Category: Year

Categories
2021 Deciding Body Domestic court European Convention on Human Rights Keywords Paris Agreement Right to assembly and association Right to freedom of expression Rights at stake State concerned Switzerland Year

Credit Suisse Climate Activists Trial (Geneva)

Summary:
On 13 October 2018, during a climate march in Geneva, a young climate activist from the collective “BreakFree Suisse” spread his hands smeared with red paint all over the facade of the Swiss bank Credit Suisse, leaving red handprints to denounce investments in fossil fuels. According to the climate activist, these red handprints symbolized the blood of the various victims of climate change.

On 20 February 2020, the activist was found guilty by the Tribunal de police (“Police Court”) for property damage.

On 14 October 2020, the Cour de Justice (“Court of Justice”) acquitted the climate activist and argued that the young man had acted in a putative state of necessity due to climate change.

A year later, on 28 September 2021, the Swiss Bundesgericht (“Federal Supreme Court”) overturned this decision and referred the case back to the Cour de Justice. The Bundesgericht argued that climate change and the resulting consequences do not represent an imminent danger to individual legal interests.

Consequently, on 31 March 2022, the Cour de Justice revised its first decision and ordered the climate activist to pay a symbolic fine of 100 Swiss francs as well as compensation for material damage.

In a similar case in Lausanne, climate activists from the same collective were on trial after occupying the entrance halls of the Swiss bank Credit Suisse.  

Rights invoked:
The activist invoked his rights to freedom of expression (Article 10 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) and assembly and association (Article 11 ECHR).

The Swiss Bundesgericht held that Article 11 ECHR only protects the right to freedom of “peaceful assembly”. With his behavior, the young man committed an act of vandalism, which is incompatible with freedom of expression. Accordingly, the Court found that the activist could not rely on Articles 10 and 11 ECHR.  

Further proceedings:
It was reported that applications concerning both of these cases have been filed at the European Court of Human Rights.

Date:
28 September 2021

Suggested citation:
Swiss Bundesgericht, N.B. v. Credit Suisse, 6B_1310/2020, 6B_1298/2020, Judgment of 28 September 2021.

Links:
For the Federal Supreme Court’s judgment, see here.

For the Cour de justice’s second judgment, see here.

For the Cour de Justice’s first judgment, see here.

For the Tribunal de police’s judgment, see here.

Categories
2021 Domestic court Nepal Right to a healthy environment

Interim Order against Nepali Fiscal Policy

Summary:
On 18 June 2021 the Supreme Court of Nepal issued an interim order requiring the government not to implement its plan to extract and export natural resources, namely sand, pebbles, and stones, in order to reduce its trade deficit. In doing so, it cited the fundamental right to a healthy environment, as well as the constitutional protection of resources for the enjoyment of future generations.

The Constitutional bench referred to Article 30 of the Constitution, which enshrines the right to a clean and healthy environment. It also referred to Article 51(g) of the Constitution, which concerns the protection, promotion and use of natural resources. It referred to the need to ensure inter-generational coordination and environmental balance.

Further information:

The order was made by a Constitutional bench made up of Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana and Justices Deepak Kumar Karki, Mira Khadka, Hari Krishna Karki and Bishwambhar Prasad Shrestha on 18 June 2021. Orders of the Supreme Court are available here.

Suggested case citation:
The Supreme Court of Nepal, Interim Order against Nepali Fiscal Policy, issued on 18 June 2021

To read more about the case in English, click here.

Categories
2021 Belgium Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Private and family life Right to life

Belgian ‘Klimaatzaak’

Summary:

On 30 November 2023, a Court of Appeal in Brussels, Belgium, issued its judgment in the Urgenda-inspired “Klimaatzaak” (Dutch for “climate case”). Its judgment builds on a 17 June 2021 first-instance judgment, which held that Belgian climate policy was negligent and violated positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (Articles 2 and 8). While confirming this part of the judgment for three of the four domestic governments involved, the appeal court overturned the first instance’s finding that, in light of the separation of powers, it could not set greenhouse gas reduction targets. The appeal court set clear targets for domestic emissions reductions, ordering reductions of 55 percent by 2030 (compared to 1990 levels).

First-instance judgment:

The applicants in this case alleged, among other things, that the four Belgian governments (i.e. the three regional governments and the federal state) had violated human rights law, and were obligated to reduce Belgium’s greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels.

