top of page
Search

A Chilling Precedent? Verein KlimaSeniorinnen and others v. Switzerland

  • Writer: Guramrit DHILLON
    Guramrit DHILLON
  • May 3
  • 13 min read

Written by Thomas Landerretche

Edited by Phuong-Anh Nguyen


December 10th, 1948.  


The United Nations General Assembly, with an international community deeply marked by the Second World War, passed resolution 217 A. Consisting of 30 articles, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights became a landmark legal document in the codification and continuation of the protection of human rights around the world. Most notably, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights greatly inspired the creation of the 1953 European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), which itself was defended by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). This international court, to the Council of  Europe, has always had to give out its rulings according to the nations’ respect for the European Convention of Human Rights. However, with the effects of climate change becoming more apparent and having a greater impact on people’s livelihoods, the question of the states’ actions in protecting human rights against climate change has become a more glaring legal issue. How can these human rights institutions and conventions protect individuals’ rights against climate change? For context, climate change litigation is an entity of environmental law that sets out to use legal practice to encourage and influence climate change prevention by mainly governments and companies.  


On April 9th, 2024, the ECtHR ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen and others v. Switzerland case, ruling that Switzerland’s failure to take “adequate measures” that would not mitigate the effects of climate change constituted a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights (more specifically, Article 8 of the Convention). This landmark case in both environmental and human rights implied that the lack of adequate measures against climate change would constitute a violation of one’s “respect for family” and “private life”. In other words, the Strasbourg Court ruled that, under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Switzerland had a legal responsibility to mitigate climate change in order to protect its citizens’ human rights. This was deemed by the climate  activist community as a necessary legal step in the struggle to fight climate change, with Greenpeace  International calling it a “Herstoric victory for KlimaSeniorinnen and climate justice.”[1]


However, on June 12th, 2024, the Swiss Parliament’s lower chamber– the National Council– voted not to comply with the ruling. This clear rejection of the ECtHR’s ruling sets a dangerous precedent, in which international conventions may be applicable when convenient. As Mandi Mudarikwa (Amnesty International’s Head of Strategic Litigation) stated, “Not complying with the  ruling would send a disastrous signal to European states that they can pick and choose which rulings  are convenient to comply with.”[2] 


This review will first analyze the content of this landmark case and its implications on the question of human rights and climate change. Second, this review will explore the applicability of international courts ' rulings on Swiss governmental decisions and their implications for the relationship between international law. Finally, the potential impacts that these court case rulings may have on governmental and business action, their level of influence on domestic legislature around different continents (as the hierarchy of norms is placed into question), and finally, their potential dismissals considered as judicial activism will be explored. 


Contextualizing Verein KlimaSeniorinnen and others v. Switzerland, a landmark court case in international environmental law. 


A. Legal history of climate change and governmental action 


 To understand the importance of this court ruling in international law, one must understand the legal history of climate change.  


The first conception of climate change as a legal entity was with the United Nations Framework  Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on 21/03/1994, in which 165 countries signed to prevent  “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”[3]. This legal document was further solidified in the 1995 Kyoto Protocol, in which the international accord legally bound developed nations to “limit or reduce emissions of greenhouse gases” (Kyoto Protocol, art2- 1a(vi)). There are currently 198 parties to the UNFCCC and 192 parties to the Kyoto Protocol


A landmark agreement in international environmental law was reached in 2015 at the 21st Conference of the Parties in Paris, in which 195 Parties (including the European Union) agreed to set long-term environmental goals. The Paris Agreement, building upon the UNFCCC, invited nations to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to reduce increasing global temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius through the financing of developèing countries and assessment of the Parties’ progress. 


However, the legally binding nature of the Paris Agreement still remains vague. Despite the UNFCCC  and other UN organizations claiming it as a legally binding document, similar to any other international treaty, the language used in the Paris Agreement is focused on consensus-building, thus being built on a voluntary and national basis. Also, the Agreement regularly uses modal verbs (“should”, “may”,  “shall”), which carry different legal weights, allowing signatory nations to loosely follow the treaty. 


Nevertheless, the first piece of litigation in which governmental responsibility included the prevention of “dangerous climate change” was the 2015 Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands case. In 2013, the Urgenda Foundation started pursuing legal action against the Netherlands regarding the country’s violation of its duty of care (more specifically, the Dutch Civil Law and Art. 2 and 8 of  the European Convention of Human Rights). Despite a submission of grounds for an appeal by the Netherlands, the Dutch Supreme Court decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2018, and the ECtHR’s ruling remained. 

Therefore, it is evident that litigation regarding climate change has been made against governmental entities. These court cases have shown up throughout many nations after their integration into international treaties (such as the ECHR and the Paris Agreement) and have been mostly accepted on a national scale.


