Tag: Domestic court proceedings

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
Access to a remedy Czechia Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Private and family life Right to life Uncategorized Victim status

Klimatická žaloba ČR, z.s. and Others v. Czech Republic

Summary:

On 21 April 2021, the plaintiffs in this case (Klimatická žaloba ČR, an NGO established for the purpose of climate litigation; the Municipality of Svatý Jan pod Skalou; the Czech Ornithological Society; and four individuals) initiated a civil action against unlawful interference, naming four ministries of the Czech government and the Czech government (cabinet) as defendants. They contested failures to provide adequate and necessary mitigation and adaptation measures to protect against the adverse effects of climate change. They also alleged that the Czech government’s failures to adequately address climate change had 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. They alleged that this interference was constituted by their failure to implement concrete measures for the mitigation of climate change, based on international law (in particular, the Paris Agreement), EU law, and Article 35 of the Czech Charter on Fundamental Rights (Charter), which provides for the right to a favourable environment.

The plaintiffs 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.

The plaintiffs were initially successful before the Municipal Court of Prague, whose judgment was subsequently annulled by the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic. On 5 February 2025, the plaintiffs filed a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic alleging violations of several rights under the Charter and Articles 2, 8 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).  

Procedural History 

The first instance the plaintiffs approached was the Municipal Court in Prague. On 15 June 2022, the Municipal Court rendered a judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, declaring that each of the four ministries had unlawfully interfered with the applicants’ right to a favourable environment under of Article 35 of the Charter, on the grounds that they had not undertaken measures for the state to achieve a 55% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, compared to 1990 levels. It held that the claims against the cabinet as inadmissible as it did not constitute an ‘administrative authority’ against whom claims of unlawful interference could be brought under the Czech Code of Administrative Justice. 

Both the parties appealed against this judgment. The defendant ministries (appellants) argued that the Municipal Court exceeded its competence in breach of the separation of powers doctrine and interpreted EU and international law incorrectly. The plaintiffs (cross-appellants) argued that the Municipal Court erred in declining the cabinet’s capacity to be sued and ought to have prescribed a more ambitious mitigation target than the 55% target for the Czech government to achieve. On 20 February 2023, the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) overruled the Municipal Court’s decision on account of the separation of powers doctrine and found that it incorrectly interpreted the EU climate target (entailing 55% emission reduction by 2030) as EU law does not prescribe a specific mandatory emissions reduction target for the Czech Republic alone. Since this was a cassation appeal, the SAC remanded the case to the Municipal Court. Following a remand and a subsequent dismissal by the Municipal Court, the plaintiffs’ final appeal to the SAC was unsuccessful.

Claims

The plaintiffs thus filed a complaint before the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, seeking an annulment of the SAC and Municipal Court decisions on account of violations of their rights under Articles 6, 10, 11, 26, 31, 35 and 36 of the Charter and Articles 2, 6 and 8 of the ECHR. 

In support of their arguments, the plaintiffs relied on climate jurisprudence from the Netherlands, France, Germany, Ireland, Nepal, Colombia, and most importantly, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, which emphasize the judiciary’s role in reviewing the state’s mitigation policy based on human rights law. They also placed heavy reliance on the interpretation of Article 8 of the ECHR laid down in the case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen and Others v. Switzerland to challenge the lack of a national carbon budget for the Czech Republic, a climate neutrality target, and binding intermediate emission reduction targets. Furthermore, they problematized the SAC’s use of European Climate Law (which provides for a framework for emissions reduction targets to be achieved by EU member states collectively) as a shield against the plaintiffs’ human rights claims against the Czech Republic. 

Judgment

On 22 October 2025, the Constitutional Court issued its ruling wherein it dismissed the plaintiffs’ requests by emphasizing on the form of action they used to bring the claim before the Municipal Court (and SAC). Under the Code of Administrative Justice, the administrative authorities in question could only be regarded as having produced an unlawful interference by failing to implement their statutory duties. The Court found the plaintiffs had not proven how the ministries could adopt the requested measures within their existing legal authorizations. It also held that neither the Constitution nor the ECHR specifically obligate the four named ministries to adopt the measures requested by the applicants. 

