Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz andOthers v. Switzerland – FAQ
Status as of March 2024
I.
1

Why have you filed a lawsuit?
We have filed a lawsuit in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) because
Switzerland is pursuing an inadequate climate policy and is thus violating our humanrights.

2

We older women are particularly affected by the effects of global warming. Climatechange, with its increasing frequency and intensity of heat waves, is life-threatening toolder people, especially women. We have personal experience of this, and it isconfirmed by numerous studies as well as by figures from the Swiss federal
government. We have a significantly increased risk of death and health problems
during heat waves as compared to the population as a whole.

3

Through our lawsuit, we want the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to require
Switzerland to strengthen climate protection in such a way as to protect our life, family
life and health. We have demanded that Switzerland design its climate policy in such a
way that it is consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5 °C. We have specificallyshown what is the required adaptation of Switzerland's climate targets and requested
the court to order specific general measures to remedy these human rights violations(see para. 7). We want climate protection to be recognised as a human right.

II.
4

5

Why are only women pursuing this case? Why is the health of women more
affected?
The reason our group is made up exclusively of women is that elderly women are
extremely vulnerable to the effects of heat. There is substantial evidence to show that
we are at a significantly greater risk of dying or of becoming ill as a result of heat (seealso Observations, p. 3 ff.).
Accordingly, the harm and risks caused by climate change are sufficient to engage theState’s positive obligations to protect women's right to life and well-being as
guaranteed by Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention on Human Rights. By way of
example, please see the most recent evidence in this regard in footnote1.

1

Federal Office for the Environment FOEN, Heat and drought in summer 2018, Bern 2019 (p. 8 and p. 27 ff.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC, Sixth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2022: Impact,
adaptation and vulnerability, in brief AR6 WGII (p. 9 [B.1.1], p. 15 [B.4.4], p. 51 [TS.B.5.3], p. 1044, p. 1051 ff., p.
1073)
VICEDO-CABRERA/SCOVRONICK/SERA ET AL., The burden of heat-related mortality attributable to recent humaninduced climate change, Nature Climate Change 11, 492–500 (2021) (p. 1 and Figure 4c) BAFU et al.,1There are several studies that have measured an even higher risk for older womenthan for older men (see also Observations, p. 5-6). See footnote for the most recent
supporting documents2.

6

III.

7

Why do you say that Switzerland is not doing enough in terms of climate
protection? Isn’t Switzerland already doing what is possible, isn't it very
progressive on this issue anyway?
Swiss climate policy is clearly inadequate with regard to the target of keeping global
warming below 1.5°C. If everyone acted as Switzerland is doing today, global warmingof up to three degrees Celsius could occur by 2100. Keeping below 1.5 degrees isdecisive to avert more serious threats to human rights. We have always explained thisin detail in our legal briefs, most recently in the Observations on p. 10 ff. Below is acomparison in table format of what should be done by Switzerland to do its share toprevent a global temperature increase of more than 1.5 °C (green) and what
Switzerland plans to do (orange); it should be noted that Switzerland has not yet set alegally binding climate target for the period up to 2030:
Swiss climate policy compatible
with preventing a global
temperature increase of morethan 1.5°C

Reduction ofdomestic emissions
on the territory of
Switzerlandby 2030

Reduction ofdomestic emissions
on the territory of−−

Net negative withmeasures in
Switzerland andabroadIncluded therein: Morethan 60% withmeasures in
Switzerland

Net zero with domestic
measures

Swiss climate policy (after theconclusion of parliamentary
deliberations)−

Minus 50% withmeasures in
Switzerland andabroad−The law does not
specify a domestic
share. The Federal
Council would like toachieve a domestic
reduction of 34%.
net zero (“where possible” withdomestic measures) (Art. 3 of
the Federal Act

Management Summary: Climate Change in Switzerland, Indicators of driving forces, impact and response, Bern
2020 (p. 6 and 9)
2

SAUCY ET AL., The role of extreme temperatures in cause-specific acute cardiovascular mortality in Switzerland:
A case-crossover study, Science of The Total Environment, Vol. 790, 10 October 2021
Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Project A.06, Heat and health, Synthesis of 22 September 2022
(Table 1) of Third-party intervention of the University of Bern 2022 with reference to various studies, not yet
published (p. 2-3).

