The Federal Council on Wednesday criticised the recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) which condemned Switzerland for climate inaction.
On April 9, Switzerland became the first state condemned by the ECHR for climate inaction, a decision set to set a precedent in the 46 member states of the Council of Europe.
Reacting to this ruling on Wednesday, the Federal Council was “critical” of the interpretation made of the European Convention on Human Rights with regard to climate protection.
He also believes that Switzerland “satisfies the requirements of the judgment in terms of climate policy”: “With the revised CO law2 From March 15, 2024, Switzerland defined measures to achieve its climate objectives by 2030.
The Swiss government considers that the Court did not take into account this legislative development or the federal law of 23 September 2023 on a secure electricity supply based on renewable energies.
Switzerland’s condemnation followed a complaint by the association of Seniors for Climate Protection. These activists denounced “failures by the Swiss authorities to mitigate the effects of climate change”, which have negative consequences on their living conditions and health. The ECHR had ruled that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 6 (access to a court) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Court thus affirms that Article 8 also enshrines the right to effective protection against the serious consequences of climate change on life, health or well-being.
The SVP immediately deemed the ruling “unacceptable” and demanded that Switzerland leave the Council of Europe. The Swiss parliament also rejected the ECHR’s condemnation.
The Federal Council’s response is clearly not satisfactory to Greenpeace, which believes that its position is “not based on an understandable basis. Instead of seriously examining the arguments in favour of a climate policy that respects human rights set out in the appeal, the Federal Council is reacting with assertions that have already been refuted or rejected when the application by the Elderly for Climate was examined. Closing the regulatory gap in the CO Act2 and the new electricity law are not enough to address the violation of human rights.”
For the environmental organisation, the Federal Council’s attitude “is unworthy of a state governed by the rule of law”. The Aînées pour le climat and Greenpeace Suisse therefore continue to “demand an independent scientific analysis of the national carbon budget, which is aligned with the remaining overall budget in order to respect the 1.5°C limit”.
أخبار متعلقة :