Why Swiss Parliament Rejected A Historic 'Climate Seniors' Ruling

Switzerland's parliament caused outrage on June 12 after it voted to reject a 'historic' European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling to combat climate change. In April 2024, a group of over 2,000 elderly Swiss women known as "climate seniors" took a case to the court in Strasbourg, France, arguing the Swiss government’s inadequate response to climate change. The activists argued that the government's ignorance towards extreme heat events linked to global warming was damaging their right to health and life. 

The court agreed ruled in favour of the women and ordered the Swiss government to make more effort in meeting its targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the Swiss parliament has refused to comply with the ECHR ruling, suggesting that the country did not need to react as it already had an effective climate change strategy.

The right-wing politicians criticised what they saw as an overreach by "foreign judges", and Green Party members described the tone of the discussion as "shameful" and "populist". According to reports, Switzerland is currently not on course to reach its Paris Climate Agreement goals which seek to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

Case Background & Verdict 

The case, spearheaded by a group known as KlimaSeniorinnen, comprised Swiss women aged over 64 who contended that the Swiss government’s climate inaction imperilled their lives, particularly in the face of intensifying heatwaves. They asserted that their age and gender rendered them disproportionately vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change.

The President of the ECHR, Siofra O'Leary, emphasized the violation of Article Eight of the Convention, highlighting critical deficiencies in Switzerland's regulatory framework for addressing greenhouse gas emissions. The court pointed out the Swiss government's failure to set clear emissions reduction targets and implement effective measures to mitigate climate change.

O'Leary also highlighted the intergenerational inequities inherent in climate inaction, putting weight on the present failures to address climate change, which will inexorably burden future generations with increasingly severe consequences. Rosmarie Wydler-Waelti, a popular figure among the KlimaSeniorinnen described the verdict as the "biggest victory possible."

Reactions

Switzerland's Response

Switzerland is firm on making decisions without the involvement of any "foreign judges". The parliament has asserted that they are sufficiently working towards climate protection and rejected the ruling. In April, after the ECHR ruling, Swiss President Viola Amherd expressed Switzerland's commitment to sustainability and biodiversity.

"I would like to know what the grounds for it are. Sustainability is very important to Switzerland, biodiversity is very important to Switzerland, the net zero target is very important to Switzerland. We are working on those and will continue to work on them with all our strength. This ruling does nothing to change that," she reiterated, stressing Switzerland's dedication to achieving net-zero emissions.

The Swiss Federal Office of Justice had affirmed its intention to thoroughly analyze the court's April judgment. In a statement, they said, "Together with the authorities concerned, we will now analyse the extensive judgment and review what measures Switzerland will take in the future."

Recently, voters supported some government proposals to generate more electricity from renewables. Despite environmental groups’ claims that the measures are still not enough to meet climate goals, opinion polls reportedly show a majority of voters reject the ECHR’s involvement, and think Switzerland is already doing enough to protect the environment.

Disappointment and Determination

Despite the disappointment expressed by some global leaders, such as Portuguese youth applicant Sofia Oliveira, who had hoped for a broader victory, there is a consensus that the court's recognition of the need for governments to intensify emissions reduction efforts is a significant step forward in the fight against climate change.

Global Implications

Legal experts anticipate that ECHR's ruling will echo beyond Switzerland, influencing climate litigation across Europe and beyond. Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, highlighted the role of courts in holding governments accountable for protecting human rights from environmental harm.

"We expect this ruling to influence climate action and climate litigation across Europe and far beyond. The ruling reinforces the vital role of courts—both international and domestic—in holding governments to their legal obligations to protect human rights from environmental harm," she said in a statement, as reported by Reuters. 

Future Outlook

Greta Thunberg, a renowned Swedish climate activist, characterized the ruling as a "betrayal beyond words" but highlighted that it stresses the urgent need for increased climate action. 

Expressing her disappointment, she stated, "It's a betrayal beyond words and today's rulings make very clear that European states have a legal responsibility to take real climate action and to protect people and to protect its citizens. This is only the beginning of climate litigation... The results of this can mean in no way that we lean back. This means that we have to fight even more, since this is only the beginning. Because in a climate emergency, everything is at stake." Her statement was reported by Reuters.

In a statement, Portuguese Environment Minister Maria da Graca Carvalho reaffirmed her country's dedication to ambitious climate targets. Portugal aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, which is earlier than the goals set by the EU.

Implications and Precedent Setting

The ECHR's verdict not only delivers justice to the Swiss plaintiffs but also echoes across Europe and beyond, setting a precedent for future climate litigation. By affirming the nexus between climate action and human rights, this ruling emboldens communities worldwide to hold their governments accountable for inadequate climate policies.

The court's decision highlights the increasing use of human rights laws to tackle environmental issues, showing a global rise in climate lawsuits. It sets a crucial example for countries signed onto the European Convention on Human Rights, stating that governments are legally obliged to take significant steps to cut emissions.

Switzerland, as a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, is now legally bound to intensify its efforts to reduce emissions. Failure to do so not only exposes the country to further litigation at the national level but also risks financial penalties.

Outside of Europe, countries like Australia, Brazil, Peru, and South Korea are also seeing more climate-related lawsuits, showing a worldwide move towards holding people accountable for climate change through the law. The ruling in the Swiss case strengthens the push for big actions on climate and highlights how courts can help tackle environmental problems.