B. Verein KlimaSeniorinnen and others v. Switzerland: Claims, Arguzments, and  Decisions 


Verein KlimaSeniorinnen and others v. Switzerland, filed in 2020 and decided in 2024, marked a major turning point in both Swiss and International Law as its way of tackling climate change was through a human rights basis. 


The claims were made by the Senior Women for Climate Protection Switzerland association against the Swiss government. More specifically, they took the Swiss government to the ECHR on three main bases. Firstly, they argued that Switzerland’s current policies on the environment and climate change were not only inadequate, but also violated the plaintiffs’ right to life and health (according to both  Art.2 and 8 of the ECHR, respectively). As said in the plaintiff’s application to the ECtHR, “Art. 2 and  8 ECHR overlap in environmental matters (...) to provide effective protection against threats to the right to life and the right to respect for private life.” (3.2- 50). Secondly, the applicant claims that Switzerland violated Art. 6 of the ECHR, which calls for the right to a fair trial, as the Swiss Federal Supreme Court rejected the case “arbitrarily” (3.1- 42). Finally, the plaintiffs argued that Switzerland’s actions regarding the case constituted a violation of Art. 13 of the ECHR (the “Right to an effective remedy”).  They argue that since the Federal Supreme Court failed to provide a “substantial review” (3.3- 60) of the plaintiff’s claim, and that the court’s focus on the plaintiff’s status “rendered the remedy ineffective”  (3.3- 60). In addition, they argued that the remedy was ineffective due to the particular climate situation the plaintiffs found themselves in as they claim that the Federal Supreme Court’s decision, even if it were to be in favour towards the plaintiff, would still not allow these women to benefit from these protections (thus preventing their rights to “an effective remedy”). The case was accepted by the ECtHR on March 25th, 2021 and had the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights transfer the jurisdiction towards the Grand Chamber of the Court (along with its 17 members) on April 26th, 2022. 


With the aid of interventions by third party bodies (Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, European Network of National Human Rights Institutions, Minority Rights International), the decision by the  ECtHR (by a majority of sixteen to one votes) was made on April 9, 2024, ruling that Switzerland to be found in violation of Article 8 (“Right to respect for private and family life”) and Article 6.1 (“access to court”) of the ECHR. According to the press release from the ECtHR regarding their ruling, “the  Swiss Confederation had failed to comply with its duties (...) under the Convention concerning climate change”. However, as the four applicants were not held to be “victims” (according to Art. 34 of the  ECHR), their complaints were declared as null whilst the association’s claims were able to successfully have the individuals’ complaints be respected by the court. In addition, the court ruled that Switzerland failed to both implement domestic laws that would mitigate the effects of climate change and meet its  Greenhouse Gas emissions reduction targets. Finally, Switzerland was found guilty of fully taking “into consideration the compelling scientific evidence concerning climate change and had not taken the complaints seriously.” Overall, Switzerland was found guilty in the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen and others v. Switzerland case and had violated the ECHR’s climate change goals. 


C. Legal Implications on the Swiss Government and Businesses 


The court case implies certain legal, political, and financial changes to Switzerland. Firstly, the  Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe decided on both individual and general measures regarding Verein Klima Seniorinnen and others v. Switzerland. The Swiss state was ordered to pay KlimaSenioninnen's costs of going through legal proceedings of 80,000 euros. On a broader scale,  the Committee orders Switzerland’s adoption of “measures aimed at alleviating the most severe or  imminent consequences of climate change.”[4] These measures are distinguished into three categories:  mitigation, adaptation, and procedural. Regarding mitigation procedures, whilst certain topics have already been resolved on the federal level in Switzerland (such as the adoption and enforcement of the revised CO2 Act, Climate Protection ordinance, and the Act on the secure electricity budget on  01/01/2025), the committee noted keen “interest” in evaluating Switzerland’s carbon budget and legal measures taken on the cantonal and federal levels regarding greenhouse gas emissions. This was done by having “invited” the authorities to explain their “methodology used to devise, develop and implement” their legislative and administrative frameworks in order to meet the Convention’s requirements.  Regarding adaptation measures, the committee is interested in the creation of an “Adaptation to Climate  Change in Switzerland” network and continuous updates of the “Risks and Opportunities of Climate  Change” report. In addition, the committee encourages the creation of a national strategy on adaptation to climate change, whilst also having Switzerland notify the committee on this progress (especially when it comes to the protection of persons in “vulnerable situation”). Finally, in terms of procedural safeguards, providing and submitting concrete examples of Switzerland’s policies against climate change to the committee is required. 


With all these policies, it is evident that Switzerland will have to implement more federal changes towards climate change prevention. This would further nationalize climate change policy in Switzerland.  This is a de facto shift for Switzerland, as according to the official governmental guide to Swiss  Environmental Law, “the task of realizing these objectives (...) essentially falls to the cantons”, and this closer examination of federal Swiss policies by the ECtHR would make it so that Switzerland would further have to centralize its environmental protection bureaucracy. 


