The Climate Docket

WHAT WE COVER:

  • Liability Litigation
    • Baltimore Lawsuit
    • California Climate Lawsuits
    • Colorado Lawsuit
    • Mass. v. Exxon
    • New York City Lawsuit
    • Rhode Island Lawsuit
    • Other Suits
  • Access to Courts
    • Liability Waivers
    • State Legislation
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Powered by Genesis

You are here: Home / International / Swiss Court Rejects Grannies’ Climate Plea
Swiss Court Rejects Grannies’ Climate Plea

Swiss Court Rejects Grannies’ Climate Plea

December 11, 2018 Filed Under: International, Liability Litigation

print
By Lisa Sturdee

A Swiss court has ruled that senior women are not more likely than other citizens to suffer the harmful effects of climate change—despite their increased death rate during heatwaves.

The ruling, handed down last week by the Swiss Federal Administrative Court, ruled against the group of more than 450 older women, Senior Women for Climate Protection, which was formed in August 2016 with the help of Greenpeace Switzerland. The group collected evidence showing how climate change uniquely affects women over the age of 75.

More frequent and extreme heatwaves impact older women more than any other demographic as they are more likely to become seriously ill and to die. The Swiss Ministry of Health advises them to stay indoors when the temperature tops 30 degrees Celsius (86 degrees F). However, confining themselves at home makes them more likely to become isolated and to lose precious mobility, which is hard to regain once a heatwave is over.

Inspired by the Urgenda case in the Netherlands, in which citizens successfully argued the government must reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Swiss group asked the government in November 2016 to reduce emissions to fulfill the state’s duty to protect their health and right to life as required by the Swiss Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Four named individual plaintiffs provided supporting medical evidence that their health had already been negatively affected by recent heatwaves. Their request was rejected in April 2017 on the basis that it was too general and that they did not constitute “victims” of a breach of any of the Human Rights listed in the Convention. They then asked for judicial review of the decision.

Ursula Brunner, lawyer for the group, said the court had rejected the claim mainly on the basis that senior women are not more affected than the general public by climate change and therefore had no right to bring a case under Swiss law. Brunner criticized the court for not considering all of the legal arguments and evidence. The court referred to other vulnerable groups (including young children, people with respiratory conditions and even people at financial risk in the agricultural and tourism sectors) and finally concluded that everybody is equally affected by climate change. Brunner also criticized the court for failing to consider the issues surrounding the fundamental rights to health and life.

There has been critical commentary on this case in the Swiss press (even from more conservative media) decrying that this judgment in effect says the health and lives of senior women is valued the same as financial losses incurred by citizens working in tourism, agriculture and infrastructure.

Brunner said there are two other points in the judgment that are also of interest internationally. The court required a direct and immediate connection between the carbon emissions and their harmful effect, which is difficult to prove and legal experts say the more complex relationship between emissions and temperature will require a more innovative approach to the courts. The judgement also referred to various levels of responsibility for action on climate change—legislators, regulatory bodies and each individual. Apportioning blame to individuals introduces a new element to climate change cases.

The next step is to take the case to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.

Pia Hollenstein, press officer for the group, said that she expects the group to vote for appeal. She said the group had always been determined to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights, if necessary.

Hollenstein said the group decided to start legal proceedings because the government’s actions were inadequate and the political process was taking too long. They also hoped to spark more public debate, influence future legislation and take part in the global movement to bring climate change cases.  

Hollenstein said the group’s  members are disappointed, angry and frustrated by the decision, but they remain optimistic.

“It’s in no-one’s interest to have [a] catastrophe,” she said.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: International, Liability Litigation

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Trackbacks

  1. Το κύμα εξελίσσεται σε τσουνάμι - Greenpeace Ελλάδα says:
    February 11, 2019 at 8:50 am

    […] […]

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Latest News

Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing

By Karen Savage The acting solicitor general will be allowed time to argue in support of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and nearly two dozen other companies next week during oral arguments before … [Read More...]

Recent Posts

  • Colorado Judge Rejects Oil Companies’ Attempt to Move Climate Case
  • Biden’s DOJ Could Help Swing Momentum Around Climate Cases
  • Supreme Court Questions Oil Companies’ Tactics to Shake Climate Cases
  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?

Most Popular

  • Climate Case Gets Green Light from European Union Court
  • Exxon Continues to Fund 'Science' Group Steeped in Climate Denial and Delay
  • Pacific Islands Group Pushes for International Court Ruling on Climate and Human Rights
  • Study Estimates Seawalls to Protect U.S. Coast Will Cost $400 Billion
  • BP Accused of 'Greenwashing' and Deceiving Public With Renewable Energy Ads

Categories

  • Access to Courts
  • Baltimore Lawsuit
  • California Climate Lawsuits
  • Charleston, S.C. Lawsuit
  • Colorado Lawsuit
  • Connecticut Lawsuit
  • Delaware Lawsuit
  • Exxon Climate Investigation
  • Featured
  • Hoboken Lawsuit
  • International
  • Latest News
  • Liability Litigation
  • Liability Waivers
  • Mass. v. Exxon
  • Minnesota Lawsuit
  • New York City Lawsuit
  • Other Suits
  • Politics
  • Rhode Island Lawsuit
  • State Legislation
  • Uncategorized
  • Washington DC Lawsuit

Follow us

  • View climatedocket’s profile on Facebook
  • View climatedocket’s profile on Twitter

RSS

RSS Feed RSS - Posts

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.