2

Switzerlandby 2050

The avoidance andreduction ofemissionsoccurring outside
Switzerland but
attributable to
Switzerland(namely:
consumptionrelated emissions
and climate
compatibility offinancial flows)on Climate Protection Goals,
Innovation and Strengthening
Energy Security [German
acronym: KIG])−

Avoidance andreduction of all foreign
emissions attributable
to Switzerland in linewith the 1.5°C limit−−

No inclusion of
consumption-related
emissions planned
As of 2025, under Art.
9 KIG there will now be
a target for the climatefriendly alignment offinancial flows.
Quantitative goals
remain non-existent (incontrast to thebuildings, transport
and industry sectors)

In doing so, we rely in particular on the scientific basis set out in footnote3.
8In addition, Switzerland’s climate policy is also falling far behind relative to comparable
countries: The Parliament does not provide for a binding domestic target, and theFederal Council's intention to reduce domestic emissions to 34% below 1990 levels by
2030,, is significantly lower than the targets set in the EU (55%), not to mention
Denmark (70%), Finland (60% by 2030 and carbon neutral by 2035) and Germany(65%).

9Moreover, Switzerland misses its own, inadequate targets.

10

In overall respects, Switzerland is in bad company. Taking all the promises made bycountries around the world together, we are moving towards global warming of 2.4
degrees and probably more than 3 degrees, which is life-threatening for billions ofhumans and animals. In order to solve the problem and stabilise warming at a
maximum of 1.5°C, each country must make its fair contribution to solving the problem
and eliminating greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible.

3

RAJAMANI ET AL., National “fair shares’ in reducing greenhouse gas emissions within the principled frameworkof international environmental law, Climate Policy 21:8, pp. 983-1004, 2021
Climate Action Tracker, Switzerland, Targets, CAT rating of targets, 8 June 2022
Climate Analytics, A 1.5°C compatible Switzerland, 15 June 2021
Climate Analytics, 1.5°C national pathway explorer, Ambition gap, 1.5°C compatible pathways

3

IV.
11

Why is climate policy relevant to human rights? What is the role and remit of
the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)?
Climate change is the single biggest threat to human rights today. For human rights
experts and climate scientists, this is undisputed. Keeping global warming to below
1.5°C (the lower, the better) is crucial to limiting, as far as possible, the impacts onhuman rights now and in future.

12

Climate policy is relevant to the human rights protected by the European Convention
on Human Rights (ECHR), because climate change poses a real and serious risk to
our lives and our physical and mental health as a result of increasingly frequent andintense heat waves (cf. above at paras. 4-5). This risk has already partially materialised
for the individual applicants and members of the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen.

13

Since there is a real and serious risk to our lives and to our physical and mental health,
Switzerland has a duty to protect us. This duty of protection arises from our right to life
(Art. 2 ECHR)4 and our right to private and family life (Art. 8 ECHR)5 (as, incidentally,
also provided under Art 10 (1) of the Swiss Federal Constitution). In other words, it is
Switzerland’s obligation under ECHR law to actively protect our lives and our physicaland mental health from the impacts of climate change.

14

This state duty of protection includes, in particular, the obligation to take the necessary
legislative and administrative measures. In particular, we consider one such"necessary measure" to be the need for Switzerland to play its part in ensuring that
global warming does not exceed 1.5°C. This is not currently the case (cf. above atpara. 7 ff.).

15

It is the duty of the ECtHR to review the alleged violations of the ECHR (such as, in thiscase, in particular, Articles 2 and 8 ECHR).

V.
Why is the case before the Grand Chamber?
16
In deciding to transfer our lawsuit to the Grand Chamber for consideration, the ECtHR
accorded it the greatest possible consideration. The reason for this is that it considers
the case to be of significant importance. There has not yet been a landmark ruling on astate's human rights obligations in connection with global warming or the climate
disaster at the European Court of Human Rights.

4

Article 2(1) ECHR: "Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life
intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which thispenalty is provided by law."5
Article 8 ECHR: "(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and hiscorrespondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except
such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national
security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, forthe protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

4

VI.

