[4] State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation was a 2019 landmark case before the Supreme Court of the Netherlands that found the Dutch government at fault for failing to reach its targeted 25% reduction in emissions by 2020, and that established that fighting climate change was considered a human right under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the first such time the ECHR was used in relation to climate change.

The formation of the group was triggered by concerns that the Swiss government was not taking sufficient action to meet the climate change goals of the CO2 Act, which would lead to warmer temperatures and threaten their health, particularly for their members over 75.

The case was accepted by the Court and assigned to the Grand Chamber, which typically is reserved for the most important issues related to human rights under the ECHR.

[7][8] Eight other countries – Romania, Latvia, Austria, Slovakia, Norway, Italy, Portugal and Ireland – joined Switzerland's side in seeking dismissal of the case with the intent that individual states should determine their own climate policies.

[4] Rosmarie Wydler-Wälti, co-president of the KlimaSeniorinnen, called the ruling "a victory for all generations", while a Swiss federal office of justice stated the country will evaluate the decision and determine what actions they can take.

This office additionally stressed the environmental protection undertakings of the past years, including the 2023 Climate and Innovation Act, which provides for a complete phase-out of fossil energy by 2050.

The paper Neue Zürcher Zeitung described the judgement as "absurd" and called for a debate about the "sense and purpose of the European Convention on Human Rights".

Mattea Meyer, co-head of the Social Democratic Party, described the judgement of "Europe's highest court" as a "slap in the face for the lower house of the Swiss Parliament".

[18] On 28 August the government released a statement announcing that it believed it had already fulfilled the court's requirements via amendments made to the CO2 Act earlier that year.

[20] Britain's The Guardian spoke of a groundbreaking decision that would increase pressure on governments so that they would not fill the atmosphere with gases that contribute to extreme weather conditions any more.

[23] Richard Ekins of the University of Oxford condemned the judgment as "inventing new obligations on member states in relation to climate change and proclaiming a new power to superintend environmental policy across Europe" and predicted that it would reignite the debate about British withdrawal from the ECHR.