You only had to hear the deafening applause for these white-haired ladies, descending the court's grand spiral staircase, to grasp the significance of the event. On Tuesday, April 9, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) condemned Switzerland for climate inaction, a first for a state. It ruled that the country had not taken sufficient measures to protect its citizens from the effects of climate disruption. Bern was attacked by the Swiss association Senior Women for Climate Protection, which brings together 2,500 women, most of them over age 70.

The ruling, described as "historic" by observers, is expected to set a precedent in the 46 member states of the Council of Europe, increasing the pressure on governments to step up their action. This is the first time that an international court has ruled on climate change, establishing a direct link with quality of life, health and well-being.

On the other hand, the ECHR rejected two other applications: that of six young Portuguese people against 33 states and that of Damien Carême, the former mayor of Grande-Synthe (a northern French town) against France. They also criticized governments for the "inadequacy" of their climate action. A sign of the importance of the subject, these cases were dealt with by the 17 judges of the Grand Chamber, the ECHR's most prestigious chamber, in order to establish its climate-related case law for the first time.

"We can be very proud to have brought the Court to recognize our fundamental rights to a healthy climate for the first time," boasted Anne Mahrer, co-president of the Senior Women for Climate Protection, sporting a sky-blue scarf around her neck, like her comrades. These women have been battling since 2016 to prove that heatwaves exacerbate their health problems and that Swiss climate policy is "insufficient" to contain global warming to 1.5°C, as set out in the Paris Agreement.

In a lengthy judgment of over 300 pages, the ECHR found that the Swiss Confederation "had failed to comply with its duties" to combat climate disruption. It noted "serious shortcomings," due to the absence of a carbon budget setting national limits on greenhouse gas emissions and the country's failure to meet past targets. The Swiss authorities failed "to act in good time and in an appropriate and consistent manner," concluded the Court.

Because of these shortcomings, the judges found that Switzerland had violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, relating to the right to respect for private and family life, as well as Article 6, which refers to access to the courts. On the other hand, the ECHR ruled out a possible violation of Article 2, which protects the right to life.

You have 61.98% of this article left to read. The rest is for subscribers only.