Regarding the KlimaSeniorinnen judgment, the Constitutional Court held that while the ECtHR is an international court which assesses the actions of the state as a whole, its own role was limited to examining the conduct of the named defendant ministries. Finally, it held that the administrative courts did not violate the plaintiffs’ right of access to the court (Article 36 of the Charter, and Article 6 of the ECHR) as it found the courts to have examined each of their submissions and ruled on the entire subject matter of the proceedings. 

Status: 

The Constitutional Court ruling is final and cannot be appealed.

On 2 February 2026, the NGO Klimatická žaloba ČR submitted an application to the ECtHR alleging violations of Articles 8, 6 and 13 of the ECHR. 

Links:

The ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic can be found here.

The Municipal Court of Prague Judgment from 15 June 2022 (finding in favour of the plaintiffs) can be found here (Czech) and here (unofficial English translation). 

The decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic (SAC), annulling the Municipal Court of Prague Judgment from 15 June 2022, dated 20 February 2023 can be found here (Czech).

The Municipal Court of Prague Judgment from 25 October 2023 (upon remand of the case from the SAC) can be found here.

The second decision of the SAC dated 26 November 2024 (dismissing the plaintiffs’ appeal) can be found here.

All other case related documents can be found on the website of the NGO Klimatická žaloba. 

Suggested citation: 

Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, Klimatická žaloba ČR, z.s. and Others v. Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Industry and Trade, Ministry of Agriculture, and Ministry of Transport, Czech Republic, Pl. ÚS 6/25, 22 October 2025, Judge Veronika Křesťanová (judge rapporteur).

Last updated:
12 March 2026.

Categories
Uncategorized

Bundesverfassungsgericht, Order of 24 March 2021 (Neubauer v. Germany)

Summary:
On 21 April 2019, the German Federal Constitutional Court (‘Bundesverfassungsgericht’) issued a historic judgment quashing parts of the German Climate Protection Act. The judgment considered that the existing measures for climate protection impermissibly deferred the emissions reductions necessary for meeting Paris Agreement goals into the future, i.e. post-2031, thereby shifting the responsibility for reductions onto future generations, who would have to accept dramatic limitations on their freedoms as a result.

Admissibility:
–

Merits:
In its judgment, First Senate of the German Federal Constitutional Court held that the parts of the German Federal Climate Change Act of 12 December 2019 (Bundes-Klimaschutzgesetz – KSG) governing national climate targets and the emissions allowed annually until 2030 were incompatible with fundamental rights. This finding was based on the absence of specified emission reductions after 2030. The Court emphasized the principle of inter-generational justice stemming from Art. 20a of the German Basic Law.

The KSG creates an obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 relative to 1990 levels. The Bundesverfassungsgericht held that the legislator had not violated its constitutional duty to protect the complainants from the risks of climate change or to take climate action (as required by Article 20a of the German Basic Law) by passing the KSG into law. However, it found that the provisions in questions irreversibly offloaded emission reduction burdens into the future, namely the time period after post-2030. The Bundesverfassungsgericht drew on the constitutional climate goal arising from Article 20a of the German Basic Law, which requires — in line with the targets set out in the Paris Agreement — that increases in the global average temperature should be limited to well below 2°C, and preferably to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The Court found that the statutory provisions in the KSG on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from 2031 onwards were insufficient, meaning that a great burden would be placed on the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms by future generations. This violated the constitutional rights of the applicants, in the sense of their fundamental freedoms (including, among others, Art. 2(1) GG) in the sense of an advance interference-like effect (eingriffsähnliche Vorwirkung).

In all other respects, the constitutional complaints were rejected. This includes the rejection of complaints about current-day interferences with the rights to life and physical integrity, and complaints by applicants from Bangladesh and Nepal.

Remedies:
The court ordered the legislator to enact provisions specifying the adjustment of reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions for periods after 2030 in greater detail by 31 December 2022 that.

