In 2024, the Swiss association Les Aînées pour le Climat achieved a historic victory before the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled against Switzerland for its failure to act on climate change. We spoke with Anne Mahrer, co-president of the association and a key figure in this fight. She explains why this decision marks a turning point for both climate justice and women's rights.
Fondation RAJA-Danièle Marcovici (FRDM): Can you tell us about the mission of Les Aînées pour le Climat and its commitment to feminist climate justice?
Anne Mahrer (A.M.): We are a Swiss association of older women advocating for stronger climate action. We took legal action against the Swiss government, arguing that its inaction in addressing climate change threatens our health and violates our fundamental rights.
The fact that we are all women provided the basis for our lawsuit. We were inspired by the Urgenda case in the Netherlands, the first case in which citizens successfully sued their government over climate inaction. In 2016, Les Aînées pour le Climat filed an initial legal request with the Swiss government, citing reports dating back to 2003 that highlighted how Swiss women are disproportionately affected by heatwaves.
Our case was twice rejected by the Swiss Federal Court, which did not address our claims on their merits but instead argued that we were not legally entitled to bring such a case. Moreover, the courts suggested that since global warming had not yet reached 2°C, there was no immediate cause for concern.
In 2020, we decided to turn these setbacks into momentum and brought our case before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), a leading authority on human rights. The Court prioritized our case, requiring the Swiss government to respond to a series of questions about its climate policies within a set timeframe.
This initial ruling also allowed third-party organizations from civil society to submit observations on Switzerland’s climate efforts. The ECHR accepted and analyzed a significant number of these submissions.
In 2022, due to the case’s significance, the ECHR referred it to the Grand Chamber, making it the first climate-related case to be heard at this level. We moved forward alongside two other landmark cases: the Six Portuguese Youth case and the Carême case in France. In March 2023, the Court announced a public hearing before the Grand Chamber. This was a pivotal moment for us, as our lawyers went head-to-head with those representing the Swiss government before 17 judges and an international press corps. This unprecedented exposure amplified our cause on a global scale.
Finally, in 2024, the ECHR ruled against Switzerland, finding that the country had violated the right to respect for private and family life. The Court concluded that the measures taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were insufficient to protect the fundamental rights of the plaintiffs.
(FRDM): You initiated legal action against the Swiss government in 2016, and after eight years, the ECHR ruled in your favor. Can you explain the stakes of this legal battle and how it contributes to the fight for women’s rights?
(A.M.): On a broader scale, women are the first victims of climate change. This is especially true in the Global South, where women’s daily lives are most affected. They are primarily responsible for agriculture, childcare, and collecting water and firewood—yet they contribute the least to greenhouse gas emissions. This paradox is what we sought to highlight. Our case has become a model for climate justice advocacy.
Today, we are more than 3,000 women. We all have backgrounds in activism, having fought for our rights throughout our lives in the face of inequality. Our commitment runs deep at every level of our association. I also want to show, through our example, that there is no age limit to activism—or to winning a legal battle.
(FRDM): Now that the ECHR has ruled, what concrete actions are expected from the Swiss government, and how does the association plan to monitor the implementation of the ruling?
(A.M.): The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which oversees the implementation of ECHR rulings, met from March 4 to 6, 2025. On March 7, it issued its conclusions regarding the enforcement of Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which requires states to comply with the Court’s decisions.
Fortunately, the ruling was upheld. The Committee found that Switzerland had violated Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention. It instructed the Swiss government to comply with the decision and take corrective measures by September 2025, when the Committee is scheduled to review progress.
Since ECHR rulings are binding, our role now is not to monitor implementation but to engage in political lobbying within Parliament.
We function as a pressure group. We have also submitted several policy recommendations to the Council of Ministers. We are calling for the implementation of a carbon budget, revisions to weak climate laws, and an integrated approach to climate policy rather than a fragmented one.
While the Court did not prescribe specific measures for Switzerland, it reviewed the country’s climate targets and found that those set for 2025 had not been met. The Court also emphasized that if no concrete actions are taken by 2030—particularly in key areas like heating and transportation—young people will bear the consequences. There is a clear intergenerational dimension to this issue.
(FRDM): Could Switzerland’s condemnation have an impact at the European or even global level? Are we witnessing a shift in consciousness regarding climate and social justice?
(A.M.): The impact is significant at the European level, as ECHR rulings set legal precedents for the 46 member states of the Council of Europe.
Globally, the ruling has been widely welcomed by international courts and is now being studied in universities. This is crucial for spreading awareness and strengthening our movement. We rely on the next generation to carry this fight forward.
We hope to see a real awakening around social and climate justice issues. Unfortunately, this is not yet the prevailing trend. However, social justice cannot exist without climate justice. In Geneva, where I live, low-income communities suffer from extreme heat in summer and bitter cold in winter, as many buildings fail to meet modern insulation standards.
Budget considerations are also central to these discussions. Additionally, we see persistent threats, such as renewed interest in nuclear energy. In response, an increasing number of citizen-led initiatives are being submitted to Parliament, calling for responsible and sustainable investments. Corporate and multinational accountability is also an emerging priority.
(FRDM): Given the challenges of climate change, what additional measures can be taken to hold states and corporations accountable?
(A.M.): Popular initiatives are an essential tool for action, whether or not they reach the 100,000-signature threshold required for a national vote. Civil society must remain engaged and remember that it has the right—and the responsibility—to hold politicians and corporations accountable. This is crucial. As consumers, we also wield significant power. Economic choices can drive major change.
(FRDM): What message would you like to share with young activists fighting for climate justice and gender equality?
(A.M.): My message is simple: never stand alone. Always seek alliances to amplify your impact. It is also crucial to engage in politics and vote. Voting is especially important to me, as Swiss women only gained this right in 1971. I was denied it for 20 years. It is a privilege—one that people in some countries still risk imprisonment for exercising.
Finally, I know that many young activists feel discouraged by today’s political climate. But we have the power to speak out and boycott products and practices that harm nature, society, and our health. Change is possible.
