Now the state can ban fossil fuel heating

class=”sc-3778e872-0 cKDKQr”>

Climate policy is preoccupying the courts: is the state doing too little for the environment, thereby violating the human rights of climate senior citizens? Or is he exaggerating with the measures and is he unlawfully interfering with the rights of motorists and homeowners? What should the state do – and what is it allowed to do?

That much has become clear since this week: he can ban heating appliances that run on fossil fuels. The Federal Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in a groundbreaking ruling.

The jury members had to decide on a community initiative launched in 2019 by Hochdorf LU: “Hochdorf heats sustainably – even more from 2030”. The referendum demands that from 2030 the village may only be heated with renewable energy.

The municipality saw property rights threatened

“To achieve the climate goals of Paris, we can only afford to emit little CO2,” says initiator Roman Bolliger (47). The building stock plays a central role: “By switching to renewable energy for heating, we can avoid emissions relatively easily.”

However, the Hochdorf city council declared the initiative invalid: it violated the property rights of the owners of fossil fuel heating systems. Bolliger complained to Lucerne’s governing council, which also rejected the initiative. The subdistrict court judge also said no, after which Bolliger went to federal court.

It came to the unanimous conclusion: the initiative is very valid, nothing stands in the way of a vote. Because property is not above climate protection, according to the court. It is quite the opposite: “The public interest outweighs the concerns about the property guarantee”, judge François Chaix (58) said. In addition, the importance of the right to vote, emphasizes Judge Laurent Merz (58): “The fact that the people can decide is a central element of our democracy. It is very important.”

Now the city council of Hochdorf has to prepare for the vote – and think about the concrete implementation. Because the Federal Supreme Court also ruled that it was up to the city council to determine any compensation for affected homeowners. Judge Thomas Müller (58) in particular emphasized on Wednesday the costs for owners who had recently installed fossil heating: “I don’t know Hochdorf. But I assume we’re not just talking about villa owners.”

However, the number of people affected must be manageable: already half of all heating systems in Hochdorf are supplied with renewable energy. No applications for oil firing have been made since 2019.

“The federal court has given climate protection a higher priority than real estate,” said Hochdorf council president Lea Bischof, 65, to Sunday’s View. She doesn’t seem happy about it. But she emphasizes: “The initiative will be presented to the voters within the legal deadline.”

A novelty in Switzerland

Hochdorf is the first Swiss municipality to decide on a ban on fossil fuel heating. But the significance of the federal court ruling goes far beyond the village. “It has a signaling effect,” says Professor of Constitutional Law Markus Kern (44) from the University of Bern. “The Federal Supreme Court has sent a signal that it is quite open about the fight against climate change.”

The law is essentially conservative, says Kern. “It is a protector of the existing order. In particular, the property guarantee is often used against technological changes.” That is precisely why the verdict of the federal judges is important. “In this case it concerns fossil heating. Later, however, the same question arises for cars with internal combustion engines and at some point also for fossil power plants or airplanes. »

Or for solar systems. It is true that there is currently no majority in parliament for a solar obligation for existing buildings. But this topic could come back, says Anthony Patt (57), professor of climate policy at ETH Zurich. “Due to the recent ruling, fewer legal objections could be raised against such a solar obligation.”

The federal court has made it clear that the climate goals are important enough to intervene in existing buildings and require owners to make engineering changes, says Patt. “The ruling makes it easier for Parliament to strike a balance between the interests of current property owners and the needs of future generations for a livable planet.”

And the initiative? Will the Hochdorfers agree? Roman Bolliger is optimistic. He has already made history.

Source:Blick