The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), based in Strasbourg, has issued a historic decision following the lawsuit brought by a group of elderly Swiss women concerned about the repercussions of the climate crisis on their quality of life and health. The ruling, issued with 16 votes in favor and only one against, recognizes that Switzerland has violated the human rights of the elderly by not having taken sufficient measures against climate change. It is the first time that the Strasbourg Court has condemned a State for its lack of initiative to curb climate change.
The lawsuit was brought to the Court by the association Verein KlimaSeniorinnen, composed of 2,500 Swiss women, who denounced the Swiss State for its lack of action to mitigate climate change, which has negative consequences on their living conditions and in your health. The average age of the women is 73 and four are over 80. One of the plaintiffs, born in 1931, died during the judicial process.
The demand of the Grandmothers for the Climate focused on the violation of the fundamental rights of articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which enshrine the rights to life and health, to private and family life without interference, as well such as the right to a fair trial. The women argued that Switzerland was not fulfilling its duty to effectively protect life and guarantee respect for private and family life, including the home, in the context of climate change and disregarding the overwhelming scientific evidence.
The KlimaSeniorinnen Association hopes that this decision will push governments to take stronger action to address climate change and protect the rights of older people across the continent.
The European judges estimated that Switzerland breached its obligations in relation to the rights of these women to prevent them from suffering the effects of global warming. In the judgment, the President of the Court, Siofra O'Leary, stated that the Swiss Government had not met the objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and that there were gaps in the national regulatory framework. "It is clear that future generations are likely to bear an increasing burden of the consequences of today's decisions and omissions in the fight against climate change," O'Leary said. One of the shortcomings refers to the setting of a carbon price to limit greenhouse emissions. In addition, Switzerland did not respect the targets set to set these emissions.
However, the judges overturned the lawsuit brought by six Portuguese youths against Portugal and against 31 other European countries on which they wanted a conviction, arguing that these nations are adopting insufficient policies to mitigate climate change.
The lawsuit alleged that the forest fires that have occurred every year in Portugal since 2017 are a direct consequence of climate change that poses risks to their health.
The judges dismissed the allegations without going into the merits of the matter, firstly because the six claimants skipped a fundamental rule of the European Court: you must exhaust the domestic appeals of the country you denounce before bringing a case in Strasbourg. The young people had argued that the climate emergency exempted them from this basic legal rule, but the ECtHR did not accept the thesis.
The magistrates point out that the ECtHR "is not a court of first instance" and that it is not the right one to hear the lawsuit, in which the young people asserted that their right to life has been violated. The ECtHR also explains that the fact that the six young people are EU citizens "cannot be used" to refer to a jurisdictional link between them and the rest of the defendant States.
It is added that there is no provision in the United Nations Convention to extend this wider judicial interpretation. "Territorial jurisdiction is established with respect to Portugal and no title of jurisdiction can be established with respect to the other defendant States", he points out. And with regard to the victim status of young people, the ECtHR says that their individual situation suffers from a "significant lack of clarity that complicates the examination" of whether they are affected by the effects of climate change.