17

A few weeks before the public hearing on 29 March 2023 before the Grand
Chamber of the ECtHR, the Court sent the parties further questions by letter fororal response during the hearing. This is why the issue of the “fair share” wasoften referred to at the hearing. What does that mean?
A “fair share” means a fair contribution. In the context of climate change, this meansthat the burden of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is apportioned equitably acrossthe globe. Such a fair apportionment or “fair share” is necessary in order to effectively
ensure that global warming does not exceed 1.5 °C. In other words, this means that nocountry takes more of the remaining global CO2 budget than it is actually entitled to,based on considerations such as a country’s historical responsibility for the climate
crisis and current ability to respond to the problem.

18

During the entire course of the proceedings, Switzerland never made any concrete
submissions regarding its “fair share”, nor did it mention a CO2 budget. Rather, itemphasised that it bases its climate targets on what is needed on a global average
according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Court therefore
explicitly asked whether and how Switzerland had calculated and taken into accountany remaining CO2 budget in setting its own climate targets. In addition, the Court
asked how, in Switzerland’s view, its fair share towards complying with the global CO2
budget should be calculated.

19

Switzerland was unable to provide specific figures on its CO2 budget, as it had not
calculated any such budget. When asked about its ideas of fairness in theapportionment of the globally needed emission reductions, Switzerland referred to apolicy brief by Prof. Bretschger. KlimaSeniorinnen thereupon applied Switzerland’s own
ideas of fairness in engaging renowned scientists to calculate the remaining CO2
budget. Those scientists concluded that, if the planned climate strategy were to becontinued, Switzerland’s remaining budget would be exhausted before 2030. This canonly mean that Switzerland’s current climate strategy is leading to a massive
overutilisation of its own budget, and thus of the remaining global budget, and istherefore anything but a “fair share”. See further information at “KlimaSeniorinnen v.
Switzerland: Where does Switzerland stand on Justice and Fairness?" (in French, inEnglish).

VII.
What would be the effect of a favourable judgment?
20
We have requested the Court (Observations, p. 69) to find the following violations ofhuman rights:−−

a violation of Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 ECHR (right to private and family life)anda violation of Article 6 and Article 13 ECHR (namely: a violation of the right ofaccess to a court due to arbitrary application of the standing rules by the Swiss
courts).

5

21

In addition, we have requested that specific general measures be ordered to remedy
these human rights violations (Observations, p. 70 and para. 7). We have specificallyrequested that the court−−

direct Switzerland to enact the necessary legislation to contribute to preventing a
global temperature increase of more than 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels;
specify what is meant by “Switzerland’s contribution to preventing a global
temperature increase of more than 1.5 degrees”, namely:
1) a level of greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 that is net negative relative to1990. To be achieved byo reducing domestic emissions by more than 60% by 2030 compared to1990 and to net-zero by 2050, as well as byo financing emissions reductions abroad.
2) preventing and reducing any emissions occurring abroad that are attributable
to Switzerland (namely consumption-based emissions and emissions related
to financial flows), in line with the 1.5°C limit it.

22

The concrete effect of a judgment in our favour depends on which of our requests the
ECtHR upholds and also on the specific reasoning of the judgment.

23

If the ECtHR were to find only a violation of Art. 6 and/or Art. 13 ECHR, the casewould, after a request for revision, go to the Federal Supreme Court (Art. 122 FSCA)
and, at the behest of the Federal Supreme Court, ultimately be referred back to theFederal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications
DETEC. DETEC would then have to consider the Request to stop omissions in climate
protection pursuant to Art.25a APA and Art.6 para. 1 and 13 ECHR filed in
November 2016 and adjudicate it on the merits for the first time, i.e. examine the meritsof our requests. We would update the requests we submitted in 2016.

24

If the ECtHR were to find a violation of Article 2 (right to life) and/or Article 8 ECtHR(right to private and family life), the Federal Council and Parliament would have toremedy the human rights violation. The ECtHR may issue specific instructions in thisregard, which we have requested (see above, para. 20). If the Court rules in favour of
our requests, Switzerland will have to revise its CO2 legislation and set the necessary
climate targets in order to remedy the violation of human rights.

