In a landmark judgment on 9 April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Switzerland’s inaction on climate change violated the claimants’ rights to family and private life. This could have implications for the Isle of Man in due course.

The ‘Swiss grannies case’ was brought by a Swiss association of older women concerned about the consequences of climate change on their health and quality of life. They alleged that the Swiss authorities were failing to take sufficient action to mitigate the health impacts of heatwaves—to which older women are particularly vulnerable. The case exhibits an interesting deviation in the trend of youth-led climate lawsuits (e.g. the 2023 Montana state case brought by claimants aged 5 to 22), signifying the intergenerational nature of climate change.

In the decision—which establishes a crucial legally binding precedent for the 46 signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights—the Court held that Article 8 of the Convention encompasses a right for individuals to protection by State authorities from serious adverse effects of climate change on lives, health, wellbeing and quality of life. Switzerland had violated this by failing to set a national carbon budget and to meet its past emission reduction targets.

The ruling represents a blueprint for bringing lawsuits against governments for climate change failures. Whilst national courts have previously held that the State has a legal duty to protect its citizens from climate change (see the pioneering 2019 Dutch “Urgenda” decision), the Swiss case is the first time that an international court has ruled on the interconnection between human rights and climate change. Not only is this significant in terms of potentially opening the global floodgates to future litigation, but it also indicates an ideological shift towards acknowledging that environmental issues are human problems.

Whilst the Swiss case was successful, two other climate change lawsuits heard by the ECtHR in the same sitting were rejected on procedural grounds. These included a Portuguese case brought by six young people against 32 European governments and a French case issued by a former mayor of a low-lying seaside town. Importantly, a matter will only proceed to the ECtHR if all domestic routes have been exhausted.

As a testament to the global wave of climate-related litigation, on the very same day as the ECtHR ruling of 9 April 2024, the Supreme Court of India ruled that its constitutional right to life includes “the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change”. The statement was made in a judgment on a petition to protect the Great Indian Bustard (a critically endangered bird species) from habitat loss due to power transmission lines.

In the Isle of Man, the European Convention on Human Rights is applied through the Human Rights Act 2001 of Tynwald. This enables individuals to bring a human rights claim in the Isle of Man Courts. Importantly, s. 2(1)(a) of the HRA provides that any Court determining a question arisen under the ECHR in connection with a Convention right must take into account the jurisprudence of the ECtHR. This means that if a similar case was brought in the Isle of Man Courts, the presiding Deemster would be obliged to consider the Swiss grannies case where relevant.

There is a rising tide of climate change lawsuits and States failing to meet their climate targets will risk drowning in litigation. The link between the impacts of climate change and human rights has been firmly established, and the Isle of Man Courts should be on alert for future climate litigation.

Advocate Eve Aycock of M&P Legal has a Masters in Global Environment & Climate Change Law and advises on Isle of Man environmental law

Back to top