" as a result of the judgment. [22]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Convention on Human Rights</span> International treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe

The European Convention on Human Rights is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kyoto Protocol</span> 1997 international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

The Kyoto Protocol (Japanese: 京都議定書, Hepburn: Kyōto Giteisho) was an international treaty which extended the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that commits state parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on the scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and that human-made CO2 emissions are driving it. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005. There were 192 parties (Canada withdrew from the protocol, effective December 2012) to the Protocol in 2020.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Court of Human Rights</span> Supranational court established by the Council of Europe

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), also known as the Strasbourg Court, is an international court of the Council of Europe which interprets the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The court hears applications alleging that a contracting state has breached one or more of the human rights enumerated in the convention or its optional protocols to which a member state is a party. The court is based in Strasbourg, France.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bosnian genocide</span> Murder of Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats during the Bosnian War

The term "Bosnian genocide" refers to either the Srebrenica massacre or the wider crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing campaign throughout areas controlled by the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) during the Bosnian War of 1992–1995. The events in Srebrenica in 1995 included the killing of more than 8000 Bosniak men and boys, as well as the mass expulsion of another 25000–30000 Bosniak civilians by VRS units under the command of General Ratko Mladić.

Loizidou v. Turkey is a landmark legal case regarding the rights of refugees wishing to return to their former homes and properties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Union Emissions Trading System</span> First large greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme in the world

The European Union Emissions Trading System is a carbon emission trading scheme which began in 2005 and is intended to lower greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. Cap and trade schemes limit emissions of specified pollutants over an area and allow companies to trade emissions rights within that area. The ETS covers around 45% of the EU's greenhouse gas emissions.

The Church of Scientology Moscow v Russia [2007] ECHR 258 is a European Court of Human Rights case, concerning Article 11 of the convention. In the case the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg condemned Moscow City Government's refusal to consider the Church of Scientology of Moscow for registration as a religious organisation, and as a result found that Russia had violated the rights of the Church of Scientology under Articles 11 when "read in the light of Article 9". Specifically, the Court determined that, in denying consideration of registration to the Church of Scientology of Moscow, the Moscow authorities "did not act in good faith and neglected their duty of neutrality and impartiality vis-à-vis the applicant's religious community". The Court also awarded the Church €10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and €15,000 for costs and expenses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carbon emission trading</span> An approach to limit climate change by creating a market with limited allowances for CO2 emissions

Carbon emission trading (also called carbon market, emission trading scheme (ETS) or cap and trade) is a type of emission trading scheme designed for carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHG). It is a form of carbon pricing. Its purpose is to limit climate change by creating a market with limited allowances for emissions. This can reduce the competitiveness of fossil fuels, and instead accelerate investments into renewable energy, such as wind power and solar power. Fossil fuels are the main driver for climate change. They account for 89% of all CO2 emissions and 68% of all GHG emissions.

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is a provision of the European Convention which protects the right to a fair trial. In criminal law cases and cases to determine civil rights it protects the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within reasonable time, the presumption of innocence, right to silence and other minimum rights for those charged in a criminal case.

Baysayeva v. Russia was an April 5, 2007, European Court of Human Rights ruling in the case of forced disappearance of a Chechen man Shakhid Baysayev, which unanimously held Russia responsible for serious violations of the European Convention on Human Rights. The decision was the latest in a series of judgements against Russia in cases connected to the war in Chechnya.

<i>Lautsi v. Italy</i>

Lautsi v. Italy was a case brought before the European Court of Human Rights, which, on 18 March 2011, ruled that the requirement in Italian law that crucifixes be displayed in classrooms of schools does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate change in Europe</span> Emissions, impacts and responses of Europe related to climate change

Climate change has resulted in an increase in temperature of 2.3 °C (2022) in Europe compared to pre-industrial levels. Europe is the fastest warming continent in the world. Europe's climate is getting warmer due to anthropogenic activity. According to international climate experts, global temperature rise should not exceed 2 °C to prevent the most dangerous consequences of climate change; without reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, this could happen before 2050. Climate change has implications for all regions of Europe, with the extent and nature of impacts varying across the continent.

