December 22, 2025, 11:37 amDecember 22, 2025, 11:37 am
What’s new?
Four fishermen from an Indonesian island can claim civil damages from the cement manufacturer Holcim before the Zug judiciary because of climate change. The cantonal court heard the lawsuit.
Holcim CEO Miljan Gutovic.Image: keystone
The aid organization of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Switzerland (Heks), which supports the fishermen on the island of Pari, made the verdict public on Monday.
Why is the case causing a stir?
The civil lawsuit against Holcim is a first for Swiss jurisprudence, said Heks spokesman Lorenz Kummer when asked by the Keystone-SDA news agency. No Swiss company has ever been sued because of its alleged responsibility for such climate damage.
“It is an important and consequential decision with an international signal effect,” said Kummer. The court judged the arguments of the four Indonesian fishermen to be “valid”.
What are the fishermen’s chances?
The aid organization assesses the chances of success of the lawsuit as good. It is also important that the plaintiffs have been heard by the court, even if no decision has been made on the matter, said Kummer.
The plaintiffs from Indonesia.Image: keystone
How does Holcim react?
Holcim does not accept this preliminary decision and wants to appeal, as the company announced. It rejected the plaintiffs’ demands at the hearing in September and argued that they were just as affected by climate change as the entire world population. Who is allowed to emit how much CO2 is a “competence of the legislature” and “not a question for a civil court”.
How does the court argue?
However, the cantonal court responsible for civil law matters in the canton of Zug came to the conclusion in its 52-page judgment that it was responsible for this international dispute. It stated that it is about the private and individual rights of the fishermen, which they want to have protected.
The cantonal court did not follow Holcim’s argument that the case was not about the settlement of an individual dispute, but rather about the complex and global problem of greenhouse gas emissions. In the eyes of the cement manufacturer, the civil court is not responsible because the plaintiffs and the Heks were seeking a “political decision”.
It is “not about the global effects of climate change on humanity, but rather about its local, directly noticeable negative manifestations on the island of Pari for the plaintiff parties directly affected,” it says in the judgment.
In contrast to Holcim, the cantonal court also came to the conclusion that the fishermen had sufficient grounds for a lawsuit. It’s not just about CO2 emissions in the past, but also in the future. “There is not only a serious risk of a renewed violation of the law to be feared, but also to be viewed as certain,” the judgment states.
What exactly are the fishermen demanding?
The fishermen represented by Heks accuse the Holcim Group of being the world’s largest cement manufacturer and emitting too much CO2 and harming them. It contributes to climate change and sea level rise and flooding. They are demanding compensation and compensation, flood protection measures and a reduction in CO2 emissions.
The cantonal court has not yet made a decision on these claims. According to the judgment, a court that recognizes the plaintiff’s interest as worthy of protection does not already affirm the substantive argument of the lawsuit. (dab/sda)
More from the Swiss justice system: