A seven-year legal battle by a group of over 2,000 Swiss women, with an average age of 73, has culminated in a landmark decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The case, brought by Swiss Elders for Climate Protection (KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz), challenged the Swiss government’s emissions reduction strategy as insufficient to protect their fundamental rights.
The ECHR largely agreed with the women’s arguments, ruling that the Swiss government had breached their right to private life under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The court acknowledged the disproportionate vulnerability of older people to the adverse effects of climate change, including heatwaves, respiratory problems, and cardiovascular issues.
This ruling has sent shockwaves through Europe and raised questions about its potential implications for other countries, including New Zealand. While New Zealand is not bound by ECHR decisions, its courts often consider overseas case law when determining claims.
The KlimaSeniorinnen case has particular relevance to New Zealand given the country’s ratification of other international human rights instruments, including the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Additionally, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act imposes human rights obligations on public authorities.
Māori elder Mike Smith is currently pursuing a climate-related case against the New Zealand government, claiming that its inadequate emissions reduction framework breaches the rights to life and to practice culture under the Bill of Rights. The KlimaSeniorinnen decision could play a significant role in this case if it reaches the Supreme Court or the UN Human Rights Committee.
Furthermore, the KlimaSeniorinnen case provides a valuable model for New Zealand courts in assessing climate science and the proper role of the judiciary in reviewing government responses to climate change. The ECHR’s thoughtful approach to these issues is likely to be carefully considered in ongoing climate litigation in New Zealand.
While the Swiss case was decided within a specific legal and institutional context, its implications transcend national borders. The decision highlights the growing recognition of the human rights dimensions of climate change and the potential for legal challenges to hold governments accountable for inadequate climate action.