25

The judgment of the ECtHR is binding. Switzerland is obliged to comply with the rulingsof the ECtHR, and the ECtHR Committee of Ministers monitors the implementation of
its rulings (Art. 46 ECHR6). It does so on the basis of information provided by relevant
national authorities, non-governmental organisations and other actors.

6

Art. 46 ECHR: “(1) The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any
case to which they are parties. (2) The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of
Ministers, which shall supervise its execution.

6

26

The fact that national laws are (must be) amended as a result of decisions of the
ECtHR is regularly the case and is nothing unusual. This is not changed by the fact that
Switzerland does not have a system of constitutional courts or that it has establishedinstruments such as initiatives and referenda: Switzerland has ratified the ECHR andmust accordingly comply with the ECHR and the decisions of the ECtHR. National lawsthat are contrary to the ECHR must be amended. This has already been done in
Switzerland on several occasions. For country-specific and thematic examples of theimplementation of the ECtHR’s decisions, please refer to the Presentation by theCouncil of Europe on the impact of the ECHR.

27

A favourable judgment would also set a precedent for all 46 member states of theCouncil of Europe. In other words, domestic courts would be able to apply theprecedent set by the ECtHR and if they did not, lawsuits against all these states could
be based on this decision; and it would be expected that the court would again apply
the principles developed in the case of KlimaSeniorinnen in other cases as well.
Numerous cases are already pending before the ECtHR, which could benefit from sucha precedent in the near future (cf. para. 24 below).

VIII.

What are the specific consequences if the ECtHR recognises climate protection
as a human right?
If the ECtHR recognises climate protection as a human right, this would be a legal firstfor the Court. For the first time, a transnational court explicitly specialising in humanrights would be directly upholding a human rights-based right to climate protection. If
the Court recognises the need to keep warming to no more than 1.5°C, other countries(particularly those of the Council of Europe), relevant government institutions and also
companies could potentially be judged on the basis of that minimum limit.

28

29

It is difficult to say what actions within Switzerland such a ruling will trigger, and this will
depend largely on the decision of the ECtHR, namely what violations of the Convention
are found and the grounds for the decision. It is clear that the Federal Council and theFederal Administration will have to react. In the event that a violation of Articles 6 and13 ECHR is found, they will now have to assess the substance of the 2016 application
submitted by KlimaSeniorinnen and, if necessary, initiate preliminary legislative
proceedings. In the event that a violation of Articles 2 and 8 ECHR is found, both theFederal Council and Parliament will have to take action to remedy the violation. It may
be necessary for Switzerland to commission expert reports to determine its fair shareand to find solutions for complying with this fair share obligation. Based on any such
expert opinion – or directly based on any specific measures ordered by the ECtHR – itwill ultimately be necessary to initiate a legislative process to strengthen the climate
targets.

30

It is also possible that there will be a series of follow-up actions to further strengthen
the protection of human rights. For example, claims for damages could follow, or
relevant institutions could be sued to adapt their business practices to take account of
the measures necessary for climate protection.
7

IX.
31

X.

32

XI.
33

XII.

34

35

If the Court recognises climate protection as a human right, would theEuropean Convention on Human Rights have to be adapted?
No. In this case, the Court will be applying existing Convention rights in the context ofclimate change, just as it did in the context of, for example, earthquakes, mudslides orfloods. Only if the Court takes the view that climate protection does not fall within thescope of existing Convention rights (and thus dismisses the appeal under Articles 2
and 8 ECHR) would the Convention or the Protocols have to be adapted for a new“human right to climate protection”.
The ECtHR is treating the case of KlimaSeniorinnen as a priority and has held apublic hearing. Has this already resolved the question of the admissibility of
the application by KlimaSeniorinnen and the four individual applicants?
No, the Court will resolve that issue in its ruling. In doing so, it will draw a distinction
between the individual applicants and the Verein (Association), as well as between theasserted convention violations (Articles 6 & 13 ECHR and Articles 2 & 8 ECHR) andthe individual factual claims. It may well be that the Verein's application is deemed
inadmissible with regard to Articles 2 & 8 ECHR, but that of the individual applicants isdeemed admissible. In respect of Articles 6 & 13 ECHR, a separate assessment will be
carried out, whilst it is to be expected that the assessment of admissibility will be thesame for the Verein and the individual applicants.
If so, will this mean, in de facto terms, that the four individual applicants andthe Verein are recognised as victims of a human rights violation?
By its ruling, the court will resolve the question of whether the individual applicants andthe Verein are victims of a human rights violation or not. If the application of the Verein
were rejected, that would mean that NGOs and associations do not have a human rightto more climate protection because they are “only” legal entities, even though they
constitute groupings of particularly vulnerable persons. However, we would celebrate a
win by a single applicant as a win overall, as it would benefit all older women, including
KlimaSeniorinnen.
If the Court rules that the Verein is not admissible as an applicant, but theindividual applicants are, why would the KlimaSeniorinnen speak of havingwon?
The Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz currently represents more than 2,500 women
aged 64 and older. The four individual applicants are, like the members ofKlimaSeniorinnen, part of the group of older women specifically affected by theconsequences of climate change. A positive judgment by the ECtHR in favour of theindividual applicants is thus a positive judgment for all older women.
The work of the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz over the past eight years has been
central to raising awareness in Switzerland and around the world that climate change isthe greatest threat to human rights. Through their great commitment, KlimaSeniorinnen
have brought the issue to the attention of the Swiss population and politicians. The
8