The case was delayed for almost three years because of proceedings contesting the language of the case, which was ultimately adjudicated in French.

On 17 June 2021, a court of first instance found that Belgian climate policy was negligent and violated positive obligations under human rights law. At stake were, among other things, violations of Articles 2 and 8 ECHR, in claims inspired by the Dutch Urgenda case. However, the court of first instance also held that, in light of the principle of separation of powers, it could not set greenhouse gas reduction targets for the Belgian governments.

The Brussels court of first instance not only declared the complaint of the applicant association, VZW Klimaatzaak, admissible, but also that of the 58,000 co-plaintiffs. Belgian law does not allow for an actio popularis, but the first-instance court recognized that all of the applicants faced a risk of material, physical or moral damage. In doing so, it referred to the risks to human and animal health and to the territorial integrity of the Belgian state, and especially of the Flemish region, which was particularly at risk of harms caused by sea level rises. The best available science, as reflected in existing diplomatic consensus, did not leave room for doubt about the existence of a real risk from dangerous climate change. This meant a serious risk that current and future generations would see their daily lives profoundly impacted (“profondément perturbées”). The fact that other Belgian citizens could bring a similar claim did not change this.

The judgment also stated that the federal state and the three regions are jointly and individually responsible for the risk of harm at stake, despite the complex structure of the Belgian state.

Lastly, the judgment stated that the four governments’ inadequate climate policy violated articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (which enshrine the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life, respectively).

However, the court did not order the injunction claimed by the applicants for concrete reduction targets. The applicants had requested an injunction to the effect that the Belgian state should reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 42% by 2025 and by 55% by 2030.

Judgment on appeal:

On appeal by the applicants, who challenged the first-instance judgment over the decision not to order concrete reductions targets, the case was reviewed by the Brussels Court of Appeal. Its judgment, which was issued on 30 November 2023, confirmed that the 2020 climate policy of three out of the four respondent domestic governments had violated Articles 2 and 8 ECHR. In its judgment, the court ordered the Belgian state, the Flemish Region and the Brussels-Capital Region to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions more quickly, namely by 55 percent by 2030 (compared to 1990 levels). Meanwhile, it found that the Walloon region’s climate policy had progressed sufficiently to be in conformity with human rights law.

In its judgment, the court found that “in light of the prevailing consensus within the scientific community and the international political community, the three governments have violated Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Articles 1382 and 1383 of the old Civil Code because they had not sufficiently reduced greenhouse gas emissions in 2020” (our translation). This violation was still ongoing because these governments have “set insufficiently strict targets and have not taken sufficiently far-reaching measures to sufficiently limit emissions by 2030”. The court found that “a reduction of -55% in GHG emissions by 2030 constitutes a minimum threshold, below which Belgium cannot go under penalty of violating Article 2 of the ECHR” (in the original French: une diminution de -55 % des émissions de GES à l’horizon 2030 constitue ce seuil minimal, en deçà duquel la Belgique ne peut aller sous peine de ne pas respecter l’article 2 de la CEDH). In doing so, it draws on the European Climate Law, which codifies the goals set out in the European Green Deal for the EU to become climate-neutral by 2050.

While the applicants had requested a penalty payment of 1 million euros per month, the appeal court deferred its ruling on this issue to await, among other things, emissions figures from the 2022-2024 period.

Status of case:

After the November 2023 ruling, further proceedings — in cassation, and potentially before the European Court of Human Rights — are possible in this case, which is accordingly not yet final.

Suggested citation:

Francophone first instance court of Brussels, 4th chamber, Klimaatzaak ASBL v. Belgium, no. 2015/4585/A, Judgment of 17 June 2021, available at https://prismic-io.s3.amazonaws.com/affaireclimat/18f9910f-cd55-4c3b-bc9b-9e0e393681a8_167-4-2021.pdf

Brussels Court of Appeal, Klimaatzaak ASBL v. Belgium, case 2021/AR/1589, Judgment of 30 November 2023.

Full text:

For background information on the case, see here.

For a summary (in Dutch) by Klimaatzaak, see here.

For the full first-instance judgment (in French), see here.

For the full second-instance judgment, click here.

Further reading:

For more on this case, see the blog post by Matthias Petel and Antoine De Spiegeleir in the Sabin Center’s Climate Law Blog, available here.

For a press release from the applicants concerning the second-instance judgment, click here.

