A Contaminated Judgement

“Excess mortality” is likely to reach a new record in Switzerland during the summer of 2026. For many people, living and working in this country has become almost unbearable. The environment minister expressed “surprise”, while experts “put things into perspective”. What was missing from the media coverage, however, was the fact that in 2024 Europe’s highest court for fundamental rights ordered the Swiss government to do more to protect the climate. The Federal Council has consistently ignored this obligation ever since.

Let us remember (a): in 2018, a broad coalition defeated the Swiss People’s Party’s initiative on “foreign judges”. All the cantons (!) and two thirds of voters were of the opinion that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg should remain the highest authority on fundamental and human rights in our liberal democracy. This decision was also taken against the backdrop of the fact that Switzerland has no constitutional court capable of compelling politicians to respect the Constitution. (1)

Let us remember (b): in 2024, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR ruled by 16 votes to 1 that member states of the Council of Europe have an obligation to protect their populations from the effects of climate change. (2) The ruling had been secured by the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen, which had sued the Swiss state for failing in its duty of protection. They had lost their case before three judicial instances in Switzerland. Their right to be heard had been denied. The ECtHR established this as well.

Let us remember (c): international media widely acknowledged and commented on the ECtHR’s landmark ruling. In Europe, climate protection is now a human right that can be asserted in court not only by individuals directly affected, but also by associations and organisations representing affected people in all states belonging to the Council of Europe.

Switzerland plays dead

Swiss legal experts, too, praised the Strasbourg judgment as legally impeccable and thoroughly reasoned. But the prevailing mood in Swiss politics, the media and society was very different: who did those “foreign judges” in Strasbourg think they were? Years later, the Swiss People’s Party achieved a triumphant success through the back door thanks to the framing it had imposed. Even in progressive circles, the Strasbourg judgment was portrayed as excessive and intrusive. A hefty dose of misogyny and ageism (“these old women should look after their grandchildren and keep quiet”) did the rest.

In the film BEAT THE HEAT – KLIMASENIORINNEN VS. SWITZERLAND by Benjamin Weiss, which I co-produced and co-wrote, Social Democratic National Councillor Min Li Marti explains it as follows: “Why did the ruling concerning the Senior Women for Climate Protection cause such an uproar? I think it is because it unsettles us in our own self-image, in our Swiss exceptionalism. We assume that we have the best democracy and the best rule of law, and are accordingly affronted when we are reprimanded.”

It is not a conspiracy theory to say that a new, diffuse coalition in Switzerland succeeded in permanently contaminating not only the ECtHR’s climate judgment, but also the role of the checks and balances that the Strasbourg court plays within the Swiss system. Surprisingly, even NGOs have been reluctant to keep the judgment consistently on their agenda and demand its implementation. Perhaps nobody wants to let Greenpeace, which supports the Senior Women for Climate Protection, take the credit?

The Neue Zürcher Zeitung has been particularly prominent in this contamination campaign. In several polemical articles, NZZ editor Katharina Fontana discredited the ECtHR climate judgment as judicial activism. The fact that BEAT THE HEAT, which also gives opponents of the judgment a voice in accordance with journalistic standards, has not been mentioned with a single word (sic!) by Switzerland’s self-appointed guardian of quality journalism should almost go without saying. Is there a duty to report? Or does ghosting count too?

Other Swiss media have also found it conspicuously difficult to deal with the Senior Women for Climate Protection and the Strasbourg judgment. True, for weeks we saw spectacular images of the summer heatwave everywhere, while worried experts of all kinds were interviewed and quoted. Beyond that, however, silence prevailed. The low point of the coverage, in my view, was the story that Swiss hotels were able to do good business this summer by providing domestic climate refugees with overnight relief in cooler regions.

What did not become a media topic during this memorable summer, however, was the Senior Women for Climate Protection judgment of April 2024, or the advisory opinion unanimously adopted by the International Court of Justice in July 2025, according to which states are obliged under international law to protect the climate. One exception outside the Swiss media mainstream proves the rule.

Public service on a right-wing leash

SRF television has treated climate change more or less in line with the government position for as long as anyone can remember. And this despite the fact that SRF is precisely not “state broadcasting”, as the conservative right repeatedly insists. In principle, SRF supports independent filmmaking in Switzerland through the so-called Pacte de l’audiovisuel. But first our public-service broadcaster failed to produce its own background documentary (“DOK”) about the historic Strasbourg climate judgment, which is so closely connected to Switzerland; then the project BEAT THE HEAT was denied production funding without any reason being given. Surely no one would be so mischievous as to suspect a connection with the popular vote that was still pending at the time on the so-called Halving Initiative on 8 March 2026.

At least one thing should be acknowledged: after BEAT THE HEAT had been completed in time for the first anniversary of the Strasbourg judgment, SRF’s evening news programme reported on the film’s premiere. And eventually, SSR headquarters decided to acquire the film’s broadcasting rights for SRF/RTS/RSI for three years.

Why not show the film again this autumn – ideally together with a studio discussion, with or without audience participation? Good ratings would presumably be guaranteed for all three SSR channels, as would the uproar from the political right, because the behind-the-scenes struggle over rewriting the SSR charter has long since begun. The consultation on the Federal Council’s proposal is expected in spring 2027. It is due to enter into force on 1 January 2029.

Le Monde diplomatique commented in August 2026: “It is burning. That is a fact. Not an ideology.” The summer of 2026 has shown with absolute clarity what science has been predicting for decades. With the planet warming at breakneck speed, humanity is facing a problem that, as things stand today, it is clearly not equipped to deal with – or is confronting through a form of collective ignorance.

Giving up is not an option

The facts are on the table. So are the forecasts and scenarios. The prospect that in the foreseeable future it might become too cold here because we will have to manage without the Gulf Stream is no more comforting than the prospect of tens of thousands of climate refugees making their way to Europe and demanding their share of an ever-shrinking pie.

What can we do? Fear is a poor counsellor; giving up and burying our heads in the sand are not viable options either. The commitment of the Senior Women for Climate Protection, with both brains and heart, is a wonderful example whose impact reaches far beyond our national borders. After Switzerland turned a cold shoulder to them, the film (original title TROP CHAUD), together with their story and the story of how they achieved their success in Strasbourg, will go on a European tour from autumn 2026 under its international title BEAT THE HEAT. The film’s English narration has been taken over by the wonderful Miriam Margolyes.

To be followed, long live civil society!

[1] Article 2 (“Purpose”) of the Swiss Federal Constitution states: “Switzerland shall be committed to the permanent preservation of natural resources”, while Article 74 (“Environmental protection”) provides: “The Confederation shall legislate on the protection of human beings and their natural environment against harmful or disruptive effects.”

[2] The judgment is based on an interpretation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to respect for private and family life. When the ECHR was drafted and signed in 1950, neither climate change nor environmental risks were an issue in the discourse on fundamental rights.