In Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland on April 9, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority of sixteen votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
In Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (application no. 53600/20) on April 9, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority of sixteen votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to court).
The case concerned a complaint by four women and a Swiss association, Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, whose members are all older women concerned about the consequences of global warming on their living conditions and health. They consider that the Swiss authorities are not taking sufficient action, despite their duties under the Convention, to mitigate the effects of climate change.
The Court found that the Swiss Confederation had failed to comply with its duties (“positive obligations”) under the Convention concerning climate change. There had been critical gaps including a failure by the Swiss authorities to quantify, through a carbon budget or otherwise, national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions limitations. Switzerland had also failed to meet its past GHG emission reduction target, and generally, the Swiss authorities had not acted in time and in an appropriate way to devise, develop and implement relevant legislation and measures in this case. As a result the violation of Article 8 of the Convention was confirmed.
Moreover, the Court found that the national courts had not provided convincing reasons as to why they had considered it unnecessary to examine the merits of the complaints. They had failed to take into 6 consideration the compelling scientific evidence concerning climate change and had not taken the association’s complaints seriously. As a result, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.