Last updated:

30 November 2023.

Categories
2021 Access to a remedy Children and young people Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights Non-discrimination Norway Private and family life Right to life

Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway

Summary:
This case was the fourth climate change case brought to the European Court of Human Rights. It was brought by six young Norwegian climate activists aged between 20 and 27, along with two organisations, who allege that their members’ lives, health and well-being are being directly affected by the escalating climate crisis. The six individual applicants also allege that, as young people, they are being disproportionately affected by the climate crisis.

The application concerns the Norwegian State’s decision to license continuing exploration for oil and gas in new areas of the Arctic (Barents Sea), and its intention to bring new fossil fuels to market after 2035. The applicants argue that the best available science shows that the emissions from known reserves of fossil fuels will already exceed the carbon budget that remains given the 1.5°C temperature target set in the Paris Agreement.

Citing the seriousness and urgency of the climate crisis, the applicants allege that the respondent State has failed to take the precautionary measures of prevention and protection required under Articles 2 and 8 ECHR (the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life, respectively). They furthermore allege a breach of the prohibition of discrimination in Article 14 ECHR. during the domestic court proceedings, as well as a violation of the right of access to an effective domestic remedy under Article 13 ECHR.

The applicants sought the application of the Court’s priority policy under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.

Domestic proceedings and the reasoning of the Norwegian Supreme Court:
This case is a follow-up from domestic proceedings that were concluded by a judgment in favour of the State that was issued by the Norwegian Supreme Court on 22 December 2020.

In 2016, the two applicant organisations brought a case against the State’s decision to grant 10 licences in the Barents Sea. On 22 December 2020, the Norwegian Supreme Court ruled that this decision did not violate the right to a healthy environment under Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution. It also found no violation of the ECHR. While it did find that climate impacts should have been assessed, it held that this could be remedied at the development stage (after the licences in question had been issued).

The Norwegian Supreme Court considered that there had been no violation of the ECHR in this case because that Convention only applies to “direct and immediate” environmental harms. Although the Supreme Court considered Articles 2 and 8 ECHR and referred to the pending Duarte Agostinho case in its oral ruling, it considered that the case-law as it stood at the time of decision had not been contravened.

Regarding Article 2 ECHR, the Supreme Court held that this only applies to real and immediate risks of loss of life. The question before the Supreme Court, it argued, was the issue of a sufficient link between the domestic administrative decisions and the risk of a loss of life. It considered that it was not clear whether the decisions would in fact lead to emissions, and the threat concerned was in the future.

Regarding Article 8 ECHR, the Court held that this did not cover every harm to the environment, that an impact had to be “direct and immediate” also here, and that efforts by the Committee of Ministers to add a separate right to a healthy environment to the ECHR had failed.

The Supreme Court also considered that the Dutch Urgenda judgment was not comparable to the case at hand, because that case concerned already-established climate targets, and not the possible invalidity of an administrative decision.

Submissions before the Court in greater detail:
The applicants argue that there is a real and serious risk to their lives and well-being, and to their ability to enjoy their private life, family life and home. They submit that the Norwegian State has failed to adopt the necessary and appropriate measures to address this risk, and that it has failed to describe and assess the total climate effects, including exported emissions, of continued and expanded extraction of oil and gas from the Arctic, thereby also violating the applicants’ rights.

The six individual applicants submit that they have experienced climate anxiety, emotional distress and great worry about the
current and imminent risks of serious climate harms, and the impact on their lives, life choices, and the lives of future generations. They refer to mental health literature, which increasingly draws attention to such concerns, described in the application as “pre-traumatic stress.”

The applicants note that, under current climate policies, the average temperature in Norway is expected to rise by more than 5.5 degrees Celsius by 2100. There has already been an increase in extreme rainfall events, flooding and landslides. Future impacts will include increased risk of drought and forest fire-inducing thunderstorms, changes to flood systems, sea level rise and ocean acidification.

The applicants note that there is a significant difference between planned fossil fuel extraction and Norwegian climate goals. The applicants submit that State representatives stated before the Norwegian Supreme Court that Norway will continue to produce and export petroleum as long as there are buyers. They note that Norway is the 7th largest exporter of emissions in the world, and the 3rd largest per capita, behind Qatar and Kuwait. There is no system in place to declare, assess, calculate, or reduce exported emissions from fossil fuels extraction projects, nor the exported emissions from oil and gas extraction overall.

Claims made:
On victim status, the applicants allege that the licencing of fossil fuels extraction is too complex for individuals and young people to challenge alone. The organisations in question are not only better suited to challenge such decisions, but they also claim to represent future generations.

The applicants allege Articles 2 and 8 have been violated because of the presence of a real, immediate and serious risk to these rights, of which the State had actual or putative knowledge and regarding which it failed to adopt reasonable and appropriate preventative measures. They invoke the principle of prevention, and argue that the State must adopt a legislative and administrative framework designed to provide effective deterrence against threats to the right to life. They argue that an unequal burden has been placed on younger generations, and those unborn. The applicants argue that the threats against their rights are ongoing since temperature increase cannot be reversed and the authorities must act immediately to prevent the harms in question.

Under Article 13, the applicants argue that the Norwegian courts did not assess the merits of the Convention claims in full and based on ECtHR case law.

Under Article 14, they argue there are disproportionately prejudicial effects on a particular group, citing the factors of young age and the fact that two of the individual applicants are members of the indigenous Sami minority, whose traditions, land and resources are negatively impacted. Due to their age, the young applicants, it is submitted, had no opportunity to participate in the relevant decision-making while at the same time having to shoulder a heavier burden concerning the long-term consequences of the acts and omissions in question.

Date filed:
15 June 2021

Date communicated:
6 January 2022 (press release).

Adjudicating Body:
European Court of Human Rights

Status of case:
It had been announced that the case has been adjourned pending the outcome of Grand Chamber proceedings in three other climate cases (see the ECtHR’s press release here). More information on the case will be published as it becomes available.

Suggested case citation:
ECtHR, Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway, no. 34068/21, communicated on 16 December 2021.

Link to the text of the application: click here

Last updated:
13 March 2023

Categories
2021 Brazil Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment

Thalita Silva e Silva and Others v. Minister of Environment et al.

Summary:
This case was brought before the 14th Federal Civil Court of Sao Paulo by six youths as a popular action against the Brazilian Government, challenging Brazil’s updated ‘nationally determined contribution’ (NDC). These were submitted on 8 December 2020 pursuant to its obligation under Article 4.2 of the Paris Agreement. The petitioners argue that the NDC is regressive in comparison to its previous NDC, as it alters the baseline relative to which its emissions reductions targets for the years 2025 and 2030 were to be calculated. Both the initial and the updated NDC provided for a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 37% by 2025, and 45% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels, but the estimated emissions for the base year 2005 was increased from 2.1 to 2.8 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent pursuant to an update in Brazil’s national GHG inventory report.

The petitioners contended that this regression in the updated NDC constituted a violation of Article 225 of the Constitution of Brazil, which provides for the right to an ecologically balanced environment. They further argued that there was a new GHG inventory report which estimated the 2005 emissions levels to amount to 2.4 billion tonnes rather than 2.8 billion tonnes as per the previous inventory report, and since this new report was published before the updated NDC was communicated, the updated NDC stands to be quashed in any case. The respondents contested the courts’ jurisdiction on the ground that the claim concerned an act of the Brazilian government at the international level. They also contended that the NDC in question met the criteria of progression and highest possible ambition.  

Date of decision:

28 May 2021

Admissibility:

The Federal Civil Court of Sao Paulo found that it was competent to adjudicate the case as per Article 109, Item III of the Constitution of Brazil which provides federal courts the competence to hear cases based on a treaty between the Union and other States or international bodies.

Merits:

The Federal Civil Court of Sao Paulo summarily dismissed the plaintiffs’ request for injunction on the count that the updated NDC maintains the emissions reduction targets specified in the previous NDC, and that the change in the estimated emissions during the base year in different national inventory reports was normal and expected in light of improvements in scientific understanding and techniques. It also highlighted that the Paris Agreement requires parties to periodically update their national inventories and inferred from this requirement that the targets in NDCs are to be understood in relation to the inventory available at the time of communicating them. The Court also considered the updated NDC to be ambitious as it contained a carbon neutrality commitment.

Status of the case:

The petitioners have appealed against the decision of the Federal Civil Court.

Suggested case citation:

Federal Civil Court of Sao Paulo, Thalita Silva e Silva & Ors. v. Minister of Environment & Ors., Ação Popular nº 5008035-37.2021.4.03.6100, decision of 28 May 2021.

