header-logo header-logo

Swiss success in climate change claim

10 April 2024
Issue: 8066 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights , Environment , Climate change litigation , EU
printer mail-detail
A group of more than 2,000 Swiss women aged above 64 years old have won a landmark case on climate change at the European Court of Human Rights

In Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland (application no 53600/20), the group successfully argued their government’s inaction breached their Art 2 rights as their age and gender made them particularly susceptible to dying during heatwaves.

The Strasbourg court held by a 16:1 majority the Swiss authorities had breached Art 8 (private and family life) and, unanimously, they had breached Art 6(1) (access to court).

Specifically, the court found the Swiss authorities had failed to quantify, through a carbon budget or otherwise, national greenhouse gas emissions limitations, had failed to meet its past reduction targets, and had not acted in time and in an appropriate way to devise, develop and implement relevant legislation and measures.

Vesselina Newman, fundamental rights lead at ClientEarth, which submitted evidence to the court on the legal issues, said: ‘This is not just a win for these inspirational claimants but a huge victory for those everywhere seeking to use the power of the law to hold their government accountable for climate inaction.  

‘This is also a European first for climate litigation. As this court ruling is binding, signatory states now have a clear legal duty to ensure their climate action is sufficient to protect human rights, and judges across Europe will have to apply these new principles to the growing number of climate cases before them.

‘The influence of these decisions also goes beyond Europe’s borders. Human-rights based climate cases are before courts in Brazil, Peru, Australia and South Korea, with these rulings potentially having an impact for those crucial proceedings as well.’

The Strasbourg court delivered Grand Chamber rulings in three climate change cases this week. In Duarte Agostinho and Others v Portugal and 32 Others (application no 39371/20), a claim by six Portuguese nationals born between 1999 and 2012 was declared inadmissible. Another climate change case brought by a former mayor of a French coastal town was also dismissed.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll