Verein KlimaSeniorinnen and others v Switzerland (Application no. 53600/20)
Request for Just Satisfaction (Article 41 of the Convention)
Request for General Measures (Article 46 of the Convention)

1

Due to the Respondent’s violation of the Convention, the Applicants
respectfully submit that in terms of Art. 41 ECHR, the Court should award
just satisfaction in the form of non-pecuniary damages (paras. 2 ff. below) andlegal costs and expenses (paras. 6 ff. below). The Applicants also respectfully
request the Court to order general measures under Art. 46 ECHR (paras. 15ff.).

1.

Non-pecuniary Damage

2The Applicants 2 (respectively, due to her death, her son André Seidenberg in
her stead, see Observations on the Facts, hereinafter "OF", para. 39), 3, 4 and5 each claim non-pecuniary damage of CHF 10,000 for the following reasons.

3

Regarding the violations of Arts. 2 and/or 8 ECHR, Applicants 2-5, as shownin detail in the application (Additional Submission, hereinafter "AS",section 1.2) as well as in the Observations on the Facts (OF section 2.6), haveindeed been suffering for years and continue to suffer from health problems,
distress and anxiety during hot periods, which have been increasing in
number and intensity due to global warming (OF section 2.4). To minimise
physical impairment, they regularly have to severely restrict themselves
during heatwaves, which in turn affects their private and family life.
Furthermore, they had to make adjustments to their living situations that theywould not otherwise have had to make. It is probable that further suchadjustments will be necessary in future. Finally, the increased mortality andmorbidity risk causes the Applicants to live in a constant state of concern andfear that an upcoming heatwave could severely affect their health and, in theworst case, have fatal consequences.

4Regarding the violations of Arts. 2 and 8 ECHR, the Applicants were left in
the dark and with no adequate protection for a long time due to DETEC's anddomestic courts' failure to act. Their claims were not examined on the merits
for several years, which also caused negative consequences to their wellbeing. This inaction resulted in a violation of their right to access to court

1

under Art. 6 ECHR and their right to an effective remedy under Art. 13ECHR.
5

In view of the physical and mental sufferings described, taking into
consideration the violations of their procedural rights, and in the light of theCourt's practice in comparable cases,1 the Applicants request the Court toaward each of the Applicants 2-5 compensation for non-pecuniary damages in
the amount of CHF 10'000.

2.

Costs and Expenses

6Under the title of costs and expenses, the Applicants claim a total amount ofCHF 324'249.25 (including VAT2). The sum comprises, on the one hand,lawyers' fees totalling CHF 315'249.25 (including VAT) and, on the other,costs imposed by the Swiss courts totalling CHF 9'000.003.

7

The Applicants substantiate this amount with the enclosed fee note (doc. 1),
which entails a detailed list of legal activities. The total sum of lawyers' fees
may seem high; however, it is justified by the complexity and novelty of theproceedings that had to be conducted before the national instances as well as
before the European Court of Human Rights, and the importance of the case.
Additional complexity arose from the ongoing changes in the relevant
fundamentals over the last five years, not only in factual, but also in politicaland legal terms. Before each instance, it was necessary to address the newcircumstances that had arisen in the meantime.

8The great effort required for the procedure is evident from the legal
documents submitted in each instance: See Application docs. 14, 16 and 18,
the Application to the Court as well as the Observations on the Law/Reply to
the Respondent’s observations on the law and Observations on theRegarding non-pecuniary damages for violations of Art. 6 ECHR: Sabeh El Leil v. France [GC], no.
34869/05, § 75; Chatellier v. France, no. 34658/07, § 49; Lawyer Partners A.S. v. Slovakia, no.
54252/07, § 60. Regarding non-pecuniary damages for violations of Art. 8 ECHR: Deés v. Hungary,no. 2345/06, § 29; Mileva v. Bulgaria, no. 43449/02, § 118 f.; Brânduşe v. Romania, no 6586/03,§ 83.
2 The applicable rate of VAT (Mehrwertsteuer, MWST) changed in the course of the proceedings.
From the beginning of the case until 31 December 2017, the rate was 8%. Since then, the rate has
been 7.7% until today. The corresponding VAT surcharges are detailed in the enclosed fee note(Annex).
3 See judgement of the Federal Administrative Court of 27 November 2018 (Application doc. 16), p.
24, imposing CHF 5’000, and judgement of the Federal Supreme Court of 5 May 2020 (Applicationdoc. 18), p. 16, imposing CHF 4’000.00. In accordance with practice, DETEC did not charge any
costs for the first-instance proceedings (Application doc. 15).
12

Facts/Reply to the Respondent’s observations on the facts submitted together
with this request.
9The effort is documented by the enclosed detailed fee note (Annex). The legal
fees are composed of the following partial amounts:-

Proceedings before the federal administrative authorities:
CHF 84'218.40 (including VAT of 8%)-

Proceedings before the Federal Administrative Court:
CHF 31'503.70 (including VAT of 8% or 7.7% respectively)4-

Proceedings before the Federal Supreme Court:
CHF 38'267.95 (including VAT of 7.7%)-

Proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights5:
CHF 161'259.20 (including VAT of 7.7%).

10

As mentioned above, the present case raises numerous new and complex
questions of law and fact6, some of which have changed and continue tochange throughout the procedure. For these reasons, it was necessary to workon the matter in a team of lawyers to safeguard the interests of the applicantsat all times, both before national instances and before the European Court of
Human Rights.

11Until the end of March 2019, the legal representation of the Applicants wascarried out jointly by Ursula Brunner and Martin Looser, both partners atettlersuter Rechtsanwälte, and Cordelia Bähr, partner at bähr ettwein
rechtsanwälte. All of them have in-depth expertise in environmental law,with each of them having a different focus. Due to the serious illness of
Ursula Brunner in spring 2019 and her passing on 17 July 2019, therepresentation was since then carried out by Cordelia Bähr together with
Martin Looser. In so far as it was necessary for the diligent legal
representation of the Applicants, the lawyers mentioned were assisted byassociates of ettlersuter Rechtsanwälte. For full transparency, the fee noteSee footnote 2.
Services rendered until and including Friday, 8 October 2021.
6 For an overview, please refer to the tables of contents in the original request to several bodies of
the Federal Administration of 25 November 2016 (Application doc. 14 p. 152 ff. [german: p. 209ff./english: p. 358 ff.]) as well as to the appeals to the Federal Administrative Court (Application doc.
16, p. 50 f. [p. 430 f.]) and the Federal Supreme Court (Application doc. 18 p. 74 f. [german: p. 576f./english: 648 f.]) of 26 May 2018 and of 21 January 2019.
453

submitted to the court (Annex) contains a detailed list of the services
rendered.
12In addition, it should be noted that, since the inception of the case, theApplicants have been charged a uniform - and by Swiss standards low - hourly
rate of CHF 280 (excluding VAT) for all legal services rendered by all lawyers
involved.

13

Finally, all costs and expenses detailed in the fee note (Annex) were or will be
invoiced, pursuant to the contractual obligations between the Applicants andthe assigned attorneys. The Applicants did not apply for legal aid before thenational authorities and - under Swiss law - would not have been entitled todo so. Therefore, no deductions can be made in that regard.

14

For the reasons set out above, the Applicants request the Court to award fullcompensation for all costs and expenses incurred.

3.

General Measures

15

The case of the Applicants shows a systematic failure of the Respondent totake all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure that the Applicant’srights under Arts. 2 and 8 ECHR are not violated by the detrimental effects ofheat waves. To prevent such effects - and thereby to protect the Applicants’rights -, the Respondent is required to take all necessary measures to do its
share to prevent a global temperature increase of more than 1.5°C above preindustrial levels (see AS para. 57 and Observations on the Law, hereinafter"OL", section 2.3.4.1).

16In fact, as shown in detail, the Respondent has not set itself sufficiently
ambitious targets in this regard. Firstly, the Respondent's climate strategy for2030 and 2050 is far from being sufficient to make a fair share contribution tolimiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels (OF section2.10). Secondly, the Respondent has not taken the necessary measures tomeet its insufficient climate targets for 2020 (AS para. 17 and 19 ff.; OF
section 2.11).

17

These breaches of rights of the Convention are affecting the Applicants
directly and seriously (OF section 2.5 and 2.6; OL section 2.2). Further, any
potential future individual Applicant in the same situation would see theirrights violated in the same way. There is, therefore, a systemic issue at theroot of the case. At the same time, the insufficiency of the measures taken

4and planned by Respondent has far-reaching consequences, as global warming
will have devastating effects in and beyond Switzerland, inter alia more
intense and frequent heatwaves with the associated consequences (AS section
1.1, OF section 2.3-2.5). Notably, Switzerland as an economically highly
developed country is setting a dismal example for other countries among themember states of the European Council and beyond, by not pursuing itshighest possible ambition and doing its fair share to limit global warming, andis herewith furthering global inaction.
18

Furthermore, it is clear today that to limit global warming to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels, urgent, meaningful, and ambitious action is imperative. If
inaction continues and only insufficient measures are taken, global warming
will - with a high degree of certainty - exceed the 1.5°C threshold in the next
few years. Such a scenario will further intensify the breach of the Applicants'rights (OF section 2.4 and 2.5).

19The urgency of effectively limiting global warming and the fact that theApplicants as well as any persons in a similar situation are and will continue
to be affected by the Respondent's failures calls for the Court to order generalmeasures in this case, and the Applicants request the Court to do so. In
accordance with the Applicant's second request to the Court (OL, section 4),
the Applicants respectfully request the Court to order the Respondent toadopt the necessary legislative and administrative framework to protect theirrights, which is to do its share to prevent a global temperature increase of
more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.7 This includes:a. ensuring a greenhouse gas emission level in 2030 that is netnegative as compared to the emissions in 1990;
b. reducing domestic emissions by 61% below 1990 levels by 2030,
and to net-zero by 2050, as the domestic component of a.;c. preventing and reducing any emissions occurring abroad that are
directly or indirectly attributable to the Respondent, in line with the1.5°C above pre-industrial levels limit;
d. permanently removing greenhouse gas emissions from theatmosphere and storing them in safe, ecologically and socially soundDrawing here on the examples of general measures ordered in cases such as Greens and M.T. v.
The United Kingdom, no. 60041/08 and 60054/08, § 110 ff., and Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine,7

no. 21722/11, § 202.

5

greenhouse gas sinks, if, despite a., b., c., any greenhouse gas
emissions continue to occur within the control of the Respondent, or
the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere isexceeding the level corresponding to the 1.5ºC above pre-industrial
levels limit.
20Moreover, given the Respondent’s continued failure to adopt the legislative
and administrative framework necessary to effectively protect the Applicant’srights, the Court should set a time-limit which is adequate in view of theApplicant's requests to the Court (OL section 4) for the Respondent toimplement such a framework.821

Such general measures are necessary to enable the Committee of Ministers toverify the timely and, regarding the necessary measures to protect theApplicant’s rights, sufficient implementation of the Court's judgment in thepresent case.

22

Failing to order these measures would, considering the violation of theApplicant’s rights, their elderly age, the urgency of the situation and theRespondent’s history of inaction, likely result in a continued breach of theApplicant’s rights.

4.

Summary of claims regarding remedies

To summarise, the Applicant respectfully requests the Court to award them
just satisfaction and order general measures, as follows:(1) to award each individual Applicant CHF 10’000 for non-pecuniary
damage;(2) to award CHF 324'249.25 for cost and expenses;(3) to order the Respondent to adopt the necessary legislative andadministrative framework to do its share to prevent a global temperature
increase of more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, which includes:a. ensuring a greenhouse gas emission level in 2030 that is netnegative as compared to the emissions in 1990;
b. reducing domestic emissions by 61% below 1990 levels by 2030,
and to net-zero by 2050, as the domestic component of a.;

8Greens And M.T. v. The United Kingdom, no. 60041/08 and 60054/08, § 115.

6

c. preventing and reducing any emissions occurring abroad that aredirectly or indirectly attributable to the Respondent, in line with the1.5°C above pre-industrial levels limit;
d. permanently removing greenhouse gas emissions from theatmosphere and storing them in safe, ecologically and socially soundgreenhouse gas sinks, if, despite a., b., c., any greenhouse gas
emissions continue to occur within the control of the Respondent, or
the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere isexceeding the level corresponding to the 1.5ºC above pre-industriallevels limit;(4) to set a binding time-limit for the Respondent to implement such aframework which is adequate in view of (3) above.

Zurich, 13 October 2021
Yours faithfully,

Cordelia Christiane Bährlic. iur., LL.M. Public Law (LSE),
Attorney-at-Law

Martin Looser
Attorney-at-Law

Annex: Fee note7