Case documents:

Petition (in Portuguese)

Decision of the Federal Civil Court of Sao Paulo (in Portuguese)

Categories
2021 Deciding Body Domestic court European Convention on Human Rights Imminent risk Keywords Paris Agreement Right to assembly and association Right to freedom of expression Rights at stake State concerned Switzerland Year

Credit Suisse Climate Activists Trial (Lausanne)

Summary:
On 22 November 2018, a group of 20 to 30 climate activists from the collective “BreakFree Suisse”, among them the 12 complainants, occupied the entry halls of the Swiss bank Credit Suisse in Lausanne to demonstrate against the bank’s investment in fossil fuels. The protest aimed to draw attention to this issue by condemning the participation of the Swiss tennis player Roger Federer in the advertising campaign of this bank. To do so, the activists were dressed in sports clothes and staged a tennis match. While some activists complied with the police request to leave the premises, others had to be dragged out by the police.

The activists argued that they had been in a “justifiable state of emergency” (rechtfertigender Notstand) due to climate change and that their protest was therefore lawful.

On 13 January 2020, the Tribunal de police de l’arrondissement de Lausanne (“Police Court of the district of Lausanne”) ruled in favor of the protesters. The judge found that climate change posed an imminent threat and that the protest was therefore a necessary and proportionate means to achieve the activists’ intended goal.

On 22 September 2020, this decision was overruled by the Tribunal Cantonal du Vaud (“Vaud Cantonal Tribunal”). The Court argued that the activists could have protested the bank by using other means, such as political or legal instruments. It further found that climate change is an imminent threat and that measures must be taken to address it. However, the Tribunal Cantonal du Vaud doubted that the protest could have led to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, it also noted that the Swiss government is aware of the issue and has already taken necessary measures, such as ratifying the Paris Agreement. Finally, the Court held that it is not yet too late to take the necessary protective measures to combat climate change.

On 26 May 2021, the Swiss Bundesgericht (“Swiss Federal Supreme Court”) mainly upheld the Tribunal Cantonal du Vaud’s decision. It argued further that climate change may be considered an imminent threat and that the activists did not intend to protect a specific legal interest, but rather collective interests, namely the environment, health, or the well-being of the population, and thus, the protest was not lawful.

In a similar case in Geneva, a climate activist from the same collective was on trial after putting red handprints all over the front of the Swiss bank Credit Suisse.

Rights invoked:
The complainants invoked their rights to freedom of expression (Article 10 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) and assembly and association (Article 11 ECHR).

The Swiss Bundesgericht argued that the complainants are not entitled to invoke Articles 10 and 11 ECHR in this context because they had no right to enter private property to take their actions. The freedom of assembly does not include the right to gather on private property without the owner’s consent. Consequently, the claimants could not rely on Articles 10 and 11 ECHR.

Date of decision:
26 May 2021

Suggested case citation:
Swiss Bundesgericht, 12 climate protesters v. ministère public central du canton de Vaud, 6B_1295/2020, Judgment of 26 May 2021.


Links:
For the judgment of the Swiss Bundesgericht (in French), see here.

For the judgment of the Tribunal Cantonal du Vaud (in French), see here.

For the judgment of the Tribunal de police de l’arrondissement de Lausanne (in French), see here.  

Categories
2021 Business responsibility Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation The Netherlands

Milieudefensie and others v. Royal Dutch Shell PLC

Summary:

This case was brought as a class action tort suit by a group of NGOs, as well as more than 17,000 individuals represented by Milieudefensie. The applicants claimed that Royal Dutch Shell had an obligation to reduce its carbon emissions relative to 2019 levels by 2030 across its entire energy portfolio. It represents a groundbreaking advance in the context of business responsibility for human rights impacts.

Shell appealed the judgment, and the appeal proceedings began on 2 April 2024 and were set to last until 12 April of the same year.

Date:

26 May 2021

Facts:

The court extensively discussed the science on climate change and its impacts, reductions targets, and the existing international instruments at length. It reiterated the reduction goals set out in the Paris Agreement.

Admissibility:

The court described the case as a public interest action. These are allowed under Dutch law, and the court noted that the common interest of preventing dangerous climate change by reducing CO2 emissions can be protected in a class action. It discussed at length whether the cases shared a ‘similar interest’, which is a requirement under the Dutch Civil Code. This requirement entails that the interests in question must be suitable for bundling into a class action so as to safeguard an the legal protection of the stakeholders.

