Switzerland is now defending itself

class=”sc-3778e872-0 gWjAEa”>

Oda Müller (78) is enthusiastic. “Today a lot will be decided.” Together with other climate seniors, she is suing the European Court of Human Rights against the federal government. She sees her life threatened because Switzerland is not doing enough to protect the climate.

Switzerland defends itself in court: “Climate protection is not a legal decision, but a political one,” says Alain Chablais. The Court therefore has no jurisdiction. There is no explicit right to climate protection in the Human Rights Treaty.

In addition, Switzerland doubts whether climate seniors are really affected. They are organized as a club, it could not be considered a victim. The decisive question is whether the club can go to court at all.

care questionable

The federal government traveled to Strasbourg with a prominent cast. Together with Franz Perrez (56), she also defends the man who negotiated the Paris climate agreement for Switzerland. He makes it clear: “Switzerland adheres to the objectives of the Paris Agreement.”

Switzerland does more to protect the climate than other countries and emits less CO in comparison₂ out. Switzerland therefore could not be blamed for having done too little to protect seniors.

“No greater threat than climate change”

The lawyers for climate seniors see it differently. “The world has not seen a greater threat than climate change,” begins Jessica Simor. She is a British lawyer who came to the team especially for the trial. Every club member is directly affected by heat waves, she argues.

“Even the targets that were too low were not met,” says Simor. “We accept that the government can decide for itself which measures it wants to take to halt climate change. But you have to stick to the climate budget.” That the KO₂law with stricter climate targets was rejected by the people, does not absolve the federal government of its responsibility.

Then the judges – including a Swiss judge – can ask questions. These give indications in which direction the verdict will go. Nine of the 17 judges even ask. Many questions are of a substantive nature and are not just about whether the seniors can be admitted to court at all.

Oda Müller followed the negotiations from the front row. “I’m upset, it was very moving,” she says afterwards. “It was just a pity that we had to hold back and weren’t allowed to applaud.” The court will rule in the fall at the earliest.

Source:Blick