11/03/2026

Written by: Anirudh Mathur

Background

This complaint concerning alleged climate-related human rights violations was brought before the European Court of Human Rights by a Swiss non-profit association along with four retired Swiss women. The first applicant was a non-profit association established to promote and implement effective climate protection on behalf of its members, the general public, and future generations. It had 2,000 members, the majority of whom lived in Switzerland and whose average age was 73 years [10]-[11]. The second to fifth applicants were all individual members of the first applicant, alleging that heatwaves linked to climate change had adversely affected their health and daily lives [12]-[21].

Collectively, the applicants alleged Switzerland’s failure to adopt sufficient greenhouse gas reduction targets and gaps in the legislative scheme addressing climate change exposed them to serious health risks, as older women who were particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change including heatwaves. The applicants had sought orders from Swiss courts, under Swiss law, seeking to compel authorities to take measures to align national emissions reductions with the Paris Agreement’s “well below 2°C” target in respect of greenhouse gas emissions. The Swiss Federal Administrative Court and Federal Supreme Court refused the applications, classifying the claim as an actio popularis (an action for the public order, rather than for a specific individual) and finding no sufficient individual impact to justify the granting of the orders the applicants sought [22]-[63]).

The applicants therefore approached the European Court of Human Rights, relying on alleged violations by Switzerland of the positive obligations under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”), which protect the rights to life and to family and private life; as well as Articles 6(1) and 13 ECHR, which protect the right to a fair hearing and right to an effective remedy, respectively. The application was considered by the Court’s Grand Chamber.

Decision

The Court held that the applicant association had standing under Article 8 because it was lawfully established and genuinely qualified and representative to act on behalf of its members and other persons affected by climate change [521]-[526]. However, the individual applicants lacked victim status under Articles 2 and 8 because they did not meet the “especially high” threshold requirements of, first, a “high intensity of exposure” to the adverse effects of climate change and, second, a pressing need for individual protection [527]-[535].

By sixteen votes to one the Court held that Switzerland had violated the applicant association’s rights under Article 8 by “failing to act in good time and in an appropriate and consistent manner” to establish a domestic regulatory framework to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Key deficiencies included missing the 2020 target of a 20% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions under the 2011 CO₂ Act ([558]-[559]), notwithstanding that was, itself, a deficient target; and a lack of quantified limitations on emissions by a carbon budget or equivalent mechanism [570]-[572]. As a result, Switzerland had exceeded its margin of appreciation [573]-[574].

The Court also found a violation of the applicant association’s Article 6(1) rights, to the extent that it had been seeking to vindicate pre-existing civil legal rights that were not being enforced by the State (rather than seeking to generate new rights) [629]-[640]. The individual applicants’ complaints were again found inadmissible. No separate issue arose for the applicant association under Article 13, whilst the individuals’ applications were also inadmissible here [644]-[645].

Comment

The Grand Chamber judgment is a landmark decision. It has two significant consequences.

First, it broadens admissibility for human rights organisations bringing climate litigation under the ECHR. The Court accepted that associations acting for individuals who are exposed to climate risks can have victim status ([521]-[526]), even where individual applicants fall short of the “especially high” threshold that exists in this context for individual victimhood [527]. Collective standing may now be the most viable route for systemic climate change challenges – even domestically, given that section 7(7) of the Human Rights Act 1998 defines victim status by reference to Article 34 ECHR.

Second, the Court explained the obligation created by Article 8 in the context of climate change: States must protect against “serious adverse effects of climate change on…life, health, well-being and quality of life” [519] and this requires them to “undertake measures for the substantial and progressive reduction of…GHG emission levels, with a view to reaching net neutrality within…the next three decades” [548]. Whilst this appears to leave some margin of appreciation to States, the standard of scrutiny on States in respect of their (in)action is onerous.

Practitioners in the field considering future claims will be well-advised to focus on structural deficiencies in national climate mitigation, whilst leveraging the open door provided to associations to bring such challenges.

Jessica Simor KC acted for the applicants.