In determining whether the individual applicants had locus standi, the court held that they had no separate interest beyond that represented by Milieudefensie before the court, and wrote off the individual claims.

Merits:

Relying on domestic law, human rights law, and soft law instruments, the domestic court interpreted the unwritten standard of care contained in Dutch domestic tort law.

Book 6, Section 162 of the Dutch Civil Code proscribes acts that conflict with what is generally accepted according to unwritten law. The court held that this standard of care also applies to Royal Dutch Shell. Applying this standard, the court held that Shell was obliged to reduce its CO2 emissions by net 45% at end 2030, relative to 2019. This reduction obligation relates to Shell’s entire energy portfolio and all of its aggregate emissions. This is an obligation of result for the activities of the Shell group itself, and a best-efforts obligation with respect to its business relations and end-users. Because Shell has the ability to influence these relations, it is expected to use its influence to bring about emissions reductions.

Remedies:

The judgment is subject to appeal, but the court rendered it provisionally enforceable, despite noting the possibility of irreversible negative consequences for Shell.

Separate opinions:

None

Measures taken as a result of the judgment:

Pending

Status of case:

Decided, appeal pending

Suggested case citation:

The Hague District Court, Milieudefensie and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Others, case number C/09/571932, Judgment of 26 May 2021.

Links:

For the full judgment (in English), see here.

Categories
2021 Brazil Deforestation Domestic court Individual responsibility Right to a healthy environment

Ministério Público Federal v. de Rezende

Summary:
This case concerns the responsibility of an individual (a farmer in the Amazonia region of Brazil) for deforestation and thus for climate change, including human rights impacts.

The Ministério Público Federal (MPF) had brought a tort case against the farmer, Dauro Parreiras de Rezende, for causing the deforestation of 2,488.56 hectares of Amazon rainforest between 2011 and 2018. This had allegedly violated the right to a healthy environment as enshrined in the Brazilian Constitution. On 16 April 2021, a Federal Environmental and Agrarian Court granted an injunction ordering the removal of cattle from the land in question.

Climate Case Chart reports that MPF is seeking up to R$ 85.4 million (ca. $17 million USD) in damages for the climate damage itself, i.e., the value of the emissions related to the deforestation in question, human rights violations due to collective pain and suffering, other environmental damages, and compensation for the farmer’s illegal profits due to the deforestation.

More information:

For more detail and the text (in Portuguese) of the petition and judgment, visit Climate Case Chart.

For a newspaper report on the case (in Portuguese), see here.

Suggested case citation:
Federal Environmental and Agrarian Court, Ministério Público Federal v. de Rezende, petition filed on 7 April 2021

Federal Environmental and Agrarian Court, Ministério Público Federal v. de Rezende, preliminary decision issued on 16 April 2021

Categories
2022 Adaptation Czechia Deforestation Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Evidence Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to a healthy environment Right to health Right to life Right to property Separation of powers Standing/admissibility Victim status

Klimatická žaloba ČR and others v. Czechia

Summary:
This case was brought by a group of applicants, named in the brief as the climate action NGO Klimatická žaloba ČR, a municipality, two peasants, several foresters, and a man from Prague who suffers from environmental anxiety. The case was brought on 21 April 2021, and contested failures to provide adequate and necessary mitigation and adaptation measures to protect against the adverse effects of climate change. It alleged that the Government’s failures to adequately address climate change violated the rights to life, health, a healthy environment, and other rights guaranteed by the Czech constitution, the Czech Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The applicants sought a declaration that the Czech government failed to respect their rights by ensuring sufficient emissions reductions to meet the Paris Agreement’s targets. They also sought an order setting the Czech carbon budget at 800 Mt CO2 from January 2021 until the end of the century.

In June 2022, the court of first instance issued a judgment that was partially favorable to the the applicants. However, in February 2023 the court of second instance annulled the first-instance judgment, referring the case back to the first-instance court. More details about the judgments follow below.

Judgment of 15 June 2022:
On 15 June 2022, the Municipal Court of Prague issued a (now overturned, see below) judgment in this case. It rejected the action against the Government of the Czech Republic. However, it found that the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Industry and Trade, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Transport had failed to provide specific mitigation measures leading to a 55% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. These authorities were required to have a complete and precise plan of measures in place to meet this goal, which was not the case at the time of judgment; they were accordingly enjoined to cease their interference with the applicants’ rights by adopting an adequate mitigation plan.

Admissibility:
Citing the environmental case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the court noted that inaction in protecting the environment may violate human rights, as well as the right to a favourable environment under Article 7 of the Czech Constitution and Article 35(1) of the Czech Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. It accordingly recognized the standing of the individual applicants in the case. Because domestic law grants associations the right to bring cases not only concerning their own rights, but also concerning those of their members, and because the court found that climate change affects the entire territory of the Czech Republic, the applicants associations had standing to bring an interference action. Likewise, the applicant municipality had standing, given that climate change can affect the legitimate interests of citizens living in its territory and that its basic duty “is to take care of the overall development of its territory and the needs of its citizens, and to protect the public interest. It is therefore desirable that a municipality should be able to take care of the rights of its citizens to a favourable environment in the same way as an environmental association”.

Reasoning on the merits:
In its (now-overturned) judgment, the court noted that the Czech Code of Administrative Justice does not allow an action for interference to protect the rights of third parties (actio popularis / public interest litigation), but found that the applicants’ affectedness in the present case was sufficiently direct, noting that “the link between climate change and human (in)action is so compelling and close that, when considering the directness of interference, the two are an inseparable whole.” It argued that the applicants had suffered a direct interference with their right to a favourable environment, given that the case was about climate change’s “local adverse manifestations” (para. 198). Citing the precautionary principle (para. 211) and IPCC reports (para. 216-220), the court went on to find that “living in sustainable climatic conditions [is] a prerequisite for the undisturbed exercise of other human rights, such as the right to life, health, property rights, the right to engage in economic activity” (para. 210). It recognized that climate change has adverse impacts on human living conditions, including through heat stress, the spread of infectious diseases, and reduced diversity and access to food (para. 221). Citing the Urgenda case, the court went on to find that climate change interfereed directly with the applicants’ right to a healthy environment (para. 224-225), and that “[r]esidence, age, sex, health, etc. only determine the extent of the interference” (para. 223).

The court found that while the Paris Agreement was part of the domestic legal order, and bound the Czech Republic, its 2 degree target was not legally binding. However, drawing on scholarship, the IPCC, and the Urgenda judgment, the court found that the obligation in Art. 4(2) of the Paris Agreement to implement mitigation measures to achieve the Czech nationally determined contribution (NDC) was binding on the State (para. 248-250). Although the Czech Republic had not in fact submitted its own NDC, the EU had set emissions levels for all Member States, and the resulting emissions reduction target was individually applicable to the Czech Republic (para. 251). Citing developments taking place as part of the EU’s Green Deal, it found that “the Defendants should have established a plan for achieving the Paris Agreement’s (EU NDC) 2030 target without undue delay” (para. 280). It noted too that “the Defendants have no reasonable reason to wait until 2023 to develop and then implement the measures.” Failing to fulfil the corresponding emissions reductions obligations, the court held, constituted a violation of the applicants’ rights.

The Municipal Court agreed with the applicants and the scientific studies, including IPCC reports, that they had submitted in evidence “that a global carbon budget of 900 GtCO2 since January 2018 is consistent with the Paris Agreement commitment” (para. 239). The court extensively engaged with the different evidentiary bases of the argument.

In terms of adaptation measures, the court found that the Defendants had not breached their obligation to adopt and implement adaptation measures under Article 5(4) of the European Climate Law. The Defendants had adopted an extensive action plan reflecting adaptation gaps, based on scientific knowledge, and involving a range of public and private actors (para. 329).

In a paragraph of central importance, and revolving around the “drop in the ocean” argument, the court held that:

“[C]limate change would also occur if the defendants acted to mitigate and adapt to climate change. However, if the defendants had properly fulfilled their obligations, climate change would have been milder and averting dangerous climate change under Article 2(1)(a) of the Paris Agreement would have been more likely. This conclusion follows from the non-negligible impact of human activity on climate change. Defendants’ failure to act is therefore a partial cause of the current adverse impacts of climate change. The Municipal Court notes that the individual responsibility of the States Parties to the Paris Agreement cannot be excluded by reference to the level of emission contributions of other States. Such an approach would make effective legal protection impossible where the State in question is not a significant emitter of greenhouse gases on a global scale and would be inconsistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibility of the Parties under Article 2(2) of the Paris Agreement” (para. 325).