Regarding its impacts on businesses, whilst it seems that the ECtHR’s ruling mainly invites Switzerland to be more transparent and communicative of its environmental policies, this review argues that the nation’s federal commitment to these regulations would have two main impacts. Firstly,  it would force businesses to invest further thought and financing into their transition towards the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction targets. These new frameworks around climate change enforced by the  ECtHR’s ruling would cause businesses to face new challenges with regard to terms of changing business practices, which may be financially costly. Secondly, there will be higher chances of litigation against firms that directly violate environmental protection laws, as the offence could be considered to be violating individuals’ human rights. Empowered by the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen and others v. Switzerland ruling, legal entities may feel emboldened to bring polluting firms to court regarding  Climate Change prevention. This would further incentivize these businesses to fit into the legal frameworks provided by the ECtHR, potentially leading to higher costs for polluting businesses. 


Swiss Governmental rejection of the ruling, implications on legal prerogatives between national and international law.  


Now, one may assume that Switzerland would respect the ruling of an international court, which it ratified. According to the ECHR, when the court judges a legal entity guilty, the said guilty party would have to serve the punishment that the court decides. However, in the case of Verein  KlimaSeniorinen and others v. Switzerland, Switzerland refused this ruling. On June 12th, 2024, the  Swiss Parliament (Federal Assembly) voted to reject the ECtHR, with fiery debates on the legal overreaching of “foreign judges”. Gianini Simone, representative of the Radical Free Democratic Party in the National Council, argued that the ECtHR exercised “judicial activism”. [5] With this court case,  debates on international law and its jurisdiction  


A. Swiss relationship between national and international law 

 Given these tensions in the hierarchy of norms, it is important to observe Switzerland’s hierarchy between its national law and international conventions that it consensually joined. According to Art. 5  (4) of the Swiss Constitution, “The Confederation and the Cantons shall respect international law”. It is therefore required that international law takes legal precedence over national law. There has not yet been a case in Switzerland in which Swiss and international law came into conflict. De Jure, if  Switzerland agreed to any international convention, it automatically becomes part of Swiss law  (monism).  


However, there are certain guidelines regarding the direct applicability of international law on domestic law. According to the Federal Supreme Court’s decision 124 III 90 and decision 129 II 249,  the criteria include three parts. Firstly, the provision is judicial (meaning that it is related to “the rights and obligations of the individual”). Secondly, the norms of international law have enough of a legal backbone and are sufficiently clear to be applied in a legal case by an authority or court, so that it is justiciable. Finally, that (according to the Swiss government website), the “provision must be aimed at  the authorities responsible for applying the law and not at legislatures.” 


Regarding the ECHR, according to the United Nations website, the implementation and application of the convention have been directly taken into account in the Swiss constitution. However, it is important to highlight the juxtaposition between the de jure and de facto relationships between national and international law. In theory, all nations are legally bound to international treaties that they signed into,  despite their actions, in practice, going against said conventions. 


B. Swiss rejection of the ECtHR’s ruling, governmental reasons for the decision 


Upon this basis, Switzerland went against their de jure principles of international law. By rejecting the ECtHR’s ruling, Switzerland proposes a concerning precedent regarding governmental respect of international convention. The ruling asked Switzerland to respect the Convention with the committee’s aid.  


In the Swiss parliament’s lower house, right-wing parties were at the forefront against the ECtHR’s ruling.  The right-wing opposition against the Verein KlimaSeniorinen and others v. Switzerland’s ruling mainly argued that the court was partaking in “judicial activism” as they believed that Switzerland was already implementing enough environmental policies against global warming. According to the centrist  Swiss National Council member Philipp Matthias Bregy, “Switzerland has already met the Court’s  demands, and therefore no further action is required.” The question of international judicial intervention on national law was also met with backlash by National Council members. With this ruling being the first that establishes a relationship between government inaction regarding climate change and human rights violations, Swiss politicians argued that this international ruling goes against Switzerland’s direct democratic structure, a key defining feature of Switzerland’s state. This is because, according to them,  with the ECtHR making such a landmark ruling, they are undermining the Swiss people’s sovereignty  (their pouvoir constituent originaire). 

 In addition, with the Verein KlimaSeniorinen and others v. Switzerland ruling, asking for Switzerland to meet its 2030 emissions goals, center-right-wing politicians contested that prioritizing those goals would undermine other national priorities, such as ensuring Swiss protectionism of agricultural industries or keeping international businesses’ interests. Finally, if this ruling were to be accepted by the  Swiss national government, it would set a legal precedent that would encourage other lawsuits against  Switzerland’s policies (especially their conservative policies on immigration and energy transition). 


