In its landmark ruling in the Klimaseniorinnen case, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) determined that the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) encompassed protection from the adverse effects of climate change on life, well-being and quality of life. Consequently, the ECtHR found that Switzerland's legal framework on climate breached its human rights obligations. The ECtHR also established that Switzerland violated the right to access a court since its domestic courts had not dealt adequately with the legal action brought by the association Klimaseniorinnen.

In June and August 2024 respectively, the Swiss Federal Assembly and the Swiss Federal Council declared that Switzerland already met the ruling’s obligations in respect to climate policy. The SHRI expressed concern about these declarations: they sent the worrying message that Switzerland was not fully embracing the binding nature of ECtHR rulings.

Yet the final word on whether Switzerland is doing enough is in the hands of the Council of Europe (see below). Switzerland has therefore submitted an “action report” demonstrating its point: its existing climate policy is sufficiently clear and ambitious.

Few restrictions, externalised responsibility and methodology gaps

In accordance with its mandate, the SHRI has submitted its own communication to Strasbourg, contending that Switzerland’s action report was neither clear nor ambitious enough to fulfil its human rights obligations. Its argument revolved around the following points:

• In its action report, Switzerland devoids emission budgets of their potential to effectively curb emissions. Its “budget” largely resembles a mere calculation of the amount of greenhouse gas emissions it plans to emit. The notions of restriction and measures to “stay on tracks” usually associated to a budget are absent.

• Even with such leeway, Switzerland calculates only a portion of its future emissions. On the one hand, it does not seem to factor in the emissions it causes abroad. On the other hand, it relies on compensation schemes, such as buying off emission allowances from other States, to reach its reduction targets.

• As a result, it remains unclear how the proposed budget links to the global objective of 1.5°C set by the Paris Agreements. To meet that objective, Switzerland would have to reduce emissions faster and sooner. What’s more, Switzerland’s legislation subordinates its emission targets to economic viability, disregarding the pressing nature of climate change for the enjoyment of human rights.

• Switzerland defends its lack of clear budgeting by the fact that there is no international methodological consensus to do so. While this is true, Switzerland has an obligation to take proactive measures to guarantee the rights under the European Convention. Furthermore, it remains in the obligations of States to choose, explain and defend a transparent methodology - which Switzerland has failed to do in its action report.

• Contrary to what the Swiss authorities contended, associations could indeed have standing in climate change cases if they fulfil the criteria set by the ECtHR.

Read the full communication

Should Switzerland’s implementation of the ECtHR judgment be accepted, it would set a regrettable precedent. It would largely bereft Klimaseniorinnen of its potential to create more stringent obligations for States to play their part in the protection of the climate, and the rights of those who are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (see below) will decide on the matter in Strasbourg in early March.

What happens after an ECtHR judgment?

One of the specificities of the Council of Europe human rights system is that court rulings are binding. Once the ECtHR issues a ruling, its execution is monitored by another Council of Europe organ, the Committee of Ministers. It is composed of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Council of Europe State parties. The Committee of Ministers meets at regular intervals and evaluates, ultimately, whether a State has complied with the ECtHR’s judgment. In other words, it is the Ministers of every country, including Switzerland, who evaluate their peers’ actions, not the judges of the ECtHR. 

Why did the SHRI send a communication?

National human rights institutions (such as the SHRI) can submit communications to the Committee of Ministers on the execution of judgments. These communications complement the information provided by the State – in this case, Switzerland – and help the Committee to reach an informed decision.

National human rights institutions have a specific role to play in the execution of judgments. Their role is to translate international (and European) commitments into actionable policies. The judgments of the ECtHR are essential to clarify the commitments entailed in the European Convention of Human Rights, which Switzerland has ratified – contrary to certain criticism, it is the very role of the Strasbourg court, and not an extravagant trespassing of its mandate.

Find out more about the functioning of the European Court of Human Rights (in German)