Verein also intends to continue its efforts to ensure that the political sectors in
Switzerland and throughout Europe strengthen climate protection for the protection ofhuman rights.
36

In climate cases, individuals may experience structural vulnerabilities that prevented
them from bringing personal complaint and effective protection of an individual’s longterm interest in living in a safe environment may thus depend on associations being
able to bring complaints to protect against irreversible climate harm while there is stilltime to prevent it. Furthermore, associations have also been identified as those whohone in on the long-term structural climate harm that might otherwise escape the Court
as well as the public´s attention.

XIII.

If, in the event of a positive ruling, the Court requires Switzerland to implement
greater climate protection, what exactly does Switzerland need to improve?
The ECtHR cannot intervene directly in Swiss legislation. However, it can held that
Switzerland’s inadequate climate policy is violating the human rights of older women.
The Court may then leave it to Switzerland to remedy the violation as it thinks best.
Alternatively, the Court may indicate what climate policy it considers sufficient in terms
of protecting human rights and may order specific measures.

37

38

We have made our demands regarding climate protection in Switzerland known to the
ECtHR. These relate solely to the climate targets, but not to specific measures toachieve these targets; as a basic principle, these are a matter for policy-makers (seealso para. 7): Switzerland must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by at least
60 percent by 2030 – and this means within Switzerland. In addition, as anindustrialised country, Switzerland is obliged to support other countries in reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.

XIV.

If the Court recognises that Switzerland has violated the Applicants’ humanrights through its inadequate climate policy (Articles 2 and 8 ECHR), then it
must adapt its climate policy to the requirements of the ECHR. The Federal
Council will therefore have to revise the law. To what extent can Parliament
oppose the implementation of such a decision?
The ECHR is part of the Swiss legal system and thus part of our basic democraticorder. Switzerland has ratified the ECHR and is thus obliged to comply with the ECHR
and the decisions of the ECtHR. The Federal Council and Parliament must therefore
ensure that climate legislation is adapted accordingly. The judgement of the ECtHR isbinding, and the Committee of Ministers monitors the execution of its judgments(Article 46 ECHR7).

39

40

But in de facto terms, Parliament can pass unconstitutional laws, or referendums canbe held. To question the legitimacy of the ECtHR because of an ECtHR judgment that

7

Article 46 ECHR: "1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any
case to which they are parties. (2) The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of
Ministers, which shall supervise its execution."9may not fit one’s own worldview would be highly problematic from the perspective of
democratic policy principles. Human rights are not left or right, but universal. We expectthat politicians of all stripes adhere to the ruling.
XV.

