Swiss Court decides to hear landmark climate litigation

Background

The case is brought by four Indonesian individuals against the Swiss cement producer Holcim. Supported by the organizations HEKS (Swiss Church Aid), ECCHR (European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights), and the Indonesian environmental organization WALHI, the claimants argue that Holcim’s historical greenhouse gas emissions have significantly contributed to climate change and thus to the partial submergence of their island home Pari. Against this background, the claimants are demanding financial compensation, adaptation measures to protect their island, and, most notably, substantial emissions reductions by Holcim.

The case has drawn widespread international attention as one of the cases, which addresses the responsibility of international companies for climate-related impacts. It could set a precedent for climate litigation in Switzerland and beyond. The case is of particular interest as it follows last year’s decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the Klimaseniorinnen case and the recent Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which held that under international law States have a legal obligation to prevent and mitigate climate change impacts.

The Swiss Court Proceedings

The Cantonal Court’s first instance ruling focuses solely on the question of whether the claimants have standing to bring such claims before Swiss civil courts.

The claimants argued that as one of the world’s largest cement producers, Holcim played a measurable role in causing climate-related harm and that Swiss civil courts are competent to hear the case. They maintained that they have a legitimate interest in their lawsuit. In this context, the claimants argued that the question of whether or not they have a legitimate interest in the proceedings constitutes a so-called fact of double relevance, meaning a fact that is relevant both to the question of admissibility of the lawsuit and to the merits of the case. Therefore, they argued that pursuant to the respective legal doctrine their interest must be presumed at this stage of the proceedings and shall only be fully examined during the assessment of the case on the merits.

The defendant, in contrast, contested the admissibility of the lawsuit, arguing that the case does not constitute a civil law dispute that may be decided by the civil courts but is rather a matter of public law. According to Holcim, measures to combat climate change require a globally coordinated approach through political means and cannot be addressed through civil litigation against a single company before a national court. Holcim also asserted that the claimants lack a legitimate interest and that their main prayer for relief – namely, emissions reductions quantified by specific targets and timelines – is not enforceable.

The Swiss Court’s Decision

In its decision of 17 December 2025, the Cantonal Court of Zug declared the lawsuit admissible and confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the case. The court found that the claimants had sufficiently demonstrated the procedural prerequisites to proceed with the case. In particular, the Court accepted that the claimants have a legitimate interest in having their claims examined, notably in view of the alleged ongoing and imminent risks of further harm.

Holcim may file an appeal against the decision to the Superior Court of the Canton of Zug. The merits of the case will only be examined if the decision to hear the case is confirmed and question of standing has been finally resolved.

In such subsequent phase of the first instance proceedings, the merits of the case will be addressed, including whether Holcim can actually be held responsible under Swiss law for the alleged climate-related harm and, in particular, whether injunctive relief against the alleged infringement as well as adaptive or mitigation measures may be ordered.

Outlook

This is the first Swiss civil court ruling addressing questions of corporate accountability for climate-related issues and the respective standing of plaintiffs in Switzerland. While limited to procedural questions at this point, the ruling is nonetheless significant: It confirms that Swiss civil courts are, in principle, available to hear transnational climate-related claims framed as personality-rights and tort actions against corporate actors.

Please do not hesitate to contact us in case of any questions.

Legal Note: The information contained in this Smart Insight newsletter is of general nature and does not constitute legal advice.