Swiss climate policy disregards human rights. This is the verdict of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The judge’s ruling is likely to have far-reaching consequences.
The climate seniors and their co-president Anne Mahrer (right) in Strasbourg.
Christian Hartmann / Reuters
“That’s phenomenal. Now Switzerland has to go over the books when it comes to climate policy,” says Stefanie Brander, one of 60 climate seniors who traveled to Strasbourg. They have just caused a sensation with their club in Strasbourg. In a ruling, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) declared her complaint to be largely admissible.
The judges came to the conclusion that Switzerland was violating the human rights of senior citizens because it had not done enough to combat increasing global warming. Specifically, the Confederation violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life. In the complaint, the pensioners argued that the federal government was inadequately fulfilling its protective duties towards them and was therefore violating their rights.
This argument is largely confirmed in the judgment. There is talk of “critical gaps in the national legal framework”. The authorities failed to quantify the national targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through a carbon budget or in some other way. In addition, Switzerland has not achieved its climate goals in the past. The country has failed to do its part to ensure that global warming does not exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Judgment with an international signal effect
Although the pensioners’ complaint is only directed against Switzerland, the judgment is likely to have international appeal: It is the first time that a transnational court has directly approved a human rights-based claim to climate protection. Its effects could be correspondingly far-reaching. By approving the climate lawsuit, the judges are setting a precedent for all 46 Council of Europe states. They could now be asked by their citizens to review and, if necessary, strengthen their climate policy to protect human rights.
The Swiss courts and especially the federal administration are also sharply criticized in the ruling. They did not provide any convincing reasons why they considered it unnecessary to examine the claim. Rather, they did not take the scientific evidence for climate change into account and simply did not take the complaints seriously.
The judges in Strasbourg dismissed two further lawsuits related to climate protection. For example, Portuguese young people accused 32 European countries – including Switzerland – of exacerbating the climate crisis with their policies and thus endangering the future of their generation. In contrast to the Swiss pensioners, however, the Portuguese plaintiffs contacted Strasbourg directly and did not take legal action domestically. According to the court, the young people should have first gone through the courts in Portugal.
International law expert Helen Keller: “Groundbreaking judgment”
When asked, the Zurich international law expert Helen Keller, who herself was a judge in Strasbourg for years, described the verdict in response to the climate seniors’ complaint as “groundbreaking”. The Court established a connection between the European Convention on Human Rights and the national obligation to reduce the negative effects of global warming on people. “At least the environmental organizations can now enforce this obligation throughout Europe,” said the Zurich professor.
However, she does not believe it is necessary that the climate seniors now go to the Federal Court again with their request. “In this case, an audit probably wouldn’t do much good.” The Court did not link the violation of the right to a fair trial with the request that the national courts should reopen the matter.
It is still unclear what consequences the ruling will have politically. The Court states that it is not its job to tell Switzerland how it should achieve its climate goals. However, the judges are demanding that the Confederation make serious efforts to comply with climate goals. According to the ECHR, Switzerland must now explain to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe how it intends to implement the ruling.
At home, reactions to the judge’s ruling were mixed. The SVP strongly condemns this interference by foreign judges and calls for Switzerland to withdraw from the Council of Europe. And the verdict is also poorly received by the FDP: Apparently people in Strasbourg do not understand Switzerland’s direct democracy, criticizes the Bernese National Councilor Christian Wasserfallen. However, SP co-leader Mattea Meyer spoke of a slap in the face for the Federal Council.
When asked, a spokeswoman for Uvek emphasized that Switzerland has taken decisive steps towards climate protection – with the Climate Protection Act as well as the recently passed CO2 Act and the new Electricity Act, which will be put on the ballot in June. The Federal Office of Justice will examine the judgment in detail.