Switzerland's climate strategy is insufficient. That is the position of the Senior Women for Climate Action, whose lengthy legal battle has reached the ECHR.
Has Switzerland developed a greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan that is genuinely capable of protecting the human rights of its population? This was the subject discussed on 29 March 2023 by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), at the Grand Chamber in Strasbourg. A hearing that, regardless of what the ECHR's final decision will be, already carries historic significance. And it is thanks to the tireless activism of the Senior Women for Climate Action, supported by the environmental organisation Greenpeace.
"Rising temperatures already have negative consequences for our physical and mental health. Due to extreme temperatures, we elderly women are exposed to a significantly higher risk of illness and mortality than the general population." These are the words of the Senior Women for Climate Action, an association with more than 2,000 women aged over 64.
The associative form, they explain, prevents the legal proceedings from being tied to a single individual. The activists are keen to clarify that climate change has negative consequences for the health of men and children too. Under case law, however, only particularly affected groups are able to bring a lawsuit; and the scientific evidence on the risks for elderly women is now extensive and robust. If they have chosen to centre the case on this category, therefore, it is solely to have a greater chance of success. Greenpeace Switzerland supports them in the legal action and covers the costs.
It was 2016 when the Senior Women for Climate Action began their lengthy legal battle against the Swiss state, accusing it of not doing enough to counter the effects of climate change. They first approached the Federal Council and the relevant offices, then the Federal Administrative Court in St Gallen, and then the Federal Supreme Court. Their applications were rejected every time.
They therefore decided to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, a body that rules on cases in which a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights is contested. It should not be confused with an institution of the European Union, as it falls instead under the Council of Europe, of which 46 states are members. Switzerland, specifically, joined the Council of Europe in 1963 and ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in 1974.
Switzerland has ratified the Paris Agreement. This means it has formally committed to keeping the increase in average global temperature to within 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, doing everything possible not to exceed 1.5 degrees. Also under the Agreement, it has submitted its own emissions reduction pledges (NDCs, nationally determined contributions).
The Senior Women for Climate Action, on the basis of detailed documentation, argue that all of this is largely insufficient. Specifically, Switzerland has committed to reducing emissions by 34 per cent by 2030, compared to 1990 levels. A target that pales in comparison to the European Union's 55 per cent, or Germany's 65 per cent. If all states were to behave like Switzerland, the planet would be heading towards global warming of 3 degrees Celsius. In practice, a climate catastrophe.
The ECHR decided to refer the case to the Grand Chamber, thereby granting it the "highest possible consideration". The day of 29 March was the very first time two climate cases were brought before this body. In addition to the case brought by the Senior Women for Climate Action against Switzerland, there was also a hearing on the appeal lodged by a former mayor of Grande-Synthe against France. There will also be a hearing for a third case in which 32 countries are named, but the date has not yet been set.
Following the hearing, the ECHR will discuss the case in private and subsequently announce its decisions on the matter. It is not yet possible, therefore, to speculate about the consequences: everything will depend on the ruling and its reasoning. A potential favourable outcome would set a precedent for all 46 states of the Council of Europe.