for François Gemenne, “the Court reminds all countries of their responsibilities”

Every Saturday we decipher climate issues with François Gemenne, professor at HEC, president of the Scientific Council of the Foundation for Nature and Man and member of the IPCC. Saturday April 13: the condemnation of Switzerland for lack of action on climate change.

The European Court of Human Rights, in Strasbourg, recognized two important things: first, that climate change does indeed represent a threat to human rights. The cause was pleaded by an association which represented 2,500 Swiss women over 65, the “seniors for the climate”, who believed that the lack of action by the Confederation in the face of climate change was putting their health at risk. Then, the Court also recognized that it was the responsibility of States to fight climate change, and that they could not offload it to companies or citizens.

According to the index on the performance of different countries in the face of climate change, designed by the German NGO Germanwatch, Switzerland ranks 21st. It’s not bad, but it’s behind countries like Spain, Germany, the United Kingdom or like India, which is ranked 7th. France is in 37th place, that is to say barely better than Belgium, which places the level…

Why is Switzerland the only one to be condemned?

Simply because the complaint which was deemed admissible concerned Switzerland. Citizens are turning against their own government. There was also a complaint against France and a complaint against Portugal, but they were not deemed admissible by the Court, for formal reasons. If the complaints had been deemed admissible, it is likely that France and Portugal would have condemned them too – even though Portugal is very successful in the fight against climate change, ranked 13th in the Germanwatch index.

It is a judgment of universal scope, which does not specifically concern Switzerland, in fact. It is addressed to all countries, to remind them of their responsibilities in the fight against climate change, and to remind them that climate change does indeed threaten human rights, and not just ecosystems. Moreover, Switzerland is not heavily condemned as such: it must reimburse the plaintiffs’ legal costs to the tune of 80,000 euros – I think that Switzerland will have the means to pay… and above all, it must provide climate protection legislation.

What are these climate trials for?

We can hypothesize that the condemnation of the French State in the context of the “Affaire du Siècle” pushed the government to act more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and it is true that our The emissions trajectory has declined slightly since this shutdown.

“These are largely symbolic trials, obviously, but which create jurisprudence and which exert pressure on States.”

François Gemenne

on franceinfo

Research shows that these trials put pressure on governments, although it would obviously be unrealistic to rely solely on the courts to achieve the transition! Citizens go to court because they believe that governments are not doing enough, and the courts put the onus on governments.

There are a lot of procedures all over the world. The Sabin Center at Columbia University in New York continually lists them, and hold on: in the United States, at the federal level alone, there are currently 1,349 proceedings underway for climate inaction, and that’s not all. does not count lawsuits filed against federal states. You will tell me that this type of procedure is much more common in the United States than in the rest of the world, but in the rest of the world, there are currently 782 trials underway. And it is a safe bet that most of the courts which will have to judge these trials will refer to the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in their judgment.