On the 9^th April 2024 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered what is perhaps the most important judgment in international climate change litigation to date. This judgment is particularly important as it was the first time an international court determined that a state’s inaction to adequately address climate change amounts to a breach of fundamental human rights.

‎

The case was filed by Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, a Swiss association established to promote and implement effective climate protection on behalf of its elderly members, and four individual women, all members of the association and aged over 80, who complained of health problems that are exacerbated during heatwaves, significantly affecting their lives, living conditions and well-being.

The case was originally brought before the Swiss authorities and courts and was dismissed at various stages of appeal, on the basis that the applicants were pursuing “general-public interests”, were not directly, solely and sufficiently affected in terms of their rights, and could therefore not be regarded as victims. 

‎

Having exhausted all domestic remedies, the applicants referred the matter to the ECHR and sued the Swiss Confederation, claiming various failures by the Swiss authorities to mitigate the effects of climate change, particularly global warming, which they claimed adversely affects their lives, living conditions and health – effectively contravening Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to respect of one’s private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicants further complained that they had not had adequate access to a domestic court and effective remedies, in breach of Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective domestic remedy).

The ECHR first considered whether the applicants had the right to institute proceedings in the first place. It found that the four individual women didn’t qualify for victim status in terms of the Convention, but the Swiss association was well-suited to defend the interests of affected or concerned individuals in the context of environmental and climate change matters.

‎

On the merits, the ECHR held that a State’s main duty is to adopt and apply regulations and measures capable of mitigating the existing and potentially irreversible future effects of climate change. States thus need to put in place the necessary measures to prevent an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the Earth’s atmosphere and a rise in global average temperature beyond levels capable of producing serious and irreversible adverse effects on human rights. Failure to do so would be in breach of the right to respect of one’s private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention.

The ECHR further emphasised the key role which domestic courts play in climate change litigation and highlighted the importance of access to justice in this field. This responsibility falls on national authorities. The public must have appropriate rights of redress against the actions of governments and, in this case, the ECHR found that the Swiss system did not provide the adequate safeguards, in breach of Article 6 of the Convention.

‎

The Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz is an interesting development in climate change legislation and should serve as a stark warning that governments, including our own, are accountable and the main agent in the fight against man-made climate change. 

‎

Luca Amato is a senior associate at Fenech & Fenech Advocates and is part of the ESG practice at the firm.