Furthermore, Switzerland’s history of disregard for international rulings–such as dismissing the 2000 Amann v. Switzerland ECtHR ruling on Art. 8 of the Convention– makes it so that it is not particularly surprising that the country rejects the ECtHR’s ruling on climate change– a challenge nations are already begrudgingly working against.


Overall, this court decision has shifted from a legally binding court decision to a political issue in  Switzerland as right-wing and centrist factions in the National Council chose to be complacent regarding the ECtHR’s decision. This rejection heavily implies further stagnancy on the Swiss government’s end regarding climate change mitigation interventions on an international basis.  


C. A Trend in the Disregard of International Law? 


As previously mentioned in this review, Switzerland’s lower house’s decision represents a larger issue regarding climate change litigation. As Stephanie Brander, one of the plaintiffs, stated, “It’s an insult and a lack of respect for our rights, which were confirmed by an international court.” Indeed, whilst this decision by the National Council is neither a large shift in Switzerland’s relationship with the ECHR nor does it have significant consequences, as it serves more as a symbolic expression of the government’s opinion, it highlights the fragile nature of international conventions’ legal backbone. Whilst the legal supremacy of international courts is de jure protected by Switzerland's constitution, the nation’s political body continuously disregards the rulings. This legal situation between Switzerland and the ECHR, despite being a unique legal-political relationship, further reveals the growing failure of legal government accountability under international law. This reflects a broader global trend, as  Amnesty International’s Secretary General Agnès Callamard highlights, “Israel's flagrant disregard for  international law (...) Alongside Russia’s ongoing aggression against Ukraine, (...), and massive human  rights violations witnessed, for example, in Sudan, Ethiopia, and Myanmar- the global rule-based order  is at risk of decimation.” 


Indeed, this rise in violations of international conventions is dangerous because not only does it highlight the concrete lack of legal power these treaties have, but it also displays a lack of respect and reverence for these treaties. Ever since the creation of the modern global legal order after the end of the  Second World War, nation-states have always, at the very least, acknowledged the importance and gravitas of international law. This behaviour, whilst not being a guarantee of applicability, still ensured its relative relevancy, especially regarding topics that need collaborative global attention, like global warming. What is dangerous, however, is that this rejection of the ECHR’s ruling undermines international law, thereby undermining a legal basis that can not only provide resolution and accountability in international affairs but can also condemn human rights violations. 


Furthermore, Switzerland’s political response to this ruling may hinder the legal legitimacy of climate change litigation. Verein KlimaSeniorinnen and others v. Switzerland was seen as a landmark case in environmental law. It was able to build a legal relationship on government inaction against climate change, with violations of human rights guaranteed by international convention. Given this significance, 

having Switzerland de facto reject this convention further highlights nations’ legal unwillingness to take global warming as a serious danger. It is dangerous, irresponsible, and concerning that Switzerland’s political body rejects the rulings of an international court, as not only does it reinforce a worrying precedent for failing legitimacy of international conventions, but it also mitigates the legal importance of climate change. 


Conclusion 


The result of Verein KilmaSeniorinnen and others v. Switzerland indicated that international courts perceive the issue of climate change as a violation of human rights guaranteed by international conventions. This reinforces Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which states that every person has the right to respect for his private and family life, making it a landmark case in climate change prevention litigation. As a recently evolving matter, internationally recognized environmental law has proven itself to be justiciable and serves as a legal basis for environmental regulation, on both a national and international scale. 


However, Switzerland’s rejection of the ruling’s decision set a dangerous precedent for the growing trend of ignoring international law. If the history of international law in the 1930s has taught us anything,  it is that delegitimizing international convention can lead to institutions disrespecting individuals’  fundamental rights and dignities. As human rights laws are slowly getting undermined on a national and international scale, Switzerland’s– a nation renowned for being the beacon of international legal respect– rejection of the ECtHR’s ruling of the Verein KilmaSeniorinnen and others v. Switzerland marks a dangerous backsliding into a global landscape increasingly dismissive of international legal norms. 


Bibliography


[1] Greenpeace International, “Herstoric Victory for KlimaSeniorinnen and Climate Justice”

[2] Amnesty International, “Switzerland: Parliament Must Respect Landmark Climate Case” 

[3] United Nations (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) Article 2

[4] (Ministers' Deputies Decisions H46-30 Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (Application No. 53600/20))

[5] “Official Bulletin.” Parlament.ch, 2025

 
 

Recent Posts

See All

 

© 2025 by Sciences Po Le Havre Campus Undergraduate Law Review.  

 

Disclaimer:

The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the respective authors and are not endorsed by the Sciences Po Undergraduate Law Review. The Sciences Po Undergraduate Law Review is a student-run, non-partisan publication and does not reflect the views of Sciences Po Le Havre or its administration. The views expressed do not represent those of the editorial board as a whole. This publication does not purport to be a graduate-level law review.

bottom of page