Comments on the ECtHR Judgment in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland on 9 April 2024

Julia Kapelańska-Pręgowska

doi:10.21697/2025.14.2.06

Published: 2026-02-23

Vol. 14 No. 2 (2025)

Comments on the ECtHR Judgment in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland on 9 April 2024

Julia Kapelańska-Pręgowska

Polish Review of International and European Law

Section: Case comments

https://doi.org/10.21697/2025.14.2.06

Abstract

On 9 April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered three highly anticipated decisions in climate‑related cases: Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, Carême v. France and Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 states. The Court declared the latter two applications inadmissible but examined the merits in KlimaSeniorinnen. Unlike earlier environmental cases before the ECtHR, these complaints did not concern discrete sources of pollution; they challenged inadequate state responses to the systemic threat of anthropogenic climate change. In KlimaSeniorinnen the Court relied on its ‘living instrument’ doctrine to interpret the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in light of contemporary challenges. It found that Switzerland’s failure to adopt and implement effective climate‑mitigation and adaptation measures breached its positive obligations under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). The judgment clarified the scope of substantive obligations, a demanding test for victim status, and a novel approach to causation and burden of proof. It also distinguished between a reduced margin of appreciation for setting climate goals and a broader margin for choosing means, and emphasised procedural safeguards and democratic participation. This article examines the facts, reasoning and broader implications of KlimaSeniorinnen, critiques aspects of the Court’s approach to victim status and judicial activism, and assesses what the decision means for future strategic climate litigation.

Keywords:

climate change, State responsibility, positive obligations, health and well-being, ‘living instrument’ doctrine, victim status, GHG emissions, ECtHR, ECHR

Download files

PDF

Citation rules

Kapelańska-Pręgowska, J. (2026). Comments on the ECtHR Judgment in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland on 9 April 2024. Polish Review of International and European Law, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.21697/2025.14.2.06

Cited by / Share

Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

Arai-Takahashi, Yutaka. The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR. Antwerp: Intersentia, 2002.
Google Scholar

Balcerzak, Michał. Zagadnienie precedensu w prawie międzynarodowym praw człowieka. Toruń: TNOiK, 2008.
Google Scholar

Boyd, David. “Catalyst for Change: Evaluating Forty Years of Experience in Implementing the Right to a Healthy Environment.” In The Human Right to a Healthy Environment, edited by J.H. Knox and R. Pejan, 17–41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Google Scholar

Bratspies, Rebecca. “Do We Need a Human Right to a Healthy Environment?” Santa Clara Journal of International Law 13 (2015): 31–69.
Google Scholar

Caney, Simon. “Climate Change, Human Rights, and Moral Thresholds.” In Human Rights and Climate Change, edited by Stephen Humphreys. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Google Scholar

Fitzmaurice, Malgosia. “The European Court of Human Rights and the right to a clean environment: evolutionary or illusory interpretation?” In Evolutionary interpretation and international law, edited by Georges Abi-Saab, Kenneth Keith, Gabrielle Marceau and Clément Marquet, 141-151. Oxford: Hart, 2019.
Google Scholar

Fitzmaurice, Malgosia. “Interpretation on Human Rights Treaties.” In The Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law, edited by Dinah Shelton, 746-752. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Google Scholar

Gerards, Janneke. General Principles of the European Convention on Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.
Google Scholar

Greer, Steven. The Margin of Appreciation: Interpretation and Discretion under the European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, 2000.
Google Scholar

Hey, Ellen and Paulini Sophia. “Common but Differentiated Responsibilities.” Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law [MPEPIL], available via https://opil.ouplaw.com.
Google Scholar

Jahn, Jannika. “Domestic courts as guarantors of international climate cooperation: Insights from the German Constitutional Court’s climate decision.” I-CON vol. 21, no. 3, (2023): 859-883.
Google Scholar

Keller, Helen and Pershing, Abigail. “Climate Change in Court: Overcoming Procedural Hurdles in Transboundary Environmental Cases.” European Convention on Human Rights Law Review 3/1 (2021): 23-46.
Google Scholar

Letsas, George. “The ECHR as a Living Instrument: Its Meaning and Legitimacy.” In Constituting Europe: The European Court of Human Rights in a National, European and Global Context, edited by Andreas Føllesdal, Birgit Peters, and Geir Ulfstein, 106–41. Studies on Human Rights Conventions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Google Scholar

Letsas, George. “The Truth in Autonomous Concepts: How to Interpret the ECHR.” European Journal of International Law vol. 15, no. 2 (2004): 279-305.
Google Scholar

Letsas, George. “Did the Court in KlimaSeniorinnen create an actio popularis?” EJIL: Talk! (published online 13 May 2024).
Google Scholar

Macdonald, Ronald St. J. “The Margin of Appreciation.” In The European System of the Protection of Human Rights, edited by Ronald St.J. Macdonald et al., 83-124. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1993.
Google Scholar

McAdam, Jane and Scissa, Chiara. “How Domestic Courts Are Using International Refugee Law and Human Rights Law in the Context of Climate Change and Disasters.” EJIL: Talk! (published on 22 November 2024).
Google Scholar

Mik, Cezary.Theory of Obligations in International Law. Routledge, 2023.
Google Scholar

Morawska, Elżbieta Hanna. Zobowiązania pozytywne państw-stron Konwencji o ochronie praw człowieka i podstawowych wolności. Warszawa: Wyd. UKSW, 2016.
Google Scholar

Nollkaemper, André and Plakokefalos, Ilias. “The Practice of Shared Responsibility: A Framework for Analysis.” In The Practice of Shared Responsibility in International Law, edited by André Nollkaemper and Ilias Plakokefalos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Google Scholar

Nollkaemper, André. “Causation Puzzles In International Climate Litigation.” Italian Yearbook of International Law 33 (2023): 25-55.
Google Scholar

Rachovitsa, Adamantia. “The Principle of Systemic Integration in Human Rights Law.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 66, no. 3 (2017): 557–88.
Google Scholar

Roser, Dominic. “Don’t Look Too Far: Rights as a Rationale for the Precautionary Principle.” In Human Rights and 21st Century Challenges: Poverty, Conflict and Environment, edited by D. Akande, 305-322, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.
Google Scholar

Schabas, William. The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Google Scholar

Shelton, Dinah and Gould, Ariel. “Positive and Negative Obligations.” In The Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law, edited by Dinah Shelton, 562-586, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Google Scholar

Stoyanova, Vladislava. Positive Obligations Under the European Convention on Human Rights. Within and Beyond Boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023.
Google Scholar

Wewerinke-Singh, Margaretha. “The Rising Tide of Rights: Addressing Climate Loss and Damage through Rights-Based Litigation.” Transnational Environmental Law vol. 12 no. 3 (2023): 537-566.
Google Scholar

Woods, Kerri. Human Rights and Environmental Sustainability, Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar, 2010.
Google Scholar