Separate opinions:
None

Implementation measures taken:
TBD

Date:
24 March 2021

Type of Forum:
Domestic

Status of case:
Final

Suggested case citation:
German Bundesverfassungsgericht, Judgment of the First Senate of 24 March 2021 – 1 BvR 2656/18 -, N. 1-270, http://www.bverfg.de/e/rs20210324_1bvr265618.html.

Links:
Judgment in German

Summary in English

Categories
2020 Business responsibility / corporate cases Deciding Body Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Keywords Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to life Rights at stake The United Kingdom Year

R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) v Heathrow Airport Ltd

Summary:
On 26 June 2018, the UK Secretary of State for Transport adopted the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS), which governs the construction of a third runway at Heathrow Airport. This led to challenges from several environmental campaigners, including Friends of the Earth Ltd and Plan B Earth. Among other grounds, it was argued that the Secretary of State had disregarded the UK Government’s commitments under the Paris Agreement (ratified on 17 November 2016 by the UK) when designating the ANPS.

In 2019 the Divisional Court dismissed all of the objectors’ claims in two separate judgments. However, in 2020 the Court of Appeal allowed part of Friends of the Earth’s and Plan B Earth’s grounds, and held that the ANPS was unlawful (see judgment here). The Secretary of State did not appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision. However, Heathrow Airport Ltd, owner of Heathrow Airport, sought and was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court (UKSC). Heathrow Airport stated that it had already invested a large sum of money in promoting the third runway. On 16 December 2020, the Supreme Court unanimously decided to allow Heathrow Airport’s appeal on all grounds, ruling that the ANPS was lawful. However, the judgment states clearly that the climate must be considered at the planning permission stage of the third runway.

Human rights claims:
Under Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, Friends of the Earth et al. argued against interpreting section 5(8) of the Planning Act 2008 in a way that excluded consideration of the Paris Agreement temperature limit. This would result in the development of large-scale national projects posing an unacceptable risk to people’s lives and homes, in breach of Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The Supreme Court found that this reasoning must fail for two reasons. First, this argument had already been raised as a separate ground before the Divisional Court, where it was rejected. This decision was not appealed to the Court of Appeal, and was therefore not considered subject to the UKSC proceedings. Secondly, even if this argument were within the scope of the appeal, it would not have succeeded because any effect of the third runway on the lives and families of those affected by the consequences of climate change would result not from the designation of the ANPS but from granting permission to develop the construction project. As Heathrow Airport Ltd. had conceded, and the respondents agreed, the ANPS requires the third runway to be evaluated against the emissions targets in place if and when an application to develop the runway were to be made (para 113 of the UKSC judgment).

Further information:
Shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision, Plan B Earth announced in a press release that it intends to take the judgment to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that reliance upon the 2 degrees Celsius target is a violation of the right to life (see here). Additionally, Plan B Earth served a pre-action letter on the UK Government alleging that its failure to develop a plan to address climate change is a violation of human rights as well as domestic and international law (see here).

Date of decision:
16 December 2020

Suggested case citation:
UK Supreme Court, R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) v. Heathrow Airport Ltd, UKSC 2020/0042, Judgment of 16 December 2020, [2020] UKSC 52

Case documents:
For the full judgment, click here.

To watch a webcast of the hearing, click here.

Further reading:
Joanne Hawkins, ‘A lesson in un-creativity: (R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) v Heathrow Airport Ltd [2020] UKSC 52’, 23(4) Environmental Law Review (2021), 344-349. Available here.

Categories
2020 Business responsibility / corporate cases Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation France Standing/admissibility

Les Amis de la Terre, Survie v. Total SA

Summary:

Total S.A. is a French energy company with oil projects in Uganda and Tanzania. According to the French “loi de vigilance”, companies with a certain size that meet certain criteria must develop a “plan de vigilance” documenting how they and the companies in their supply chain respect human rights and the environment in their business activities. The applicants claim that Total’s environmental plan (part of the “plan de vigilance”) is not suitable for achieving the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement. In addition to better respect for human rights, the NGOs have demanded that Total take more effective measures to protect the environment. The first instance court, the Nanterre Civil Court of Justice, found that it had no jurisdiction over the case and that it fell instead within the jurisdiction of the commercial courts. The applicant NGOs appealed. The Court of Appeal of Versailles confirmed the judgment of the first instance, and the NGOs are now considering filing an appeal before the French Supreme Court.

Admissibility:
The Court confirmed the judgment of the first instance court, which had decided that the dispute fell within the jurisdiction of the commercial court. 

Date of filing:
16 March 2020

Date of decision:
10 December 2020

Suggested citation:
Court of Appeal of Versailles, Les Amis de la Terre, Survie v. Total SA, case no. RG20/01692, decision of 10 December 2020.

Full judgment:
The full judgment is available here.

Categories
2020 Climate activists and human rights defenders Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Extraterritorial obligations Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to life The Netherlands

Greenpeace Netherlands v. State of the Netherlands (KLM)

Summary:

During the Covid-19 pandemic, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines struggled with serious financial difficulties. To support the airline during the crisis, the Dutch government granted KLM a bailout package totalling 3.4 billion Euros. Along with the support package, a number of conditions were imposed on KLM. These included a set of sustainability requirements and a requirement to reduce CO2 emissions. As a result, Greenpeace Netherlands sued the Dutch government before the District Court of the Hague on 7 October 2020. Greenpeace claimed that the conditions imposed were not sufficient to achieve the climate goals of the Paris Agreement and that the state should either have imposed a cap on CO2 emissions on the airline or should not have granted the bailout package at all. In Greenpeace’s view, the state has thus breached its duty of care to prevent dangerous climate change, following the ruling of the Dutch Supreme Court in the Urgenda Foundation case, thereby allegedly violating of Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

In its ruling of 9 December 2020, the court ruled against Greenpeace, reasoning that neither the Paris Agreement nor other international climate agreements oblige the Dutch government to reduce CO2 emissions from international aviation. According to the court, the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 stipulates that cooperation with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is required for CO2 reduction in international aviation. The Paris Agreement therefore only contains the obligation to reduce domestic emissions, but not emissions from international air traffic. Furthermore, the court found that the conditions requested by Greenpeace go beyond the ICAO’s resolution on CO2 emissions and that the conditions imposed by the Dutch government are in accordance with all international obligations in this regard. The court concluded that there was no obligation of the State of the Netherlands which was violated by granting KLM the bailout package with its conditions.

Date of decision:

9 December 2020

Suggested case citation:

District Court of The Hague, Greenpeace Netherlands v. State of the Netherlands, Judgment of 9 December 2020, C/09/600364 / KG ZA 20-933, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:12440.

Case ducuments:

District-Court-Judgment-in-DutchDownload
Plaintiffs-advocacy-note-in-DutchDownload
Notice-of-possible-legal-procedure-in-DutchDownload

Date last updated:

11 January 2023

Categories
Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights France Paris Agreement Sea-level rise Uncategorized

Commune de Grande-Synthe v. France

Summary:
This case was brought to the French Conseil d’Etat by the municipality of Grande-Synthe, which is a low-lying coastal community, against the French government. The plaintiffs alleged that the government had taken insufficient action to combat climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and invoked the European Convention on Human Rights, the Paris Agreement, and domestic environmental regulations.

Admissibility:
The case was declared admissible on 19 November 2020 by the Conseil d’Etat. The Government was given three months to justify its current approach to climate measures. The Conseil d’Etat indicated that the Paris Agreement, and France’s 40% reduction target by 2030 as opposed to 1990 emissions levels, would be used to interpret the State’s obligations.

Merits:
Pending

Remedies:
Pending

Separate opinions:
Pending

Implementation measures taken:
On 1 July 2021, it was announced that, in light of this case, the French Conseil d’État would require the Government to take measures before 31 March 2022 in order to reach the target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions totalling 40% by the year 2030.

To achieve the reduction targets set out in the Paris Agreement, meaning a -40% reduction in emissions as compared to 1990 levels, the Government had previously adopted a reductions plan covering four time periods (2015-2018, 2019-2023, 2024-2028 and 2029-2033), each with its own reduction targets. The Conseil d’État observed in its decision of 1 July 2021 that the level of emissions measured in 2019 had respected the annual target set for the period of 2019-2023. However, the 0.9% decrease in emissions observed was too low when compared to the reduction objectives for the previous period (2015-2018), which were 1.9% per year, and compared to the objectives for the following period (2024-2028), which are 3% per year. Provisional data for 2020 might show a significant drop in emissions, but this must be to some extent due to pandemic-related restrictions and must therefore be regarded as “transitory”. It did not, by itself, guarantee that the reductions needed to achieve the 2030 target were being made. The Conseil d’État found that additional efforts were needed in the short term to achieve the target of 12% emissions reductions between 2024 and 2028.

Date:
Pending

Type of Forum:
Domestic

Status of case:
Pending

Suggested case citation:
Decision on the Admissibility: French Conseil d’Etat, Commune de Grande-Synthe and Others v. France, case no. 427301, Admissibility, 19 November 2020.

Links:
http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/non-us-case/commune-de-grande-synthe-v-france/

Categories
2020 Climate activists and human rights defenders Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Fossil fuel extraction Mexico Paris Agreement Right to a healthy environment Uncategorized

Greenpeace Mexico v. Ministry of Energy and Others (on the National Electric System policies)

Summary:

In Spring of 2020 the Government of Mexico issued the following two policies: The Agreement of the National Centre of Energy Control (CENACE) “to ensure the Efficiency, Quality, Reliability, Continuity and Safety of the National Electric System, due to the recognition of the SARS-CoV2 virus disease epidemic (COVID-19)” and the Ministry of Energy’s “Reliability, Security, Continuity and Quality in the National Electrical System” policy. The directives provided for the closure of
renewable energy power plants and promoted oil-based power generation on the grounds that intermittent generation has a negative impact on the national power grid.

On 25 May 2020 Greenpeace filed a lawsuit against the Government of Mexico before the District Court in Administrative Matters in Mexico City. Greenpeace argued that the policies violated the constitutional rights to a healthy environment and sustainable development and Mexico’s international environmental commitments to reduce CO2 emissions.

Both the District Court and the First Circuit Collegiate Tribunal (appeals court) found the policies to violate constitutional rights and international climate agreements.

Claims:

Greenpeace claimed that the right to a healthy environment and numerous international agreements, namely the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement, had been violated. Both policies would diminish environmental protection and increase CO2 emissions. This would contravene the named conventions and would violate the constitutional right to a healthy environment.

Decision:

The appeals court ruled that, besides the fact that the authorities were not competent to issue the policies in question, the implementation of those policies would violate the right to a healthy environment. Encouraging the production and consumption of fossil fuels generates more greenhouse gas emissions which pollute the environment and thus damage the right to a healthy environment. In its decision, the court relied on the principles of in dubio pro natura, civic participation, non-regression, and the inclusion of future generations.

Date of decision:

17 November 2020

Suggested case citation:

Second District Court in Administrative Matters of Mexico City, Greenpeace Mexico v. Ministry of Energy and Others (on the National Electric System policies) , Judgment of 17 November 2020, 104/2022.

Case documents:

ComplaintDownload

Preliminary InjunctionDownload

District Court Judgment declaring policies unconstitutionalDownload

Date last updated:

26 March 2024

Categories
2020 Canada Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation Fossil fuel extraction Non-discrimination Public trust doctrine Right to life Standing/admissibility

Cecilia La Rose v Her Majesty the Queen

Facts of the case:

Plaintiffs comprising of 15 children and youths from various parts of Canada sued the Government and Attorney General of Canada alleging violations of the right to life and right to equality under Sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the constitutional and common law duty to protect the integrity of common natural resources in public trust. According to the plaintiffs, the impugned conduct of the respondents consisted in: continuing to cause, contribute to and allow a level of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions incompatible with a Stable Climate System (defined as a climate capable of sustaining human life and liberties); adopting GHG emission targets that are inconsistent with the best available science about what is necessary to avoid dangerous climate change and restore a Stable Climate System; failing to meet the Defendants’ own GHG emission targets; and actively participating in and supporting the development, expansion and operation of industries and activities involving fossil fuels that emit a level of GHGs incompatible with a Stable Climate System.

