Summary:
On 2 September 2026, the General Court of the EU issued its judgment in a case challenging EU targets for national emissions limits until 2030. CAN Europe and the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) took legal action against the European Commission before the General Court of the EU, challenging its greenhouse gas emissions allocations under the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR), which covers sectors like buildings, agriculture, waste, transport, and small industry, responsible for about 57% of the EU’s total emissions. The NGOs argued that the Commission’s current climate goals, including the Annual Emissions Allocations (AEAs) for Member States, are insufficient to meet international climate commitments and protect human rights.
In particular, the NGOs argued that the AEAs under the revised 2030 target, set following the ‘Fit for 55’ legislative package, do not sufficiently limit emissions to stay within the 1.5°C global warming target agreed upon in the Paris Agreement. They claimed that the Commission failed to conduct proper assessments of global emissions reductions, the EU’s fair share of those reductions, and the impacts of climate change on human rights. The NGOs pushed for the AEAs to be revised to a more ambitious reduction target of at least 65% by 2030.
Claim:
CAN Europe and GLAN challenged the European Commission’s decision to set emissions targets for Member States that they deem inadequate to protect fundamental human rights and comply with environmental law. They argued that the Commission’s current Annual Emissions Allocations (AEAs), which allow a 55% reduction in emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels, are insufficient. The NGOs claim that the Commission failed to make necessary assessments about the EU’s fair share of global reductions, the feasibility of domestic emissions reductions, and the impacts of climate change on human rights. They demanded the Commission to revise the AEAs and increase the EU’s overall 2030 climate target to a 65% reduction in emissions.
Further Developments and Significance:
In August 2024, CAN Europe and GLAN submitted their final legal arguments to the General Court. This case followed the Commission’s rejection of the NGOs’ internal review request in December 2023, which prompted the legal action in February 2024. The case was given priority by the Court due to its urgency.
The case is significant because it directly challenges the EU’s current climate policies, specifically the adequacy of the ‘Fit for 55’ legislative package in meeting global climate goals. A favorable ruling for the NGOs could force the European Commission to revise its emissions targets and adopt more stringent measures to prevent climate change, potentially setting a new precedent for environmental law in Europe. It could also align EU climate action more closely with fundamental human rights and science-based climate targets, as called for by the Paris Agreement.
This case follows the landmark KlimaSeniorinnen ruling from the European Court of Human Rights, which established the requirement for States to adopt science-based emissions targets. If the EU Court takes a similar stance, this case could reshape the legal landscape for climate action within the EU, pushing for more aggressive and immediate measures to combat climate change.
Judgment of 2 September 2026:
On 2 September 2026, the General Court of the EU issued a judgment in this case. It declined to review the compatibility of EU emissions reductions targets against a 1.5-degree Celsius warming limit. It rejected the claims made by the applicant organisations on procedural grounds, arguing that EU treaties do not allow for the rewriting of legislation through judicial review. The European Commission, it held, cannot “call into question the basic legislation that was adopted by other EU institutions and that it is required to apply by virtue of its implementing power”; any other conclusion “would run counter not only to the principles of institutional balance, of sincere cooperation and of the conferral of powers, but also to the principle of legal certainty, which requires, inter alia, that the application of rules of law be foreseeable for those subject to the law” (para. 113). Following on this, it held that “activities of the EU institutions are excluded from the scope of the Aarhus Regulation when those institutions exercise legislative powers” (para. 119), meaning that “Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention cannot be relied on in order to assess the legality of a provision or act of EU law” (para. 122). It went on to hold that the applicants could not seek assessment of EU mitigation targets’ compliance “with certain norms of environmental law, which are legislative in nature and which the Commission is not entitled to call into question” (para. 174).
Case documents and links:
The judgment in the case is available for download below.
Documents related to the case are accessible here, here, and here.
For a discussion by Christina Eckes and Maiju Mähönen, see here.
Suggested case citation: CAN Europe and Global Legal Action Network v. European Commission (General Court of the European Union, pending).
Last updated:
8 September 2026.