This quotation, and those throughout this post, come from the unofficial translation of the judgment provided by the applicants.

The court did not examine the complaints concerning the rights to property, to private and family life, to life and health, to carry out economic activity and to self-government.

Remedies:
The Court issued not only a declaratory but also a constitutive ruling, meaning that it instructed the authorities to remedy their inaction and adopt a mitigation plan that is sufficiently specific within the meaning of Article 4(2) and (14) Paris Agreement and aims at meeting the EU NDC target. The choice of specific mitigation measures leading to a 55% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 was left to the defendants’ discretion. The court held that it “could not, in view of the principle of separation of powers, order the defendants to develop specific mitigation measures” (para. 334). It did, however, reimburse the costs of the proceedings.

Judgment of 20 February 2023:
On 20 February 2023, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic, examining an appeal on points of law by the Ministry of the Environment, annulled the decision of the Municipal Court of Prague and referred the case back to it. The decision to overturn was mainly based on the fact that the obligation to reduce GHG emissions by 55% is collectively shared by all Member States of the European Union, but a specific distribution of these obligations has not yet been establish by EU law or policy. The Supreme Administrative Court also found that the applicants had not sufficiently specified the areas in which the defendants had allegedly breached their obligations by inaction, therefore interfering with the rights of the applicants.

Date filed:
21 April 2021

More information:
The complaint is available here (in Czech).

An unofficial translation of the first-instance judgment into English and a press release are available from the applicants.

The second-instance judgment is available here (in Czech, through the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law’s Climate Case Chart database). A commentary of this decision by a lawyer member of Klimatická žaloba ČR is available here (in Czech).

Suggested citations:
Municipal Court of Prague, Klimatická žaloba ČR and others v. the Czech Republic and others, Judgment No. 14A 101/2021 of 15 June 2022.

Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic, Klimatická žaloba ČR v Czech Republic [2023] 9 As 116/2022 – 166 of 20 February 2023.

Last updated:
15 June 2023

Categories
2021 Access to a remedy Elderly Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights Fossil fuel extraction Norway Private and family life Prohibition of torture Right to life

The Norwegian Grandparents’ Climate Campaign and Others v. Norway

Summary:
This case was filed on 26 March 2021 by The Norwegian Grandparents’ Climate Campaign (or Besteforeldrenes klimaaksjon, see the NGO’s website here, which counted 5600 members at the time and aims to counter anthropogenic climate change) along with four individuals, who were then aged 29, 32, 80, and 9 months. According to the Court’s press release, the case relates to the same domestic proceedings as the subject of Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway (no. 34068/21). Before the Court, the applicants invoke Articles 2, 3, 8, 13 and 14 ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (the right to life, the prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, the right to respect for private and family life, the right to an effective remedy, the prohibition of discrimination and the right to property). They rights, they argue, have been infringed by the Norwegian authorities’ petroleum activities in the Barents Sea in the Arctic Ocean. They describe, in particular, the disastrous effects of rising temperature levels on Norway, invoking the prevention and precautionary principles, inter-generational equity and Norway’s duty of care.

The applicants argue that there is a “real and imminent threat” facing them as Norwegian oil production contributes to the reaching of tipping points in the global climate system. On the Court’s victim status requirements (standing), they argue that these criteria must be interpreted in harmony with the priniciple of inter-generational equity, and invoke both the Rio Declaration and the Paris Agreement to argue that current generations have a duty to act as stewards of the planet for future generations.

This case has not yet been communicated by the Court at the time of writing. It had been announced, however, that the case has been adjourned pending the outcome of Grand Chamber proceedings in three other climate cases (i.e. KlimaSeniorinnen, Duarte Agostinho, and Carême; see “Status of case” below). More information on the case will be published as it becomes available.

Date filed:
26 March 2021

Status of case:
Adjourned until the Grand Chamber has ruled in the climate change cases pending before it (see the ECtHR’s press release here).

Suggested case citation:
ECtHR, The Norwegian Grandparents’ Climate Campaign and Others v. Norway, application no. 19026/21, filed on 26 March 2021 (not yet communicated).

More information:
For the NGO’s press release on the application (in Norwegian), click here.

For further information on the domestic proceedings, see Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway (no. 34068/21).

For the full standardized application form submitted to the ECtHR, see here.

Last updated:
16 March 2023.