The defendants, while accepting the plaintiffs’ concerns about the seriousness of climate change and its potential impacts, filed a motion to strike their claim alleging that their claim is not justiciable.

Date of decision:

27 October 2020

Admissibility:

On 27 October 2020 the Federal Court in Ottawa granted the defendants’ motion. The Court answered the question of justiciability of the claims of Charter violations for the reason that the impugned conduct is of undue breadth and diffuse nature, and that the remedies sought by the plaintiffs were inappropriate. The Court also found that it had no constitutional obligation to intervene on the matter as there is room for disagreement between reasonable people on how climate change should be addressed. On the issue of justiciability of the public trust doctrine invoked by the plaintiffs, the Court found that the question of existence of the doctrine is a legal question which courts can resolve. However, the Court found that the plaintiffs’ claim did not disclose a reasonable prospect of success for the purposes of its admissibility.

Merits:

NA

Status of the case:

The plaintiffs have appealed against the Federal Court’s order before the Federal Court of Appeal.

Suggested case citation:

Federal Court of Ottawa, Cecilia La Rose v Her Majesty the Queen, T-1750-19, judgment of 27 October 2020, 2020 FC 1008

Case documents:

For the complaint filed by the plaintiffs on 25 October 2019, click here.

For the Government’s statement of defence notified on 7 February 2020, click here.

For the plaintiff’s reply to the Government’s motion to strike, filed on 31 August 2020, click here.

For the Federal Court of Ottawa’s order dated 27 October 2020, click here.

For the Memorandum of Appeal filed by the plaintiffs on 5 March 2021, click here.

Further reading:

Camille Cameron, Riley Weyman, ‘Recent Youth-Led and Rights-Based Climate Change Litigation in Canada: Reconciling Justiciability, Charter Claims and Procedural Choices,’ 34(1) Journal of Environmental Law (2021), Pages 195–207. Available here.

Categories
2020 Austria Domestic court Emissions reductions/mitigation European Convention on Human Rights Keywords Paris Agreement Private and family life Right to life Rights at stake Standing/admissibility State concerned Year

Greenpeace et al. v. Austria (The Zoubek Case)

Summary:
On 20 February 2020, Greenpeace Austria and other applicants called on the Austrian Constitutional Court to invalidate the preferential tax treatment of aviation companies over rail transportation companies in two Austrian tax laws. They claim that this preferential treatment would lead to an unjustified favoring of passenger air traffic and a disadvantage for less climate-damaging means of transport (e.g. railroads). Furthermore, the value-added tax exemption for cross-border flights and the kerosene exemption for domestic flights lead to higher prices for rail than for air travel and thus, contribute to climate change. Against this background, the applicants alleged that their rights under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) were violated, since the Austrian State has not fulfilled its duty to protect its citizens from the consequences of climate change.

On 30 September 2020, the Constitutional Court dismissed the application as inadmissible because it considered that the plaintiffs were not covered by the challenged legislation, which does not apply to rail transport, but only to air transport.

One of the applicants, who suffers from multiple sclerosis and Uhthoff’s syndrome, took this case to the European Court of Human Rights. He alleges a violation of his rights under, among others, Article 8 ECHR. The case, Müllner v. Austria, was filed at the ECtHR on 25 March 2021.

Date of decision:
30 September 2020

Status of case:
Dismissed

Suggested citation:
Austrian Verfassungsgerichtshof, Greenpeace et al. v. Austria, Decision of 30 September 2020 – G 144-145/2020-13, V 332/2020-13.

Links:
For the decision of the Constitutional Court, see here.

For the application, see here.