Background of the case

In brief, the Plaintiffs, four residents of Pari Island, Indonesia, assert personality rights violations and damage caused by climate change, the island of Pari being increasingly flooded due to rising sea levels. In the Plaintiffs’ view, Holcim bears partial responsibility because, as the world’s largest cement producer, it emits excessive CO₂ and thereby contributes to climate change.

After an unsuccessful conciliation process in 2022 (a required step under Swiss civil procedure law), at the end of January 2023, the Plaintiffs officially brought a lawsuit against Holcim with the Court of Zug (Kantonsgericht Zug). Supported by three NGOs, they seek proportional compensation for their climate change-related damages, a court order requiring Holcim to reduce its CO₂ emissions, notably by 43% by 2030 and 69% by 2040 (compared to 2019 levels), as well as financial contributions for climate adaptation measures on Pari.

This case, a premiere in Switzerland, is notable for combining requests for both greenhouse gas reduction and compensation, in a horizontal climate lawsuit before a civil court. In addition, the Plaintiffs request direct and indirect emissions reductions at group level, therefore not only targeting Holcim as the defendant in the case, but also its group companies worldwide.

What the Court decided on 17 December 2025

Holcim had contested the procedural admissibility of the claim based on the lack of three main admissibility conditions. First, it argued that the claim is not a private-law matter falling within the jurisdiction of a civil court, because it concerns the global issue of greenhouse gas emissions and has therefore a public-law nature. Second, the Plaintiffs allegedly lack a sufficiently personal, practical and current interest to sue. Third, the Plaintiffs’ request is too vague, as it targets an indeterminate group, lacks clarity on the prohibited conduct, fails to define key terms such as greenhouse gases and Scopes 1, 2 and 3 and extends to non-party subsidiaries, thereby breaching the legal separation between distinct corporate entities.

Upon a detailed assessment, the Court rejected these arguments and declared the claim admissible. In brief:

  • Civil nature of the claim: Although climate policy is public in character, the Court held this dispute concerns private-law claims (personality rights under the Swiss Civil Code and extra-contractual liability under the Swiss Code of Obligations) between private parties. Accordingly, Swiss civil courts have jurisdiction, even if the case may have a political dimension.
  • Legitimate interest to sue (Rechtsschutzinteresse): The Plaintiffs demonstrated personal, practical and current harm (including property damage, livelihood impacts and health-related concerns) linked to climate-change effects on Pari Island. That harm sufficed to establish a legitimate interest to sue, notwithstanding broader societal impacts of climate change.
  • Specificity of the claim: The Court rejected arguments that the requested injunction was too vague. It found that the requested emissions‑reduction pathway, benchmarked to 2019 levels and covering Scopes 1, 2 and 3 with year‑by‑year percentage reductions to 2040, is measurable and enforceable, particularly given established reporting standards (e.g., TCFD/GHG protocols) and Holcim’s use of these concepts in its own climate disclosures. The Court also noted that the board of directors of Holcim approves climate targets at group level. Holcim therefore contributes to greenhouse gas emissions even when they occur through its subsidiaries, since it sets the climate strategy for the entire group. In addition, under Swiss law, a parent company may, under certain circumstances, be held liable because it acts as factual corporate body of its subsidiaries.

Why this decision matters

The Court’s decision marks a significant waypoint in Swiss climate litigation. The court’s reasoning underscores that:

  • Horizontal private law claims, based on personality rights (Art. 28 ff CC) or tort (Art. 41 ff CO), can be used against corporations, when plaintiffs show concrete individual impact of greenhouse-gas emissions.
  • Corporate climate‑strategy targets and standardised emissions reporting can supply the precision courts require to frame and enforce injunctive relief.
  • The public and political dimension of climate change does not bar private law claims where private interests are directly at stake.
  • Swiss holding companies may face liability for global subsidiary emissions, notwithstanding the rejection of the “Responsible Business Initiative” in 2020, which sought to impose liability on Swiss parent companies of multinationals for human rights and environmental harms abroad, and irrespective of the outcome of the second “Responsible Business Initiative” launched in 2025.

What’s next

Importantly, the Court’s addresses process prerequisites only. The Court did not make any findings on liability or damages, and the 17 December 2025 decision does not prejudge the Court’s position on the merits of the case. In addition, Holcim said that it will lodge an appeal. In case the decision is upheld, the Court will address the merits of the case, in particular causation, wrongfulness, fault, and quantum, as well as feasibility and proportionality of the requested reduction pathway.

Practical takeaways for companies

The 17 December 2025 decision confirms that Swiss civil courts are prepared to hear private climate-related claims against Swiss companies. Importantly, Swiss multinationals may be brought before Swiss courts for the worldwide activities of their subsidiaries.

Accordingly, Swiss companies, especially those with significant emissions, face a serious and increasing risk of climate lawsuits brought by private parties. Directors have a responsibility to anticipate such claims and prepare accordingly. Under Swiss law, they may be held liable for harm caused to the company by failing to do so. The increasing risk of private climate litigation therefore also increases the risk of directors’ liability claims brought by shareholders.

In view of these increasing risks, companies and their directors should:

  • Establish clear internal processes for responding to climate-related claims or regulatory inquiries.
  • Anticipate the risk of requests for evidence and document production in case claims are initiated.
  • Consider scenario planning for potential injunctions or damages awards related to emissions.
  • Develop appropriate communication strategies anticipating reputational risks.
  • Monitor evolving regulatory frameworks on an ongoing basis to anticipate possible impact on private-law claims.
  • Consider that statements made in climate disclosures may be used against the company in case of climate litigation.
  • Reassess litigation strategies in light of rising climate claims and consider adopting arbitration clauses in the articles of association to channel disputes into a confidential, specialized forum. This option is now expressly allowed under Swiss corporate law (Art. 697n CO, effective 1 January 2023).

Further reading

The Holcim case is a Swiss first, but similar climate lawsuits are proliferating globally. See our recent ESG litigation trend reports ESG litigation trend report: Climate change litigation - from general duties to specific obligations and The rise of ESG litigation and horizontal human rights enforcement. In view of the scarcity of Swiss caselaw on the subject, Swiss courts may rely on decisions in other jurisdictions. This underscores the importance of assessing Swiss climate-litigation risks taking into consideration international developments. In the 17 December 2025 decision, the Court cited, inter alia, the decision of the Hague appellate civil court in the Shell case. It relied on the findings of the Hague appellate civil court regarding admissibility, according to which the broader need for political measures does not bar private claims for CO₂ emissions reduction.    

*The Kantonsgericht Zug (“Court”) has issued an interim decision in case A1 2023 9.