Want to keep up with climate news, law, and policy? Sign up for the Green Economy Law Monthly Newsletter here.
On April 9, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered its long-awaited first ruling in the climate action case Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland. The court determined that the European Convention on Human Rights encompasses the right to effective protection from adverse effects of climate change.
The lawsuit was filed by a Swiss climate protection association for senior women. Its members, aged 74 on average, were concerned by their particular vulnerability to heat waves. They alleged that the Swiss government’s failure to take sufficient action to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change violated their right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention.
The ECHR ruled that Swiss authorities did not meet their "positive obligations" under the Convention to protect individuals from the severe impacts of climate change, emphasizing that Switzerland and other European states must take effective measures to mitigate these effects on life and health. The Court specified that States must implement immediate measures to significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, aiming for net neutrality within the next three decades.
Switzerland was found to have violated both Article 8 and Article 6.1 of the Convention by not establishing a regulatory framework for controlling its emissions and by denying the applicants a proper legal avenue to address their grievances. The Court, however, dismissed similar claims against France and Portugal for technical legal reasons, including applicants’ lack of standing and failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
Verein KlimaSeniorinnen’s ruling signals to other EU member states that their latitude in addressing climate obligations is constrained. The Court listed several minimum standards it will use to assess compliance in the future. These include adopting GHG reduction targets, keeping them updated with “due diligence”, monitoring compliance, and timely implementing relevant GHG-reduction and climate-mitigation measures.
The fact that this decision was delivered by a near-unanimous panel of 17 judges from “different countries, perspectives and legal backgrounds” (the UK judge being the sole dissenting voice) is a hopeful sign for future European climate litigation. Furthermore, the ruling may have international legal implications. For example, it may influence foreign courts’ perspectives on climate change and the law. Indeed, Canadian courts have cited the precedent of previous European precedents in federal and provincial climate action cases brought before them.
Please contact our firm at 647-725-4308 or info@greeneconomylaw.com for legal assistance in connection with climate and energy policy matters.