Verein klimaseniorinnen schweiz and others v. Switzerland

Citation: verein klimaseniorinnen schweiz and others v. Switzerland app no 53600/20 (ecthr, grand chamber)

Bench: heard by the chamber of the european court of human rights compromising of 17 judges with judge siofra o’leary serving as president of the court.

Judgement: 09 april 2024

INTRODUCTION

One of the most crucial challenges faced in the 21^st century is Climate change as it poses serious threat to ecosystems, biodiversity, public health and enjoyment of fundamental human rights. There is urgent need for states to adopt effective measures that can mitigate climate change and ensure protection of vulnerable groups. These measures are required because of rise in global temperatures, rising sea levels and the rising frequency in extreme weather. Government measures have been criticized as inadequate with courts across the world been called to address the state’s responsibility in addressing climate related harms. Climate change has risen as one of the crucial mechanisms required for promoting environmental accountability and strengthening international and domestic legal obligations enforcements. The decision given by the European Court of Human Rights in this case is  a crucial moment for the evolution of environmental and human rights laws. The decision was held on the 9^th of April 2024 by the grand chamber where it held that states inadequate response to change could amount to violations that are protected by the European Conventions on Human Rights. The petitioner which is a group or an association of elderly Swiss women and other several members argued that Switzerland failure in ensuring adequate climate mitigation measures exposed them to dangerous effects of climate change especially severe heatwaves that mostly affected older women. The court then found that Switzerland failed to comply with obligations laid under article 8 of the ECHR by failing to establish and implement effective regulatory frameworks that could address climate change. The court also held that its domestic courts had also violated article 6 (1) as they failed to provide effective judicial consideration based on the petitioners’ claims. This is a landmark decision as it recognizes obligations in ensuring effective climate policies and it also realizes the close relationship between environmental protection and the protection of fundamental rights. This case commentary analyses facts, legal issues, arguments advanced by the parties, the judgement by the court, the ratio decidendi and the implications of the decision regarding international environmental law, climate governance and future climate litigation.

FACTS OF THE CASE

 The petitioner in the Vereign KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and others v. Switzerland consisted of Verein KlimaSeniorinmen Schweiz (Senior Women for Climate Protection Switzerland) which is a non-profit organization consisting of more than 2000 elderly women and four individual members belonging to the association. This association was created to advocate for stronger climate action as it argued that elderly women are mostly vulnerable to effects of climate change like prolonged and frequent heatwaves which pose as a major risk to their health, wellbeing and life expectancy. The petitioner argued that Switzerland had failed to implement effective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and this was based on available scientific evidence and its international commitments. They further argued that the states climate policies were ineffective in limiting global warming and that the states failure exposed its citizens to serious health risk which violated their human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, especially pertaining to right of respect for private and family which is in article 2, the right to a fair hearing under article 6 (1) and the right to an effective remedy under article 13. Before they approached the European Court of Human Rights, the petitioner tried to seek relief by requesting the government to strengthen climate policies and fulfill its legal obligations. They sought relief under the Swiss administrative authorities and the domestic courts which rejected their claims stating that they lacked sufficient standing and failed to demonstrate how they were directly and individually affected by shortcomings they claimed to be in Switzerland climate policies. The application was dismissed by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court leaving the petitioner without any domestic remedy. After the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioner filed a case before the European Court of Human Rights in 2020 alleging that Switzerland inadequate climate action and its refusal in domestic courts to examine their claims was violation of their rights given by the European Court of Human Rights. This case was referred to the Grand Chamber as it raised questions regarding the relationship between climate change, environmental protection and the human rights obligations of states. The judgement was given on 9 April 2024 and it became a landmark case in international environmental and human rights jurisprudence as it  established principles on states accountability for climate change.

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT

1. Whether Switzerland failed in fulfilling its positive obligations under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights as it failed to adopt and implement effective measures to mitigate climate change.
2. Whether the petitioner qualifies as the victims under article 34 of the European Courts of Human Rights and could bring their case before the court.
3. Whether the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz as an association had the legal standing to be able to represent the interest of its members in issues related to climate human rights litigation
4. Whether the Swiss domestic court by failing to provide effective access to justice and a fair hearing violated their rights under article 6 (1) of the European Court of Human Rights.
5. Whether there was violation on the part of Swiss domestic courts in failure to address climate change under article 2 and 8 of the European Court of Human Rights.
6. Whether Switzerland complied with its obligations in protecting individuals from foreseeable adverse effects of climate change.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Arguments of the Petitioner

The petitioner argued that Switzerland as a government  failed when it comes to adopting measures that could mitigate climate change which exposed them to serious health risk especially during extreme heatwaves. They further argued that the sates failure violated their rights under article 2 and 8 guaranteed by the European Court of Human Rights. They also submitted before the court that the Swiss Court and administrative authorities failed to consider their claims and offer them justice which amounted to violations of article 6(1) of the Convention.

Arguments of the Respondent

Switzerland on the hand argued that its policies focusing on climate were consistent with legal obligations and that its policies fell within states discretion. It further argued that the petitioner failed to demonstrate how they were affected directly by the alleged shortcomings in states climate measure and therefore lacked victim status. The state argued that there was no violation of the convention on the states.

JUDGEMENT

On the 9^th of April the grand chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that the petitioner application was admissible and it also declared that the other four individual’s applications were inadmissible under article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court further held that Switzerland violated article 8 of the Convention as it failed to create and implement adequate legal frameworks which could successfully mitigate the effects of climate change. It stated that the state did not practice due diligence in implementing and measures that could reduce green house gases emission and this resulted in the state failing to meet its positive obligations of protecting its citizens from serious risk caused by climate change. The court also found a violation under article 6(1) of the Convention as the Swiss courts failed in providing effective judicial examination of the complaints laid by the petitioners and that there wasn’t any need to examine the complaint separately under article 2 and 13 of the Convention. The grand chamber proclaimed that Switzerland breached its obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights and further stated that the state had a legal duty to create measures and adopt that could safeguard the rights protected by the convention.

RATIO DECIDENDI

The court held that under article 8 of the European Convention, the state had positive obligations which include adopting and effectively implementing measures that can protect individuals from foreseeable effects of climate change. It also sated that climate change posed a critical threat to the enjoyment of fundamental rights especially the right to respect for private and family life.  It held that courts should establish regulatory frameworks, set clear greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and also ensure that implementation of those targets is done effectively in line with the very best available scientific evidence and that failure to do so would constitute a breach of their obligations under the Convention.to add the court gave emphasis on the fact that individuals and associations should have access to justice to be able to challenge the shortco0mings in government policies. The failure of the Swiss government to evaluate the association claims violated procedural guarantees under article 6(1) of the Convention. This judgment by the Grand Chamber was able to establish that states have a margin of appreciation in determining how they can mete up with their climate obligations however that discretion is not limited as courts can review whether the government was able to take reasonable and effective measures  to protect the rights given in the Convention against foreseeable risks of climate change.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND OBSERVATIONS

This is a landmark judgement in the development of international environmental and human rights law. The European Court of Human Rights expanded the scope of state responsibility when it comes to addressing climate change by recognising that inadequate climate action could lead to violation of human rights. This decision rei9nforced principles of environmental protection being linked to fundamental human rights and being able to hold the government liable for failure to meet up with its climate obligations. The judgement is very crucial as it recognised the positive obligation of states when it comes to protecting individuals from harms of the environment. It further emphasized that climate change was both a political and a legal issue. This strengthened judiciary’s role in ensuring compliance of human rights obligations by the government. However, the judgement attracted criticism as some argue that the court expansive interpretation of the Convention by addressing matters traditionally was reserved for the executive and the legislative branches. Other commentary argued that the court gave states obligation but did not mention specific emission reduction targets or any detailed measures thus there was a considerable discretion when it comes to National Governments implementing their judgement. Despite all the criticism this decision has strong influence on future climate litigation as it provides persuasive authority for courts across Europe and beyond to be able to encourage their governments in strengthening policies on climate and ensuring greater accountability.  The decision also showcases the growing convergence between environmental law, human rights law and it makes it the most influential decision taken concerning climate change in the recent years.

CONCLUSION

 This case is a landmark judgement as it significantly shaped the development of both international environmental and human rights law. It further shows the positive obligations of state in adopting and implementing measures that mitigate climate change and their failure in meeting up with their legal obligations results in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights. It also recognises the relationship between enjoyment of fundamental rights and environmental protections establishing a crucial precedent for future climate change litigation. The judgement has been criticised by many commentaries for its expansion of judicial sight in matters that involve public policy however despite all that critic the decision shows a progressive step aimed at ensuring government to be held accountable when it comes to addressing climate crisis. The influence of this decision is expected to extend beyond Europe as it provides authority to the domestic courts and policy makers in whole global world. The case also reinforces the principle of effective climate action being both politically commitment and a legal obligation that is crucial in safeguarding the present and the future generations.

This case comment is written by Shalom Manamela, an undergraduate law student at Noida International University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

REFERENCES

Table of cases

1. Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and others v. Switzerland App No.53600/20 (ECtHR, Grand Chamber, 9 April 2024)

Table of legislation

1. Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as amended).

Books

1. Philippe Sands and Jacquiline Peel, Principles of International Environmental Law (4^th edition, Cambridge University Press 2018)
2. Alan Boyle and Catherine Redgwell, Birnie, Boyle and Redgwell International law and the environment (4^th edition, Oxford University Press 2021)

Journal articles

1. Lavanya Rajmani, Climate Change and Human Rights: Recent Developments in International law (2024) Journal of Environmental Law
2. Jacqueline Peel and Hari Osofsky, Climate Change Litigation: Trends and Future Directions 2023) Review of European, Comparative and International E3nvironmental Law.

International Instruments

1. Paris Agreement (adopted 12 December 2015, entered into force 4 November 2016) UNTS.