Climate Lawsuit Before Swiss Court Clears First Hurdle – The Next European Precedent

Legal Insights Germany

March 03, 2026

The Cantonal Court of Zug is currently dealing with a lawsuit filed by four Indonesian islanders who are suing Holcim AG for a reduction in its carbon dioxide (CO_₂)emissions, compensation and damages, and financial participation in flood protection measures due to the threat of flooding on their island as a result of increasing climate damage.

The claimants live on the coral island of Pari in Indonesia. They report increasingly noticeable consequences of climate change, such as frequent flooding of the island due to rising sea levels, salty drinking water, and declining fish stocks. The claimants argue that this not only affects them economically through property damage and financial losses, but also personally in terms of their quality of life, health, and mental well-being. The claimants hold Holcim, the world's largest cement manufacturer, jointly responsible. This industry accounts for approximately 8% of global CO₂emissions. The defendant cement manufacturer rejects such responsibility.

The Cantonal Court has now declared the lawsuit against Holcim admissible,[1] meaning that the claimants have cleared the first hurdle in the legal dispute.

Previous Decisions by Various European Courts

The dispute continues a series of important decisions by various European courts on corporate responsibility and liability for climate damage.

In May 2021, a Dutch court of first instance ruled in a case brought by an environmental organization against an oil company, obliging the oil company to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 45% and deeming the company's internal climate protection standards to be insufficient. The court's main argument was that, although companies, unlike states, are not bound by international agreements, it is part of the duty of care of large companies to respect human rights and thus also to comply with climate targets. In particular, the court established the liability of companies with significant market power and their own internal guidelines for compliance with climate protection targets.

The court rejected the defendants' argument that, overall, they only made a small contribution to climate damage, since climate change is precisely the sum of many individual instances of climate damage and therefore this circumstance could not release the company from liability.

The ruling was overturned on appeal in 2024,[2] although the reasoning of the Dutch Court of Appeal suggests that companies are fundamentally liable for violating their climate protection targets (see also our Legal Insights of December 9, 2024). The claimants then appealed in February 2025, and a decision by the High Council, the supreme court of the Netherlands, is still pending.

In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights recognized for the first time in its ruling[3] that a lack of climate protection constitutes a human rights violation. The decision was made in a case brought by KlimaSeniorinnen against Switzerland, in which the court found that the Swiss state's failure to implement climate targets constituted a violation of the claimants' right to private and family life. In doing so, the court also recognized for the first time that the claimants were individually affected, as they were particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change due to their age-related health problems.

Although this decision primarily confirms the already undisputed commitment of states to climate targets through numerous international agreements and, in some cases, national regulations, it is nevertheless also significant for the relationship between private individuals, as the court has made this interpretation binding for all states parties to human rights conventions by classifying the right to climate protection as a human right.

In May 2025, another important decision was handed down—this time in Germany—regarding the liability of companies for climate damage (see also our Legal Insights of June 27, 2024). The Higher Regional Court of Hamm[4] ultimately rejected the claims of a Peruvian against RWE based on the threat of damage to his home due to glacier melt caused by increasing global warming. However, unlike the court of first instance[5], the Higher Regional Court of Hamm expressly stated that companies with high CO₂emissions can in principle be held liable for climate damage. The lawsuit was ultimately unsuccessful because the claimant was unable to provide sufficient evidence of the specific threat of damage. With this, a German court has also ruled on the liability of companies for climate damage.

Similar Reasoning by the Swiss Cantonal Court in the Holcim Case

The Swiss Cantonal Court used similar arguments in its decision on the admissibility of the lawsuit against Holcim. The court based its decision on the European Court of Human Rights' classification of the right to climate protection as a human right and therefore considered it possible to hold the cement manufacturer liable under private law on the basis of the principle of the indirect third-party effect of fundamental rights.

In particular, the court emphasized that mere compliance with the legislator's climate protection requirements did not prevent the court from assuming liability on the part of an individual company in the event of climate damage. In particular, the court argued that companies could not escape liability simply because other polluters also contribute to climate change. Similar to the Higher Regional Court of Hamm, the court considered the personal and concrete impact of climate change on the claimant to be necessary for liability to ultimately exist in this case.[6]

Requirements for Corporate Liability for Climate Damage

Although the above-mentioned judgments were all handed down in different, independent jurisdictions and therefore have no direct influence on each other at first glance, it is nevertheless possible to identify what European courts generally consider to be necessary prerequisites for corporate liability for climate damage.

As the most important prerequisite for a successful lawsuit in a specific case, the European Court of Human Rights, the German Higher Regional Court of Hamm, and the Cantonal Court in Switzerland all require that the claimant be specifically and not merely abstractly affected by the damage caused by climate change. Mere potential damage in the future is therefore not sufficient if its occurrence cannot be proven beyond doubt due to special personal circumstances of a health or geographical nature.

On the other hand, the location where the damage may occur is irrelevant. Both the Higher Regional Court of Hamm and the Swiss Cantonal Court did not consider possible liability for damage in Peru and Indonesia to be grounds for excluding the jurisdiction of local courts.

Furthermore, the various courts repeatedly emphasize that a company cannot avoid responsibility by arguing that there are other polluters or that its contribution to the overall damage to the climate is minor. The courts justify this by stating that otherwise any actor could use such an argument to avoid liability. A company does not have to be solely responsible for climate change in order to have an individual obligation to reduce emissions. Rather, every relevant contribution to climate damage must be taken into account and could, in principle, lead to liability.

Reactions to the Rulings on Corporate Liability for Climate Damage

In response to the ruling of the Higher Regional Court of Hamm, a group of Pakistani farmers who suffered extensive damage as a result of the floods in Pakistan in 2022 filed a lawsuit against RWE and Heidelberg Materials before the Regional Court of Heidelberg in December 2025, seeking payment of damages. The claimants hold the energy company and the cement manufacturer jointly responsible for climate change and its consequences, such as the floods in Pakistan. The difference to the case already decided by the Higher Regional Court of Hamm is that compensation is being sought from industrial companies for climate damage that has already occurred and not merely for damage that is imminent. It remains to be seen how the Heidelberg Regional Court will rule on this matter.

Conclusion

The Swiss Cantonal Court has so far only ruled on the admissibility of the lawsuit. Nevertheless, this decision is of great significance, as it is the first time in Switzerland that a court has declared the admissibility of a private law lawsuit against a company for (impending) climate damage.

The increasingly climate-friendly rulings of European courts are raising public awareness of climate change and its consequences. At the same time, more and more companies are coming under scrutiny from climate associations or private individuals who hold them liable for climate damage worldwide. It is foreseeable that further lawsuits will be filed before German and European courts in the coming years. Potential claimants will, at least for the time being, focus primarily on large emitters, which often advertise their compliance with climate targets.

Companies in climate-impacted industries should therefore take particular care to set climate targets and strategies that are robust, consistent (and achievable) and to document their actual implementation sufficiently. In addition, it is worth closely monitoring further developments in case law and legislation so that corporate strategy can be adjusted accordingly if necessary.

Law clerk Marina Araya contributed to this article.

______________