KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland
A Grand Chamber judgment of the European Court of Human Rights that held in April 2024 that a state's climate inaction violated the Convention.
A national ruling like Urgenda binds only its own country; a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights sets a reading of the Convention for forty-six states. An association of older Swiss women, particularly exposed to heat waves, argued that Switzerland had failed to take the necessary measures against warming. The Court held that Article 8 includes a right to effective protection against the serious effects of climate change, and that the absence of quantified emission limits, through a carbon budget or otherwise, was a critical gap. For the market, the judgment makes binding caps more likely across Europe, and therefore faster transition risk. It also set the conditions under which an association may act on behalf of its members.
On April 9, 2024, in application no. 53600/20, the Grand Chamber found that Switzerland had violated Article 8 and Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention; the applicant association represented more than 2,000 women aged 64 and over. The same day, the Court declared the Duarte Agostinho and Carême applications inadmissible.
Follow the research
One letter a week. First, the week's underwriting note, when one is published: a dated, argued decision, signed by Paul Bernardski. Then what the observatory published on cyber risk, political risk and insurance. No account, no tracking.
No spam, one-click unsubscribe, no data ever sold.