41

XVI.
42

Is it the duty of Ignazio Cassis (representative of Switzerland in the Committeeof Ministers (consisting of the foreign ministers of the 46 member states of theCouncil of Europe)) to remind Switzerland of Article 46 of the Convention:
Binding force and execution of judgments?
It is the responsibility of the respective chair of the Committee of Ministers to conduct
its business. Lichtenstein will hold the chair until May 2024. This will be followed by
Lithuania.
If the Court refers the KlimaSeniorinnen’s application back to the Swiss courts,
to what court will the case be referred?
The Court only finds violations or orders specific measures. But it does not refer casesback to other courts. In the event of a violation of Articles 6 and 13 ECHR, the senior
women may submit an appeal on points of law [Revision] to the Federal Supreme
Court (see also para. 23). Subsequently, the Federal Supreme Court would refer thecase back to the Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy andCommunications (DETEC) for consideration on the merits. DETEC would then have to
adjudicate the complaint.

XVII.
What would happen if you lose?
43
We do not believe that a lawsuit is ever lost. As acknowledged by UNEP in their Global
Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review8 lawsuits are “a key tool in delivering
climate justice” and “challenging government and corporate inaction on the climate
breakdown have become an important driver of change” and “even unsuccessful
litigation can shape narratives around climate action, encouraging decision-makers tochange their approach.”44

The concrete effect of a negative judgment depends on which of our requests the
ECtHR rejects and also on the specific reasoning of the judgment.

45

In the worst case scenario, a negative decision could legitimise the inadequate climate
policy in Switzerland as well as in the other Council of Europe states.

XVIII.

Can the Court, in its ruling, actually walk back the jurisprudence of European
domestic courts?
If the Court were to reject the KlimaSeniorinnen's claim, it could call into question the
judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court in the Urgenda case and the judgments of theapex courts in Belgium, Germany and France. These courts have all held that States
are obliged to do their share to prevent climate change in order to protect human rights.

46

8

United Nations Environment Programme (2023). Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review.
Nairobi.

10However, these decisions were based not only on the ECHR, but also on the domestic
law of each country, so it would remain to be seen how the national courts would
consider the guidance of the ECtHR.
XIX.
Are you the only ones who have filed a climate case with the ECtHR?
47
Several “climate lawsuits” have been filed with the ECtHR. In addition to the
KlimaSeniorinnen case (submitted in 2020) there are currently numerous other cases
pending:
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
48

Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Other States (filed in 2020, interalia also against Switzerland, also pending before the Grand Chamber, hearing on
27 September 2023)Carême v. France (filed in 2021, also pending before the Grand Chamber, public
hearing on the afternoon of 29 March 2023)
Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway (filed in 2021, decision postponed until
Grand Chamber has decided on our climate case, among others)
The Norwegian Grandparents’ Climate Campaign and others v. Norway (filed in
2021, decision postponed until Grand Chamber has decided on our climate case,among others)
Müllner v. Austria (filed in 2021, decision postponed until Grand Chamber has
decided on our climate case, among others)
Uricchio v. Italy and 32 other States (filed in 2021, also against Switzerland,decision postponed until Grand Chamber has decided on our climate case, among
others)De Conto v. Italy and 32 other States (filed in 2021, also against Switzerland,decision postponed until Grand Chamber has decided on our climate case, among
others)Soubeste and Others v. Austria and 11 Other States (filed in 2022, decision
postponed until Grand Chamber has decided on our climate case, among others)
Engels and Others v. Germany (filed in 2022, decision postponed until Grand
Chamber has decided on our climate case, among others)
Humane Being v. the United Kingdom (filed in 2022, rejected by the ECtHR on
1 December 2022 due to lack of victim status or insufficient concern)
Plan B. Earth and Others v United Kingdom (filed in 2022, rejected by the ECtHR
on 13 December 2022 due to lack of victim status or insufficient concern)
Associacion Instituto Metabody v. Spain (declared inadmissible on 5 October 2023)

On 29 March 2023, the ECtHR heard the KlimaSeniorinnen’s application before theGrand Chamber as the first climate case heard by it. That same day, the same
Chamber also heard a case relating to France (Carême). On 27 September 2023, theGrand Chamber held a hearing on a third case (Duarte Agostinho), in which
11

Switzerland is a co-respondent along with 32 other countries. Based on these threecases, the Grand Chamber will define the jurisprudence on the climate crisis andhuman rights, which will have far-reaching consequences.
XX.
49

Are you also requesting financial compensation from Switzerland in yourapplication to the ECtHR? If yes, how much should that compensation be?
We, the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen, are reclaiming from Switzerland the legal and court
costs that have incurred. When it comes to this claim for costs, our point is that it reallyshould not be the case that one has to ask one’s own country to protect fundamental
rights at great personal cost to oneself. Instead of ignoring the case, as DETEC did, wewould have preferred it if Switzerland had adjudicated it, and no one had incurred thesecosts.

