Obtain the data you need to make the most informed decisions by accessing our extensive portfolio of information, analytics, and expertise. Sign in to the product or service center of your choice.
Europe's highest court denied an appeal by farmers who said the
EU Parliament and Council set a weak GHG emissions target, slowing
momentum behind similar European climate cases.
On 25 March, European Court of Justice dismissed the farmers' appeal,
affirming a 2019 finding by the General Court of the EU that the
plaintiffs had no legal standing, and ordering each side to cover
their own legal costs.
The 36 people who filed the 2018 court case, called "The
People's Climate Case," hailed from a Swedish indigenous youth
group farming reindeer as well as 10 families from Europe, Fiji,
and Kenya with businesses in agriculture and tourism. The
plaintiffs and their businesses were affected by droughts,
flooding, melting snow, or heatwaves "caused or intensified by
climate change," according to the judgment.
The petitioners argued the EU's Climate Package of 2018, which
pledged to cut its GHG emissions by 40% compared with 1990 levels
by 2030 to fulfill Paris Agreement pledges, was "manifestly
inadequate." Instead of financial damages, they asked the court to
order annulment of the package and adoption of one that deepened
emissions cuts to at least 50% to 60%.
Climate change hurts Europe's farmers, according to a study published in the journal
Environmental Research Letters last month. It found that a
European heatwave and drought in 2018 caused grain production to
drop 8%.
But the court said that whether or not the people's fundamental
rights had been violated, they had no right to bring their action
under Article 263(4) of the Treaty on
the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which sets rules on
who can appear in court.
The court's judgment confirms existing case law on how standing
is determined under the article, known as the Plaumann
test, which the plaintiffs sought to change. "The inroad may have
been topical, the outcome is old wine in a new bottle," according
to a
blog on the judgment from law firm Allen & Overy.
NGO coalition Climate Action Network (CAN), which submitted
documents backing the plaintiffs in the European General Court,
commented on the matter. "In its decision, the court expresses its
fear that if they accept the People's case, many people might bring
similar cases to challenge the EU on environmental grounds, the
fear of 'actio popularis,'" CAN Europe EU Climate
Governance and Human Rights Policy Coordinator Harriet
Mackaill-Hill told IHS Markit.
Upholding the Plaumann test, the judgment is likely to
discourage similar plaintiffs if laws remain the same. "Concretely,
it means the EU citizens and NGOs cannot challenge acts that are in
breach of environmental law and that cause harm to human beings and
plants," she said.
The People's case is not likely to directly influence EU policy
on emissions targets. "As the case was dismissed on admissibility
grounds only, and not heard on merits, there is no real
significance in terms of policy. However, this dismissal on
procedural grounds only strongly highlights the problem of access
to justice in the EU," said Mackaill-Hill.
NGOs fight for greater court access
The People's case bucks the trend of European NGOs and citizens
obtaining state-level court rulings that might strengthen climate
laws.
The judgment that raised emissions targets in the
Netherlands in 2019, dubbed the "Urgenda case" after the
petitioning green group, and the judgement enforcing emissions laws in
France in February, dubbed the "Case of the century," are
notable examples. Another case currently awaiting defense filings
in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) was launched by six
Portuguese youths in 2017 over the weak emissions cuts by several
states they alleged fueled that year's deadly wildfires in
Portugal.
These cases are gradually building the body of law that
acknowledges that states are liable for citizens' climate risk.
"National courts and other supranational courts like the [ECHR]
take the claims of people hit by the climate crisis seriously and
do not lose time with procedural rules, but focus on discussing the
climate crisis," said Mackaill-Hill.
"In this regard, we believe that the tidal wave of national and
supranational courts taking the claim of citizens on the
governments' climate inaction seriously is far more important than
the EU court's narrow interpretation of procedural rules," she
said.
The People's case arose because the EU failed to ensure access
to the courts when its own environmental laws are violated, Ellen
Baker, a strategic communications officer with legal charity
ClientEarth, told IHS Markit.
Current EU law allows companies to challenge court decisions
that affect their economic and financial interests, but not people
or NGOs, which means it is in breach of an international treaty
called the Aarhus Convention,
according to ClientEarth. Environmental NGOs have campaigned
for legislative revisions to get the EU to comply and remain
critical of revisions proposed by the commission.
"The EU is currently revising the Aarhus regulation, which is
their key chance to make the first important step to remedy the
issue. While this revision will not ensure that citizens can
challenge EU legislation, as was attempted in the People's case, it
will give the public the opportunity to ensure that the EU
administration respects environmental law," said Baker.
"This will bring us a long way in the right direction and will
be absolutely necessary to ensure that all the new commitments of
the EU Green Deal are respected in practice, for the benefit of
people and the planet," she added.
EU to raise emissions targets anyway
While the People's case was still ongoing in October 2020, the
EU Council reached a partial general
agreement with member states on an approach to its proposed
Climate Law, first put forward in 2019, which rolls out a stronger
EU GHG reduction target of at least 55% by 2030.
The related bill is due to be agreed this month, but states and
the European Commission disagreed over the precise target, and what
counts as progress towards the target, in a round of negotiations
in March.
Despite the EU raising its target, further litigation is a
possibility. "It is indeed the case that the EU will enshrine a new
climate goal of 55% or higher into law soon. The European
Parliament is still in negotiations with the member states on this,
insisting on even 60%. However, it will remain important to hold
the EU institutions to these targets, including by way of legal
actions," said Baker.
Germany-based research group Climate Action Tracker argues that
the EU's proposed goal of 55% is still incompatible with the Paris
Agreement, according to its climate profile of the EU.
However, raising the target to 65% "would make the EU the first
region with commitments compatible with the Paris Agreement."
Posted 07 April 2021 by Cristina Brooks, Senior Journalist, Climate and Sustainability