Rights and the future
The grandmothers who took their government to court over the climate
On 9 April 2024 a group of Swiss women aged sixty-four and over won the first climate case at the European Court of Human Rights.
They did not look like the usual image of climate activists. The members of KlimaSeniorinnen, Senior Women for Climate Protection, were all women aged sixty-four or older. Many were in their seventies and eighties. Some had been teachers, nurses or scientists. They had grandchildren, and they liked to point out that they were not the kind of people who usually sued their government.
Their argument rested on evidence. Heatwaves in Switzerland were becoming more frequent and more intense, and older women were among those most at risk of illness and death during extreme heat. Some members described struggling to breathe and being unable to leave their homes in hot summers. Switzerland, they argued, was not doing enough to cut its emissions.
What the Court decided
The Swiss courts dismissed the case without looking at its substance. In Strasbourg, the Grand Chamber did look. For the first time it held that the right to respect for private and family life includes a right to effective protection by the state from the serious effects of climate change on life, health and well-being. Switzerland had critical gaps in its climate framework, including no quantified national limit on emissions, and it had missed its own past targets.
The judgment was carefully limited. The association had standing, but the four individual women did not meet the strict criteria to count as victims themselves. On the same day the Court declared two other climate cases inadmissible. Not every climate case will succeed. But a European human rights court had said, clearly, that protecting people from climate change is a legal obligation.
Why it matters beyond Switzerland
Heat is not a Swiss problem. Every summer, older people, outdoor workers and people in poorly insulated homes carry most of the risk. The case changes the conversation from charity to duty. A government that has no credible plan is no longer just making a policy choice. It may be failing a legal duty to the people most exposed.
It also shows something I return to often: rights are moved forward by ordinary people who refuse to accept that nothing can be done. In this case, they were grandmothers.