Five months after a groundbreaking ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) declared climate change protection a human right, Switzerland has faced criticism for its rejection of the verdict. The April ruling, stemming from a case brought by a group of elderly women against Switzerland, found that the country’s insufficient efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions violated human rights. This landmark judgment was hailed as a crucial step for climate justice in Europe and globally, marking the first instance of a country being held legally accountable for inadequate climate action.
While the ECtHR did not explicitly dictate Switzerland’s next steps, it demanded further action. In June, the Swiss government asserted that it already had an effective climate strategy, refusing to acknowledge the court’s call for more stringent measures. Now, five months later, the Federal Council claims to have met the ruling’s policy requirements, pointing to the revised CO2 Act of March 15th. This act, they argue, outlines measures to achieve their 2030 climate targets.
However, the government’s statement from August 28th also expressed dissent with the court’s interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), particularly its extension to encompass climate protection. The Federal Council argues that this interpretation expands the scope of the ECHR beyond its intended boundaries. This apparent rejection of the landmark judgment has sparked sharp criticism from environmental and human rights organizations.
These groups maintain that the Federal Council’s stance is unlikely to satisfy the committee tasked with implementing the court’s judgment. Beyond the issue of climate action, the government’s statement has raised concerns about Switzerland’s commitment to the European human rights legal framework. The Swiss Human Rights Institution (SHRI), Switzerland’s independent national human rights institution, has deemed the government’s position “worrying.” They argue that Switzerland’s criticism of the ECHR’s interpretation casts its support for the court in a dubious light.
The SHRI specifically criticizes Switzerland’s acknowledgment of its membership in the Council of Europe and the ECtHR system while simultaneously rejecting the idea of applying human rights law to climate change. They warn against actions that might bolster those advocating for Switzerland’s withdrawal from the ECHR.
The human rights organization predicts that the Federal Council’s current position is unlikely to appease the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the body responsible for ensuring member states implement ECtHR judgments. The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) has termed the Swiss government’s rejection of the climate ruling an “embarrassment.”
Sébastien Duyck, campaign manager for human rights and climate change and senior attorney at CIEL, emphasizes the potential for this rejection to undermine the authority and crucial role of the ECtHR within the human rights system, a system that Switzerland claims to uphold. He argues that the Swiss government could have leveraged the court’s near-unanimous ruling to strengthen its climate policy in alignment with established scientific consensus. Instead, they doubled down in defending their inadequate responses to climate change, refusing to accept accountability.
The landmark judgment is already influencing the potential outcomes of both international and domestic climate cases. Despite criticisms, it has become case law upon which future rulings will be based, with several cases being held back in anticipation of this ruling. One such case involves an individual with multiple sclerosis who has filed a lawsuit against Austria, claiming his symptoms worsen in higher temperatures. He argues that Austria’s failure to mitigate climate change’s impact, particularly by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, exacerbates his condition.
Following the judgment, this case has been prioritized, with the ECtHR requesting a statement from the Austrian government on various issues. Notably, many of the questions posed are grounded in the human rights requirements for climate protection established by the April ruling.
The ripple effects of the ruling are extending to domestic courts as well. In Finland, NGOs are relying on this judgment to challenge the government’s lack of adequate climate action. In Germany, tens of thousands of people are participating in a climate lawsuit brought before the Federal Constitutional Court. Furthermore, during an Inter-American Court of Human Rights hearing in April to establish an expert opinion on human rights and climate change, various states referenced the ECtHR judgment.
The KlimaSeniorinnen and Greenpeace are calling for an independent scientific analysis of Switzerland’s national carbon budget and its alignment with the global target of keeping global warming below 1.5C. This target represents the maximum permissible carbon dioxide emissions before global warming surpasses this critical threshold. Each country’s carbon budget must ensure they are not exceeding their fair share of emissions.
Climate Action Tracker’s latest data indicates that if all countries adopted Switzerland’s current approach, the world would face a warming of 3C. Cordelia Bähr, lawyer for the KlimaSeniorinnen, advocates for an independent analysis of Switzerland’s carbon budget as a foundation for a robust Swiss climate strategy. She emphasizes that existing calculations already demonstrate the country’s climate policy’s inadequacy, necessitating strengthening measures. However, the dependence of these calculations on specific numbers and parameters makes them susceptible to value judgments, highlighting the need for an independent analysis.
The next step would entail Switzerland implementing climate policy based on these calculations. Bähr argues that the Swiss climate strategy until 2050 must ensure adherence to the carbon budget, leading to a substantial strengthening of their climate strategy.
While concerns exist about the implications for Switzerland and the European Convention on Human Rights, a lengthy process lies ahead before such extreme outcomes are reached. Delays by countries are not uncommon. Six months after an ECtHR judgment, it becomes legally binding. The affected state is obligated to present an action plan for implementing the verdict to the Committee of Ministers. For the Klimasenoirinnen case, this deadline falls on October 9th, requiring Switzerland to submit a detailed report on its action plan.
Subsequently, there will be extended dialogue between the complainants, civil society, the state, and members of the Committee of Ministers. Reaching a consensus among the 46 members of the Committee, especially in unprecedented cases like this one, can be a prolonged and complex process. The Committee convenes only four times a year to monitor compliance with rulings. According to the European Implementation Network, nearly half of all leading judgments from the court in the last decade remain pending full implementation. On average, these cases take more than six years to resolve.
In exceptional circumstances, the Committee can refer cases back to the Court, though this has occurred only twice in its 65-year history. While Switzerland could theoretically face expulsion or choose to leave the Council of Europe, legal experts deem this highly unlikely. Public statements made by a country or its political figures may not perfectly align with official submissions to the Committee. It remains to be seen what official position Switzerland will adopt when submitting its plan.