50

Finally, the court will determine the extent to which Switzerland must reimburse us for
our legal fees and court costs. It is almost never the case that all costs are reimbursed.
The amount depends, inter alia, on whether the Court grants our requests in whole or
only in part.

51

The four individual applicants have additionally requested for just satisfaction of
CHF 10,000 per person on the basis of their mental and physical suffering caused by
Switzerland’s inaction and the consequences of global warming.

XXI.

In Switzerland, it is up to the people to make these decisions, why are you
pursuing a case at the ECtHR and not going down the political route instead?
In view of the catastrophic effects of the climate crisison people and the planet, itcannot be "either or". Both paths are important, both must be pursued and should not
be played off against each other. Seeking redress in court is a democratic right, andthe courts are an important pillar of democracy.

52

53

Of course, the political arena is a decisive factor in the struggle to address the climate
crisis, and the pursuit of political means is important. For example, there was thelaunch of the glacier initiative, which is supported by the KlimaSeniorinnen.

54

However: In 1992, Switzerland and almost all other countries in the world have agreed
in the Framework Convention on Climate Change that a dangerous disruption of theclimate system must be avoided. Unfortunately, the subsequent decades have clearlyshown that those active in the executive and legislative branches have not been
seriously pursuing this objective and do not intend to do so in the future (see above
para. 7 ff.).

55

Switzerland’s inadequate climate policy has a negative impact on and indeed violates
our human rights (para. 11 ff.). Consequently, in addition to the political approach, alegal approach is also needed. The courts are there to judge human rights violations.
Notwithstanding political polarisation and irreconcilable differences between the12parties, it is the task of the courts, which are solely bound by the applicable law, toidentify violations of human rights and to prescribe measures to restore the rule of law.
56

Nor can referendums against climate legislation or in respect of such legislation
invalidate the ECHR: The ECHR was ratified by Switzerland (and thus also by the
Swiss people), and Switzerland and the Swiss must accordingly comply with the ECHR
and the decisions of the ECtHR.

XXII.
Who is involved as a third party in your case before the Grand Chamber?
57
The third parties neither support us as Applicants nor Switzerland as Respondent. The
purpose of third party involvement before the ECtHR is to provide the court withinformation that will assist the court in its decision-making. A third party must
objectively present the relevant content of the case and may not comment on thematter itself. All of the third parties have been informed accordingly by the Court.
58

We were delighted to see the active participation of third parties from all over the worldin our proceedings, as this shows that our case is receiving attention and a great dealof importance is being attributed to it throughout Europe and even beyond.

59

Questions on the interventions should be addressed to the third parties. It is not for us
to comment on the content of the interventions outside of the court proceedings.

60

There are 23 third parties involved in the proceedings before the Grand Chamber.
−

Third parties involved for the first time in proceedings before the Grand Chamber inthis case:
−
−
−
−
−

−
−
−
−
−

Austria
IrelandItaly
LatviaNorway; Norway Annex 1 (Explanation of vote by First Secretary KatrineØrnehaug Dale to the General Assembly after adoption of the resolution onclean, healthy, sustainable environment); Norway Annex 2 (Statement by
Ambassador Tine Mørch Smith, permanent representative of Norway) (for the
first time before the Grand Chamber)Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and Dr Margaretha
Wewerinke-Singh
ClientEarth
13

−
−
−
−

−

−
−
−
−

−
−
−

61

Group of academics from the University of Bern
Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School

ENNHRI – European Network of National Human Rights Institutions
E. Brems, Department of European, Public and International Law Human
Rights Center, Ghent University
International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and Swiss Section of theInternational Commission of Jurists (ICJ-CH)
S. Seneviratne and A. Fischlin of ETH Zürich
E. Schmid and V. Boillet of Université de Lausanne (french and english)

Already involved as a third party in the proceedings before the Chamber,
observations remain relevant before the Grand Chamber:−

XXIII.

