European court climate ruling: Swiss making progress but must do more

On April 9, 2024, Europe’s top human rights court ruled in favour of a group of elderly Swiss women, the KlimaSeniorinnen (pictured above), who said the government’s inadequate efforts to combat climate change put them at risk of dying during heatwaves. Keystone / Gaetan Bally

Switzerland has made progress implementing the landmark verdict by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) that condemned Swiss climate inaction, according to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers. But the country needs to do more to comply with the court ruling. Here’s what you need to know.

Friday’s statementExternal link by the Council of Europe’s decision-making body came one year after the Strasbourg-based ECtHR ruled in favour of more than 2,000 Swiss women – known as KlimaSeniorinnenExternal link – who had argued that their country’s inaction in the face of rising temperatures puts them at risk of dying in heatwaves.

+ Landmark ruling: Switzerland’s climate policy violates human rights

This was the first time that the court had condemned a state for failing to act against climate change, linking the protection of human rights to compliance with environmental obligations.

Switzerland is legally obliged to implement the ECtHR ruling. It insists it has introduced measures to comply and has asked for the case to be closed. But Swiss climate policy continues to be challenged by the KlimaSeniorinnen and campaigners. The Committee of MinistersExternal link is monitoring implementation of the case.

What was today’s decision all about?

The Committee of Ministers met in Strasbourg, France, this week to examine the implementation of important judgments of the ECtHR, last year’s ruling included.

On Friday the committee, which comprises the foreign affairs delegates of the Council of Europe’s 46 member states, issued a statement sayingExternal link it recognised certain issues had been “resolved at [Swiss] federal level”, such as “legislative lacunas”. These include the entry into force on January 1 of the revised CO2 Act, which sets climate targets and measures for the period up to 2030, as well as a new law boosting the production of renewable energy for electricity.

It highlighted, among other issues, the evaluation of a first carbon budget and measures taken or under preparation at federal and cantonal level to achieve the targets for greenhouse gas emissions.

But Switzerland must still provide more information on progress and details on how the CO2 Act and other laws are being implemented. The authorities must demonstrate that the methodology used to implement the relevant legislative and administrative framework meets the human rights requirements outlined by the court. This relies on a “quantification, through a carbon budget or otherwise, of national greenhouse gas emissions limitations”, it said.

What was the reaction of the Swiss government to Friday’s announcement?

Swiss authorities appeared to welcome the decision. The Strasbourg court indicated that “no additional measures are necessary in the context of individual measures”, Ingrid Ryser, spokesperson for the Swiss justice ministry, told SWI swissinfo.ch in an emailed statement.

“The decision also recognises that Switzerland has remedied the legislative shortcomings identified by the court,” she added.

The requirement to offer further information and concrete examples is standard practice in such proceedings, the ministry said, adding the relevant Swiss authorities will now examine the decision closely.

“The aim is to demonstrate that Switzerland meets the requirements of the ruling in terms of climate policy, as the Federal Council already established at the end of August 2024,” Ryser said.

+ Swiss government rebuffs ECHR climate ruling: next stop Strasbourg

Switzerland published its initial positionExternal link on the KlimaSeniorinnen case on August 28 in which it politely but firmly rebuffed the court’s ruling. It has criticisedExternal link the judges’ broad interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights regarding climate protection. It has also disagreed that Swiss climate policy is inadequate, highlighting new laws under development.

In an action plan sent to the Council of Europe last October showing how it was complying with the rulingExternal link, Switzerland stuck to this line of defence. It underlined its new 2035 greenhouse gas emissions targetsExternal link, so-called NDCs, presented in January. The government asked for the ECtHR to drop the case.

What was the reaction of environmental groups?

Environmental campaigners also seemed pleased with Friday’s announcement, calling it a “second victory”. The KlimaSeniorinnen group and Greenpeace saidExternal link Switzerland must “go back to its homework”, as it is still unable to prove that it is “doing enough to limit global warming to 1.5°C”.

“The Federal Council’s arguments will not get through to the Committee of Ministers. Switzerland must improve its climate policy to remedy the violation of our human rights,” declared Rosmarie Wydler-Wälti, co-president of KlimaSeniorinnen. Raphaël Mahaim, one of the group’s lawyers, described the news as a “stinging rebuke for Switzerland”. The Committee of Ministers has reminded Switzerland of its duties, in particular it is demanding a carbon budget from Bern, he said.

+ Swiss climate verdict: why carbon budgets mattered to the judges

A carbon budget often refers to the total amount of CO2 that can still be emitted by human activities while limiting global warming to a specified level (e.g., 1.5°C or 2°C above pre-industrial levels). The total is then divided among countries according to “fair shares” and other criteria.

In a position paperExternal link sent in January, the KlimaSeniorinnen and a broad coalition of NGOs disputed the government’s plan and insisted on Switzerland’s “obligation to quantify a fair share, 1.5°C aligned national carbon budget”.

The campaigners said on Friday that the committee had acknowledged that their calculation for a remaining carbon budget for Switzerland was “significantly lower” than an estimate by the government, which, they argue, would be entirely used up before the end of 2032 if Switzerland sticks to its current emissions path.

What does this mean for the case?

Switzerland is legally obliged to implement the ruling under the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights it ratified in 1974. According to the European Implementation Network, half of all leading judgments handed down by the court in the last decade are still pending full implementation, taking on average over six years.

Sébastian Duyck, a senior attorney at the Geneva-based Center for International Environmental Law, said this was a “significant” decision that sends a clear message: “the government cannot disregard or downplay the European Court’s ruling, as it appeared to suggest last year.”

“Today, European governments have reaffirmed the rule of law, making it clear that court judgments must be fully implemented – Switzerland, like all other Council of Europe’s members, is not exempt from this fundamental principle,” he told SWI swissinfo.ch.

Corina Heri, assistant professor of constitutional and administrative law at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, said the committee was standing by the court’s earlier judgment despite rumours the Swiss government wanted to open and close this monitoring process immediately at their first meeting.

The committee is “applying the standard monitoring procedure, and they’ve also sent this case for detailed examination given its importance and complexity”, said Heri.

“This is technically just a small, standard step in the process of implementing the judgment,” she noted. “The case will be considered again in September; nothing is finally decided. If this were any other case, this would be unremarkable. But it’s the wider significance of the judgment, coupled with the pushback against it by Switzerland and its rumoured efforts to stifle further monitoring, that make this remarkable.”

Edited by Gabe Bullard/ts