Climate seniors’ lawsuit: This is what their chances of success are – News

  • A group of older Swiss women could make judicial history today – far beyond Switzerland’s borders.
  • The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) makes a fundamental judgment on the senior citizens’ lawsuit against Switzerland.
  • The court will decide whether Switzerland is doing too little to combat climate change.

Climate senior Rosmarie Wydler-Wälti will attend the verdict with dozens of fellow campaigners. And, as she says, “joyful, excited and full of excitement”. It is a big moment for her: “Here comes the decisive verdict that we have been waiting for for years.”

Climate protection a human right?

What she hopes for: “Climate protection is a human right – that would be the optimal judgment for us. So that Switzerland is now urgently obliged to move forward efficiently with climate policy.”

For eight years, the Climate Seniors Association has been calling for Switzerland to become more committed to climate protection. The reasoning goes that rapid climate change is an existential threat, especially for older women.

“In certain parts the ECHR could agree with the senior citizens”


Open the box
Close the box

This is what Helen Keller, professor of public law at the University of Zurich and a former judge at the European Court of Human Rights herself, says: “The climate seniors will probably not be 100 percent right by the ECHR – but in certain parts the Court could certainly agree with them. The highest court in the Netherlands, for example, has also ruled that the argument that as a small country you can hardly do anything about climate change does not apply. The Dutch court said every state must do everything possible to protect its population. Saying that it’s just a drop in the ocean doesn’t work. If the ECHR agrees with the climate seniors in certain parts and does not simply dismiss the lawsuit, the women will have a major impact internationally. And that after they were laughed at at the beginning in Switzerland.”

Helen Keller made these statements in the 3-Sat broadcast “Nano” from April 4, 2024.

However, Swiss courts did not take any substantive action on the lawsuit and dismissed it. The climate seniors then turned to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Your chances are better there.

If politicians do not act, then every person has the right to go to court.

The campaign-tested environmental organization Greenpeace is behind the climate seniors. For their representative Georg Klingler, the court decision is open: “Everything is possible. We have three scenarios that we are preparing.”

It would be considered a success if the ECHR were to agree with the climate seniors in principle: “The judicial finding that climate protection is relevant to human rights would be very important. This could mean that our climate policy, as it is currently implemented, needs to be significantly strengthened.”

Two more climate judgments expected

The climate seniors brought dynamism to the climate debate with their campaign and their lawsuit. But at the same time they mobilized many opponents. Some of them find it unacceptable that attempts are now being made through the judiciary to oversteer the rather cautious climate policy and thus the electorate. There is talk of coercion.

New territory for the EMGR


Open the box
Close the box

There are now thousands of decisions from the European Court of Human Rights. The verdicts hardly leak out in advance. Nevertheless, in many cases they are to be expected because the criteria and principles of the ECHR are known.

It is known, for example, that he places great importance on freedom of the press over other interests and that he sets strict standards for the deportation of asylum seekers. The Strasbourg judges also see themselves as guardians of the rights of prison inmates.

With today’s climate ruling, the court is breaking new ground. This makes a forecast difficult. However, it is unlikely that the climate seniors’ lawsuit will be rejected outright and that a direct connection between climate protection and human rights will be denied. After all, the ECHR assessed the three climate cases as priorities and treated them as relevant, which is why they ended up directly with the larger chamber, i.e. the highest instance.

Greenpeace’s Klingler defends himself against this accusation: “The courts here are the right authorities to decide how we have to position ourselves so that people’s basic rights are protected.” That’s just how our legal system is. And Rosmarie Wydler-Wälti thinks: “If politicians don’t act, then every person has the right to go to court.”

At the same time, the Strasbourg Court made two further climate judgments. One is about a former mayor’s lawsuit against France because the government is not doing enough to prevent flooding in his community on the English Channel.

On the other hand, young Portuguese are suing 33 countries for serious climate policy failures. Of the three lawsuits, that of the Swiss climate seniors is considered to be the most promising.

source site-72