Climate protection as a human right
On April 9, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) handed down a landmark ruling: it found that Switzerland had violated the right to respect for private and family life (Art. 8 ECHR) due to an inadequate climate policy. The decision was made in the case of the Swiss Climate Seniors, who had already sued the state in 2016 with the support of Greenpeace. In their complaint, they argued that Switzerland was neglecting its obligations to reduce global warming, thereby endangering the lives and health of older people. This was the first time that a state failure to protect the climate had been considered as a possible violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Switzerland argued that the Court was not authorized to review other international treaties such as the Paris Climate Agreement and that its national contribution to global warming was too small to violate individual rights. The Swiss parliament rejected the ruling on June 12, 2024, arguing that it did not need to be implemented as Switzerland already had an effective climate policy in place. On 28 August 2024, the Federal Council argued that Switzerland met the requirements of the ruling, in particular via the revised CO₂ Act of 15 March 2024. At the same time, it criticized the Court's "broad interpretation" of the ECHR.
Figure: Climate seniors after the landmark ruling of the European Court of Human Rights on April 9, 2024, which defines climate protection as a human right. Photo: Miriam Künzli / Greenpeace
The Swiss Institute for Human Rights (SHRI) expressed its concern about this stance. It emphasized that the Federal Council should not relativize the ruling and called for constructive implementation with concrete measures, in particular to protect vulnerable population groups from the consequences of global warming. Merely referring to existing laws is not enough, he said. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe also rated Switzerland's implementation as not entirely successful. Although progress was recognized, further concrete information (e.g. protection of vulnerable groups, carbon budget calculations) was requested; further reviews are planned for September 2025.
Overall, the ruling is considered a significant precedent for the establishment of climate protection as a state human rights obligation. Similar lawsuits have already been launched in other European countries such as Ireland. It can be assumed that this ruling will have a lasting impact on future legislation and case law in Europe.
