The Meaning of Carbon Budget within a Wide Margin of Appreciation

Although the KlimaSeniorinnen judgment discusses a number of rights of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), including Article 6 (right of access to a court), Article 2 (right to life), and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the focus of this blog post is on its discussion of Article 8 (right to private, home and family life). The question raised by that discussion is whether the judgment is one that will “frighten the horses” and lead to oppositional cries of judicial overreach around the separation of powers, or if it is more an unexceptional case of “move on, nothing to see here.” My argument is that the judgment is mostly the latter but that it has what, in computer gaming terms, is known as an “Easter egg” – a hidden element included by the developers to surprise and reward those who look carefully. That could turn out to be more controversial.

Historic and Unprecedented

The three much-awaited judgments rendered by the European Court of Human Rights on 9 April 2024 are truly historic and unprecedented. In Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, the Grand Chamber established that climate change is 'one of the most pressing issues of our times' and poses a threat to human rights. With this ruling, the Court confirmed that States have a positive obligation to adopt measures to mitigate climate change under Article 8 ECHR, the right to family and private life. The judgments will undeniably set the tone for climate litigation in the years to come. It will impact both litigation and other procedures before other international courts.

The Transformation of European Climate Change Litigation

In a transformative moment for European and global climate litigation, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled today that the state has a positive duty to adopt, and effectively implement in practice, regulations and measures capable of mitigating the existing and potentially irreversible future effects of climate change. In Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (“KlimaSeniorinnen”), the Court held that by failing to put in place a domestic regulatory framework for climate change mitigation, the Swiss government violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the right to respect for private and family life. The judgment is a milestone for human rights protection.

Tort Law and New Zealand’s Corporate Greenhouse Gas Emissions

In February 2024, the New Zealand Supreme Court overturned the previous strike outs in the case of Michael John Smith in tort against seven major New Zealand companies in the dairy, energy, steel, mining and infrastructure sectors. Smith asserts that the respondents are engaging in conduct that affects him and others, and has put them into legal connection with one another in ways that enable appropriate remedy. This is heartland common law territory.  Even though the climate change problems we are now grappling with may be new ones, the centuries-old practices and traditions of the common law are a part of New Zealand’s constitutional heritage and structure.  Litigation is a legitimate vehicle for members of the population to engage the law in the face of harm or threats to individuals’ rights and well-being.

Why Courts will not Stop Global Warming, but Climate Litigation is Still Useful

Despite the global trend of record temperatures and the increasing number of disasters caused by extreme weather events, the political impetus to combat global warming is weakening all over Europe. Not only far-right forces want to stop ambitious climate policy, but also other political parties tend to neglect this field. To counter those political forces, climate litigation tries to hold national governments accountable to their goals as enshrined in the Paris Agreement. Courts represent one of the arenas in the struggle for climate protection. However, the battle is ultimately won or lost in the legislative arena.

Ecocide à la Bruxelloise

Belgium's new ecocide provision has been hailed as a resounding victory for environmental activists, particularly so for the burgeoning Stop Ecocide campaign. But is the widespread excitement justified? Can the new law deliver on the lofty expectations? And how does it fit within the soon-to-be adopted revision of the Environmental Crime Directive at the EU level? Despite constituting a highly symbolic step, I argue that the Belgian law’s constrained scope makes it a toothless tool to punish environmental outlaws in practice.

Chasing Shadows

The Net Zero Industry Act (NZIA) was touted as the European Union’s big response to the US Inflation Reduction Act. A year ago, the Biden administration’s new green subsidy program spooked the EU into a flurry of industrial policy announcements. Now, the political dust has settled, and the EU’s main green industry initiatives will finally hit the legislative books. So, what has become of the EU’s new green industry agenda, and what can we learn from it about Europe’s role in the new global age of industrial policy? 

Umweltverfassung in Aktion

Dass der Klimabeschluss des Bundesverfassungsgerichts Auswirkungen auf das Recht weit über seine konkrete Regelungswirkung hinaus hat, zeigt sich u.a. im aktuellen Doppelurteil des OVG Berlin-Brandenburg zur Verpflichtung der Bundesregierung, Sofortprogramme für die Sektoren Gebäude und Verkehr nach § 8 Klimaschutzgesetz (KSG) vorzulegen. Das OVG hat sich darin mit einer Reihe von umweltrechtlichen Problemstellungen in Zulässigkeit und Begründetheit befasst.

Milieudefensie v ING: Climate Breakdown and Banks‹ Duty of Care

There is a trend towards climate lawsuits against companies based on their alleged duty of care not to emit more than a certain amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Currently, there are four such cases before courts in Germany, all of which have been unsuccessful so far. On 19 January 2024, Milieudefensie, a Dutch environmental group, initiated legal proceedings against the Dutch Bank ING, for the first time raising the issue of whether financial actors have such a duty of care. This case represents a significant milestone in the worldwide effort to transform the financial sector and curb its seemingly endless appetite for financing fossil fuels. In light of these proceedings, I argue that the German courts have adopted an imprecise understanding of what the duty of care entails and that an appropriate application of this duty can increase the accountability of financial actors.

Is the Norwegian Paradox Coming to an End?

A wind of change is sweeping in the last stronghold of European petrostates: Norway. The recent decision rendered on January 18, 2024, by the District Court of Oslo in the North Sea Fields Case may testify to the demise of what was once called the Norwegian paradox, referring to Norway’s dual role as a climate leader internationally while maintaining a significant reliance on fossil fuels domestically. Despite advocating for climate action on the global stage, Norway remains the largest per capita exporter of CO2 emissions, due to its substantial petroleum industry.