Our Children’s Trust, Oxfam, Center for Climate Repair at Cambridge, Centre
for Child Law

Already involved as a third party in the proceedings before the Chamber,
observations before the Grand Chamber updated from those filed in 2021:−−

Germanwatch, Greenpeace Germany and Scientists for Future

Altsean-Burma, Comisión Colombiana de Juristas (CCJ), Comité Ambiental
en Defensa de la Vida (CADV), The European Center for Constitutional and
Human Rights (ECCHR), FIAN International, The Global Initiative for
Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (GIESCR), Human Rights Action(HRA), The international Human Rights Clinic at the University of Virginia
School of Law, Layla Hugues, Minority Rights International (MRG),
Observatori DESC (ESCR observatory), The Oficina para América Latina dela Coalición Internacional para el Hábitat (HIC-AL), The Women’s Legal
Centre (WLC)
Global Justice Clinic, Climate Litigation Accelerator and C. Voigt
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
UN Special Rapporteurs and UN independent expert – M. A. Orellana – D.R.
Boyd – C. Mahler

Why did DETEC reject the request “to stop omissions in climate protection” in
April 2017?
DETEC refused to enter into the case. DETEC asserted in its decision that the
KlimaSeniorinnen lacked standing. DETEC’s reasoning was that the KlimaSeniorinnen
did not aim to reduce CO2 emissions in their immediate environment, but rather toreduce CO2 emissions worldwide. DETEC therefore ruled that they lacked standing tosue. The arguments of KlimaSeniorinnen were not addressed. Neither the significantly
increased health risk for older women nor the omissions in climate protection, which14

has been shown to lead to more frequent, longer and more intense heat waves, werediscussed. DETEC thus did not deal at all with the climate case on the merits.
XXIV.
62

Why did the Federal Administrative Court dismiss the appeal in
November 2018?
The Federal Administrative Court upheld DETEC's decision not to consider the case,albeit on other grounds. According to the judgment, women over 75 years of age are
not particularly affected by the effects of climate change. This is because all humans
and also winter tourism, water management, etc. are affected by global warming insome way. On the basis of this argument, the court refused to consider the
KlimaSeniorinnen's claims that their fundamental and human rights are violated. .

XXV.
Why did the Federal Supreme Court dismiss the appeal in May 2020?
63
The reasons for rejection of the Federal Supreme Court:- It based its negative decision on the fact that the Appellants’ right to life and healthhas not been affected to a sufficient extent at the present time, that a violation of the“well below 2 degrees Celsius” target is only to be expected in the medium to longer
term, i.e. there is still time to take measures. In concrete terms: The threshold of "wellbelow 2°C" has not yet been reached at present and therefore no one could demandcompliance with such a target at this stage.
- The Federal Supreme Court goes on to say that for this reason neither the
KlimaSeniorinnen nor the rest of the population can invoke their right to life andhealth in relation to Swiss climate policy.
- Incidentally, the Federal Supreme Court also states that for this reason not only isthere a lack of standing, but also that the human rights of KlimaSeniorinnen and thesingle plaintiffs have not been violated. In this respect, the Federal Supreme Court
also expressed its legal view on the merits of the alleged violation of human rights.
64

The Federal Supreme Court thus ultimately upheld the decisions of the lower courts,
albeit with different reasoning. The Federal Supreme Court thus maked the climate
crisis a "fundamental rights-free zone", and provided cover for the continuing failings inthis country with regard to climate protection, which are making it increasingly unlikelythat the goal of limiting global warming to no more than 1.5°C, which is also recognised
by Switzerland, will be achieved.

XXVI.
Summarise briefly, how did the courts decide in Switzerland?
65
The DETEC was not willing to deal with the relief requested on the merits. The Federal
Supreme Court ultimately upheld this decision. It also found, as an ancillary point, thatthe human rights of older women were not violated by Switzerland’s current climate
policy.
XXVII.
How much has the pursuit of legal remedies cost the KlimaSeniorinnen so far?
66
Since the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz was founded in 2016, an average ofaround CHF 120,000 has been spent annually. Greenpeace Switzerland isguaranteeing the costs as a partner in the proceedings and thus is also bearing a part15

of the costs. However, the KlimaSeniorinnen themselves are also bearing a substantial
part of the costs.

16