Perinçek v. Switzerland is a 2013 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights concerning public statements by Doğu Perinçek, a Turkish nationalist political activist and member of the Talat Pasha Committee, who was convicted by a Swiss court for publicly denying the Armenian genocide. He was sentenced to 90 days in prison and fined 3000 Swiss francs.

Osmanoğlu and Kocabaş v. Switzerland was a case heard by the European Court of Human Rights in a chamber judgement concerning whether mandatory mixed-gender swimming for girls against the will of their Muslim parents who objected on religious grounds violated Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights by contravening religious freedom. On 10 January 2017 the court unanimously found that the convention had not been violated.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate change litigation</span> Use of legal practice to further climate change mitigation

Climate change litigation, also known as climate litigation, is an emerging body of environmental law using legal practice to set case law precedent to further climate change mitigation efforts from public institutions, such as governments and companies. In the face of slow climate change politics delaying climate change mitigation, activists and lawyers have increased efforts to use national and international judiciary systems to advance the effort. Climate litigation typically engages in one of five types of legal claims: Constitutional law, administrative law, private law (challenging corporations or other organizations for negligence, nuisance, etc., fraud or consumer protection, or human rights.

<i>State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation</i> Dutch court case about carbon dioxide emissions

State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation (2019) is climate change litigation heard by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands related to government efforts to curtail carbon dioxide emissions. The case was brought against the Dutch government in 2013, arguing the government, by not meeting a minimum carbon dioxide emission-reduction goal established by scientists to avert harmful climate change, was endangering the human rights of Dutch citizens as set by national and European Union laws.

Friends of the Irish Environment v Government of Ireland was an important climate change case decided by the Irish Supreme Court in 2020. In the case, the Supreme Court quashed the Government of Ireland's 2017 National Mitigation Plan on the grounds that it lacked the specificity required by the Irish Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015. The Supreme Court ordered the government to create a new plan which was compliant with the 2015 Climate Act.

<i>Milieudefensie v Royal Dutch Shell</i> Dutch legal case (2021)

Milieudefensie v Royal Dutch Shell (2021) is a human rights law and tort law case heard by the district court of The Hague in the Netherlands in 2021 related to efforts by several NGO's to curtail carbon dioxide emissions by multinational corporations. It was brought by the Dutch branch of Friends of the Earth and a group of other NGO's against the oil corporation, Shell plc. In May 2021, the court ordered Shell to reduce its global carbon emissions from its 2019 levels by 45% by 2030, relating not only to the emissions from its operations, but also those from the products it sells. It is considered to be the first major climate change litigation ruling against a corporation.

The persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia refers to the Russian government's persecution of the Jehovah's Witnesses religious group. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Jehovah's Witnesses became legal after a long period of being banned, though have still faced widespread government interference in their activities. Jehovah's Witnesses were deported en masse to Siberia in 1951 under Stalin via Operation North.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Kwai, Isabella; Bubola, Emma (9 April 2024). "In Landmark Climate Ruling, European Court Faults Switzerland". The New York Times . Archived from the original on 9 April 2024. Retrieved 9 April 2024.
  2. ↑ Francis, Ellen; Harlan, Chico (9 April 2024). "European court rules Switzerland climate inaction violated human rights". Washington Post. Retrieved 10 April 2024.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Hänni, Julia; Ma, Tienmu (21 November 2021). "Swiss Climate Change Law: International and European Context". Swiss Energy Governance: Political, Economic and Legal Challenges and Opportunities in the Energy Transition. Springer. pp. 17–47. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-80787-0_2. ISBN   978-3-030-80786-3.
  4. ↑ Kwai, Isabella (August 6, 2023). "Heat Waves Are Killing Older Women. Are They Also Violating Their Rights?". The New York Times . Archived from the original on 9 April 2024. Retrieved 9 April 2024.
  5. 1 2 "KlimaSeniorinnen: Meet the older women suing Switzerland to demand climate action". Reuters . 9 April 2024. Retrieved 9 April 2024.
  6. 1 2 Osborne, Margaret (8 August 2023). "Swiss Seniors Are Suing Over Climate Change's Threat to Their Health". Smithsonian Magazine . Archived from the original on 9 April 2024. Retrieved 9 April 2024.
  7. 1 2 3 Frost, Rosie (28 March 2023). "Why is this group of senior women taking the Swiss government to court over climate change?". Euronews . Archived from the original on 9 April 2024. Retrieved 9 April 2024.
  8. 1 2 "Von "historisch" bis "lächerlich" – so gehen die Meinungen zum Klima-Urteil auseinander" [From “historic” to “ridiculous” – opinions on the climate judgment vary]. watson.ch. Archived from the original on 2024-04-11. Retrieved 2024-04-10.
  9. ↑ "Nach EGMR-Urteil: Der Bund ist überrascht, die Parteien gespalten" [According to the ECHR ruling: The federal government is surprised, the parties are divided]. Schweizer Radio und Fernsehen (SRF). April 9, 2024. Archived from the original on April 9, 2024. Retrieved April 10, 2024.
  10. ↑ Fontana, Katharina (April 9, 2024). "Strassburger Urteil gegen die Schweiz: Klimapolitik von der Richterbank herab" [Strasbourg judgment against Switzerland: climate policy from the judge's bench]. Neue Zürcher Zeitung. Archived from the original on April 10, 2024. Retrieved April 10, 2024– via NZZ.
  11. ↑ "Wir wollen keine Klima-Justiz" [We don’t want climate justice]. www.blick.ch. April 9, 2024. Archived from the original on April 9, 2024. Retrieved April 10, 2024.
  12. ↑ "Kommentar zur Rüge aus Strassburg – Das Klima-Urteil birgt eine Gefahr" [Comment on the complaint from Strasbourg – The climate judgment poses a danger]. Tages-Anzeiger. April 9, 2024. Archived from the original on April 9, 2024. Retrieved April 10, 2024.
  13. ↑ Hürlimann, Brigitte (April 9, 2024). "Klimaschutz ist ein Menschenrecht" [Climate protection is a human right]. Republik. Archived from the original on April 9, 2024. Retrieved April 10, 2024– via www.republik.ch.
  14. ↑ borgeaud, clément (April 9, 2024). "Schweiz wegen Untätigkeit im Klimabereich verurteilt: Der EGMR bestätig die Bedenken der SP Schweiz - SP Schweiz" [Switzerland condemned for inaction in the climate sector: The ECHR confirms the concerns of the SP Switzerland - SP Switzerland]. www.sp-ps.ch. Archived from the original on April 10, 2024. Retrieved April 10, 2024.
  15. ↑ "Historisches EGMR-Urteil: GRÜNE fordern Klimaziele für die Finanz- und Flugbranche" [Historic ECHR ruling: GREENS demand climate targets for the financial and airline industries]. gruene.ch. April 9, 2024. Archived from the original on April 9, 2024. Retrieved April 10, 2024.
  16. ↑ "Das Strassburger Urteil ist inakzeptabel – die Schweiz muss aus dem Europarat austreten" [The Strasbourg ruling is unacceptable – Switzerland must withdraw from the Council of Europe]. www.svp.ch. Archived from the original on 2024-04-09. Retrieved 2024-04-10.
  17. ↑ Bauer, Max. "EMGR-Entscheidung: Klimaschutz - ein Menschenrecht" [ECHR decision: Climate protection - a human right]. tagesschau.de. Archived from the original on 2024-04-10. Retrieved 2024-04-10.
  18. ↑ Niranjan, Ajit (April 9, 2024). "Human rights violated by Swiss inaction on climate, ECHR rules in landmark case". The Guardian. Archived from the original on April 10, 2024. Retrieved April 10, 2024.
  19. ↑ "Gerichtshof: Schweiz verletzt Menschenrechte wegen mangelnden Klimaschutzes" [Court of Justice: Switzerland violates human rights due to lack of climate protection]. DER STANDARD. Archived from the original on 2024-04-09. Retrieved 2024-04-10.
  20. ↑ Rannard, Georgina (9 April 2024). "European court rules human rights violated by climate inaction". BBC News. Archived from the original on 9 April 2024. Retrieved 9 April 2024.
  21. ↑ Ekins, Richard (12 April 2024). "Richard Ekins: Strasbourg's absurd climate ruling will see environmental policy annexed by the courts". ConservativeHome . Retrieved 26 April 2024.
  22. ↑ Sumption, Jonathan (14 April 2024). "ECHR's climate change ruling is its boldest intrusion yet". The Times . Retrieved 26 April 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.