The ECHR ruled that the Swiss government had violated these women's rights to respect for private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to comply with climate duties or to address "critical gaps" in climate policies. Throughout the proceedings, Swiss authorities acknowledged missing climate targets, including by not properly supervising greenhouse gas emissions in sectors like building and transport, and not regulating emissions in other sectors such as agricultural and financial. //

The court's judgment is binding, cannot be appealed, and could "influence the law in 46 countries in Europe including the UK," the BBC reported. Experts told CNN that the case could also influence other international courts, potentially opening the floodgates to more climate litigation globally. //

In a partly dissenting opinion, ECHR judge Tim Eicke warned that there could be a downside to the ECHR ruling creating "a new right" to “effective protection by the State authorities from serious adverse effects on their life, health, well-being, and quality of life arising from the harmful effects and risks caused by climate change.” Climate litigation attempting to force states to act could end up bogging down government, Eicke said, proving "an unwelcome and unnecessary distraction for the national and international authorities, both executive and legislative, in that it detracts attention from the ongoing legislative and negotiating efforts being undertaken as we speak to address the—generally accepted—need for urgent action."