How 2,000 senior women from Switzerland won a landmark climate case

Threedaysafterathree-judgebenchledby Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud said people have a “right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change”, Europe’s highest human rights court on April 9 sided with a group of 2,000 senior Swiss women whohadsuedtheirgovernmentforviolating their human rights by failing to do enough to combattheadverseeffectsofclimatechange.

The landmark ruling, which is the first of its kind, by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has paved the way for future plaintiffs to sue their governments for better climate protections.

What was the case in Europe?

The case was brought against Switzerland by Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz (Association of Senior Women for Climate Protection Switzerland), a group of women climate activists all above the age of 64, in November 2016. The women claimed that the Swiss government’s inadequate climate policies violated their right to life and other guarantees under the European Convention on Human Rights. The convention is an international agreement to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe.

The petitioners built their case by partly relying on their medical vulnerability as senior citizens to extreme heat caused by climate change. They cited the reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC), a UN body that assesses the science related to climate change.

The reports show that senior Swiss women — especially those over 75 — are more prone to heat-related medical problems such as heat cramps and heat strokes.

What did the court say?

A 17-judge panel of ECHR noted that Article 8 of the convention “encompasses a right for individuals to effective protection by the state authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on their lives, health, wellbeing and quality of life”.

The swiss government, however, violated the law as it did not enact adequate laws to combat climate change impacts, according to the court. It also failed to meet its greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction goals.

Why is the ruling significant?

The Swiss government is now obliged to update its climate change policies. However, the ECHR cannot tell authorities what kind of policies to implement.

Nonetheless, the judgment could have far-reaching implications. The ECHR’S verdict is applicable in 46 member states, including all of the EU, plus the UK and various other non-eu countries. This means that any climate and human rights case brought before a judge in Europe’s national courts will now have to consider ECHR’S judgment in whatever decision they make. It may also encourage citizens and communities to file similar cases in countries that are party to the European Convention on Human Rights.

“The decision affirms that European Human Rights law…requires governments to pursue a high level of climate ambition,” Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, told Vox.

What about other climate litigation?

There is a recent rising tide of climate litigation — a form of legal action that is being used to hold countries and companies accountable for their climate mitigation efforts and historical contributions to climate change — in many countries.

As of December 2022, 2,180 climate-related cases have been filed in 65 jurisdictions, including international and regional courts, tribunals, quasi-judicial bodies, or other adjudicatory bodies across the world, according to the Global Climate Litigation Report: 2023 Status Review. This is a large increase from 884 cases in 2017 and 1,550 in 2020.

In India, a 9-year-old girl from Uttarakhand approached the National Green Tribunal in 2017, arguing that the Public Trust Doctrine, India’s commitments under the Paris Agreement, and India’s existing environmental laws and climate-related policies oblige greater action to mitigate climate change. Her petition, however, was rejected.