GRAND CHAMBER
CASE OF VEREIN KLIMASENIORINNEN SCHWEIZ AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND
(Application no. 53600/20)
 
JUDGMENT
 
Art 34 • Victim • Locus standi • Separate key criteria set out for establishing victim status of individual applicants and locus standi (representation) of associations in climate-change context • Need for effective protection of Convention rights taking into account special features of this phenomenon without undermining the exclusion of actio popularis from the Convention system • In case-circumstances victim-status criteria not fulfilled by individual applicants • Especially high threshold for fulfilling criteria not met (incompatible ratione personae) • Applicant association fulfilled relevant criteria (locus standi) and thus had standing to act on behalf of its members • Importance of collective action and intergenerational burden-sharing in climate-change context
Art 8 • Positive obligations • Private and family life • Respondent State’s failure to comply with positive obligation to implement sufficient measures to combat climate change • Art 8 applicable • Art 8 encompassing a right for individuals to effective protection by the State authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on their lives, health, well-being and quality of life • Need to develop a more appropriate and tailored approach as regards the various Convention issues arising in the climate-change context not addressed by Court’s existing environmental case-law • Importance of intergenerational burden‑sharing • Reduced margin of appreciation as regards State’s commitment combating climate change, its adverse effects and the setting of aims and objectives in this respect • Wide margin of appreciation as to the choice of means designed to achieve those objectives • Contracting State’s primary duty to adopt, and to effectively apply in practice, regulations and measures capable of mitigating the existing and potentially irreversible, future effects of climate change • Enumeration of requirements to which competent authorities need to have due regard • Need for domestic procedural safeguards • Mitigation measures to be supplemented by adaptation measures aimed at alleviating the most serious or imminent consequences of climate-change • Existence of critical lacunae in Swiss authorities’ process of putting in place the relevant domestic regulatory framework • Failure to quantify, through a carbon budget or otherwise, national GHG emission limitations • Failure to act in good time and in an appropriate and consistent manner regarding the devising, development and implementation of the relevant legislative and administrative framework • Wide margin of appreciation exceeded 
Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Access to court • Applicability of civil limb concerning the effective implementation of mitigation measures under domestic law • Domestic courts’ failure to engage seriously or at all with applicant association’s action • Lack of convincing reasons for non-examination of merits of complaints • Failure to consider compelling scientific evidence concerning climate change and to examine applicant association’s legal standing • Lack of further legal avenues or safeguards • Very essence of right of access to court impaired • Emphasis on domestic courts’ key role in climate-change litigation and of access to justice in this field
Art 46 • Execution of judgment • General measures • Respondent State to assess specific measures to be taken with the assistance of the Committee of Ministers
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG
9 April 2024
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROCEDURE
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. The applicants’ particular situation
1. The first applicant
2. The second to fifth applicants
(a) The second applicant
(b) The third applicant
(c) The fourth applicant
(d) The fifth applicant
B. Proceedings instituted by the applicants
1. The applicants’ requests to the authorities
2. Proceedings in the Federal Administrative Court
(a) The applicants’ appeal
(b) The FAC’s decision
3. Proceedings in the Federal Supreme Court
(a) The applicants’ appeal
(b) The FSC’s decision
II. FACTS CONCERNING CLIMATE CHANGE
A. Submissions by the applicants
1. General observations on climate change
2. The situation in Switzerland
3. Measures taken by the Swiss authorities
B. Submissions by the Government
1. The first phase
2. The second phase
C. Facts in relation to climate change emerging from the material available to the Court
RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
I. DOMESTIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Constitution
B. Federal Act on the Protection of the Environment
C. CO2 Act
D. Climate Act
E. The Federal Administrative Procedure Act
F. Relevant domestic case-law
II. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS
A. United Nations
1. The system of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(a) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(b) The Kyoto Protocol
(c) The Paris Agreement
(d) COP26 and COP27
(e) COP28
2. The Aarhus Convention
3. The United Nations General Assembly
(a) Resolution on the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment
(b) Other General Assembly material
4. The Secretary‑General of the United Nations
5. The Human Rights Council
(a) Resolutions
(b) Special procedures
(i) Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change
(ii) Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment
(iii) Independent expert on human rights and international solidarity
(iv) Independent Expert on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons
6. The Human Rights Committee
7. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
8. Committee on the Rights of the Child
9. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
10. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
11. Other developments
B. Council of Europe
1. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
2. Committee of Ministers
3. Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights
4. Other materials
C. European Union
1. Primary legislation
2. Legislative acts
(a) Concerning GHG emissions
(b) Concerning access to information, public participation and access to justice in environmental matters
3. Case‑law of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union
D. Material from other regional human rights mechanisms
1. Inter-American system
(a) Relevant instruments
(b) The Inter-American Court of Human Rights
(c) The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
2. African system
III. COMPARATIVE LAW
A. Relevant comparative materials concerning the Aarhus Convention
B. Overview of domestic case‑law concerning climate change
1. France
(a) The Grande-Synthe case
(b) Applications for judicial review seeking to secure compliance with the limit values for concentrations of particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide
(c) Full administrative-law actions seeking to secure compliance with GHG emissions reduction targets
(d) Examples of orders and coercive fines imposed in climate cases
2. Germany
3. Ireland
4. The Netherlands
5. Norway
6. Spain
7. The United Kingdom
8. Belgium
THE LAW
I. PRELIMINARY ISSUES
A. The second applicant
B. Scope of the complaint
1. The parties’ submissions
2. The Court’s assessment
C. Jurisdiction
1. The parties’ submissions
2. The Court’s assessment
D. Compliance with the six-month time-limit
II. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS REGARDING THE COMPLAINTS RAISED IN THE PRESENT CASE
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 2 AND 8 OF THE CONVENTION
A. The parties’ submissions
1. The applicants
(a) Preliminary remarks
(b) Victim status
(i) The applicant association
(ii) Applicants nos. 2-5
(c) Applicability of the relevant Convention provisions
(i) Article 2 of the Convention
(ii) Article 8 of the Convention
(d) Merits
2. The Government
(a) Preliminary remarks
(b) Victim status
(i) The applicant association
(ii) Applicants nos. 2-5
(c) Applicability of the relevant Convention provisions
(i) Article 2 of the Convention
(ii) Article 8 of the Convention
(d) Merits
B. The third‑party interveners
1. Intervening Governments
(a) The Government of Austria
(b) The Government of Ireland
(c) The Government of Italy
(d) The Government of Latvia
(e) The Government of Norway
(f) The Government of Portugal
(g) The Government of Romania
(h) The Government of Slovakia
2. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
3. United Nations Special Rapporteurs on toxics and human rights; on human rights and the environment; and the Independent Expert on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons
4. International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the ICJ Swiss Section (ICJ‑CH)
5. European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI)
6. The coordinated submission of the International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR‑Net)
7. The Human Rights Centre of Ghent University
8. Professors Evelyne Schmid and Véronique Boillet (University of Lausanne)
9. Professors Sonia I. Seneviratne and Andreas Fischlin (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich)
10. Global Justice Clinic, Climate Litigation Accelerator and Professor C. Voigt (University of Oslo)
11. ClientEarth
12. Our Children’s Trust, Oxfam France and Oxfam International and its affiliates (Oxfam)
13. Group of academics from the University of Bern (Professors Claus Beisbart, Thomas Frölicher, Martin Grosjean, Karin Ingold, Fortunat Joos, Jörg Künzli, C. Christoph Raible, Thomas Stocker, Ralph Winkler and Judith Wyttenbach, and Doctors Ana M. Vicedo‑Cabrera and Charlotte Blattner)
14. Center for International Environmental Law and Dr Margaretha Wewerinke‑Singh
15. The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School
16. Germanwatch, Greenpeace Germany and Scientists for Future
C. The Court’s assessment
1. Preliminary points
2. General considerations relating to climate‑change cases
(a) Questions of causation
(b) Issues of proof
(c) Effects of climate change on the enjoyment of Convention rights
(d) The question of causation and positive obligations in the climate-change context
(e) The issue of the proportion of State responsibility
(f) Scope of the Court’s assessment
(g) Relevant principles regarding the interpretation of the Convention
3. Admissibility
(a) Victim status/locus standi (representation)
(i) General principles
(ii) Victim status/locus standi in the climate-change context
(iii) Application of these principles to the present case
(b) Applicability of the relevant Convention provisions
(i) General principles
(ii) Application of these principles to the present case
4. Merits
(a) General principles
(b) The States’ positive obligations in the context of climate change
(i) The States’ margin of appreciation
(ii) Content of the States’ positive obligations
(c) Application of the above principles to the present case
(i) Preliminary remarks
(ii) The respondent State’s compliance with its positive obligations
(iii) Conclusion
IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
A. The parties’ submissions
1. The applicants
2. The Government
B. The Court’s assessment
1. Admissibility
(a) Victim status
(b) Applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(i) General principles
(ii) Applicability of Article 6 § 1 in the climate‑change context
(iii) Application of the above principles and considerations to the present case
2. Merits
(a) General principles
(b) Application of the above principles to the present case
V. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLES 41 AND 46 OF THE CONVENTION
A. Article 41 of the Convention
1. Damage
2. Costs and expenses
3. Default interest
B. Article 46 of the Convention
1. The parties’ submissions
2. The Court’s assessment

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation