By the end of February 2023 Supreme Administrative court (SAC) cancelled a part of a judgement of the Regional court in Prague regarding Greenhouse gas emissions. According to SAC excessive proactivity of courts is not appropriate in the current situation. Special climate law has not yet been enacted in Czech Republic.

As we already could have read in former volumes of Bulletin (see Bulletin July-August 2022, pp. 39-40), the so-called climate claim was filed by a group of entities. The main role played the alliance Klimatická žaloba ČR [1]. The state was reproached for not being active enough about the protection of the environment. The key questions to this initiative were adopting measures leading to reducing Greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation) and adapting to climate changes (adaptation). According to claimants the Government and ministries were not carrying out their duties properly.

Claimants demanded the Regional court in Prague (Regional court) to rule that the defendants infringed their public subjective rights and also to impose onto the defendants to refrain from it. Claimants also claimed that defendants infringed a numerous pallet of their fundamental rights composited from right to favourable environment, right to life, right to protection of health etc. Considering a framework climate law being non-existing the claimants built their claims upon wording of the Paris Agreement [2] and European Climate Law [3]. Its aim is to achieve climate neutrality in the European union by 2050 and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 at least by 55 % compared to 1990 levels.

Relatively good omens brought by the judgement of the Regional court

Regional court in its judgement delivered by June 2022 partially complied with the claimants´ claims.[4] Regional court declared that steps taken by Czech Republic to reduce the emissions and to mitigate climate changes were not sufficient. Followingly to that Regional court pointed out that it is up to responsible ministries to reduce emissions of Greenhouse gases, which is a task that they do not fulfil enough. Therefore, Regional court declared that it is necessary to adopt additional measures by the ministries to complete their task.

The outcome of the court's ruling regarding the question of adapting to climate changes was not that much convenient to claimants. The Regional court dismissed their claims in such matters. Claims against the Government met the same fate, because the Regional court had not found the Government to be an administrative body in the terms of the Code of a judicial procedure in administrative matters [5].

Cassation appeal

Sued ministries appealed against the judgement of Regional court. The first that did so was the Ministry of Environment, which declared to the public that it fulfils all its climate obligations.

Complainants appealed also.[6] They declared that Regional court had not evaluated appropriately the amount of obligations of the defendants to reduce emissions of CO2 and also that the court mistakenly had not found an obligation of defendants to aim their actions toward achieving climate neutrality which. Complainants also argued that Regional court had incorrectly evaluated a matter of law because it had concluded goals of reducing emissions of CO2 too low according to complainants and also that the regional court incorrectly evaluated how much do defendants in fact fulfil their obligations regarding the adaptation to climate change. In the end the claimants argued that the Regional court was incorrect about the absence of obligation to defendants to accomplish the climate neutrality.[7]

Judgement of the Supreme administrative court

SAC [8] cancelled two key statements of the judgement of Regional court. The first one being that not adopting measures with an aim to reduce emissions of Greenhouse gases by the defendants is unlawful. The second and directly derived from the first one being the prohibition of continuing with such conduct imposed onto the defendants. Simply said, SAC cancelled the statements regarding the reducing of emissions of Greenhouse gases.

Why not otherwise?

SAC made its conclusions upon the fact that just like in the context of international and union law there is no obligation to adopt measures demanded by complainants stated directly by Czech law to Czech public authorities.

SAC dealt with the argument referring to the Paris Agreement with a simple fact that it is a collective obligation in the context of the European union therefore it is not an obligation to every single member state to reduce emissions of Greenhouse gases by specifically predefined levels. Opposite conclusions would be, according to SAC, denying the collective nature of this obligation.

SAC also used as an argument that legislative and political discussions are taking place in the European Union, which also include discussions about obligations of the member states to reduce emissions of Greenhouse gases. Early interventions of courts could be inappropriate in the current situation because they might reduce manoeuvre space for evaluation and negotiation.

SAC dealt with the fundamental rights referring arguments of complainants by pointing at their distinctive generality which leads to the fact that it is highly unlikely that defendants might violate these rights by not reducing emissions of Greenhouse gases exactly under the 55 % levels.

SAC did not deny the seriousness of global warming, on the other hand he openly declared the urgency of this problem. SAC also pointed to the international consensus about the necessity of solving this problem. SAC simply could not exceed the limits of the judicial power nor be simply blind towards the separation of public powers.

SAC dealt with the arguments of complainants referring to international sources of law with a fact that in the set of international human rights obligations that Czech Republic bears a specific right to favourable environment simply does not figure. Followingly SAC pointed out that the Czech Republic has not adopted a specific climate law yet.

Climate law

Czech Republic has not adopted a special Climate law. Handful of strategic documents is therefore without a framework law which could state aims for reducing emissions of Greenhouse gases. Approximately 13 states, including Spain, Switzerland and Norway, had already adopted such law. Even Slovakia had already started with preparation works of such law.

Climate law, if it was adopted, might play a key role in evaluation of legality of steps taken by administrative authorities during the fight with climate change. Courts will therefore have a more specific legal basis which might be used as a necessary measure.

What will happen next?

Regional court has to rule again. We will see what will bring the future and whether the complainants will succeed in their endeavours to improve their claims with facts regarding how specifically their fundamental rights were violated as SAC recommended to them. SAC had not doubted that changes in the Czech legal system shortly after his judgement was delivered were possible.

Will the climate claim be successful in the end? Will the Constitutional court get involved? Will there be any more such claims concerning the right to a favourable environment? Answers are hidden in the future.

 

Notes

[1] To enthusiasts I recommend visiting official web pages of the Klimatická žaloba ČR, z.s.  https://www.klimazaloba.cz/.

[2] Art. 2 para. 1 letter. a) of the Paris Agreement stipulates as an aim of it to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1,5 °C above pre-industrial levels.

[3] Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’)

[4] Judgment of the Regional court in Prague delivered on 15th of June 2022, r. n. 14 A 100/2021-248.

[5] See § 4 para. 1 of the Act. No. 150/2002 Coll., Code of judicial procedure in administrative matters, as amended.

[6] Not all of them, only alliance Klimatická žaloba ČR and Svatý Jan pod Skalou town.

[7] Judgement of Supreme administrative court delivered on 20th February 2023, f. n. 9 As 116/2022-166 para. 70-75.

[8] Judgement of Supreme administrative court delivered on 20th February 2023, f. n. 9 As 116/2022-166.

Sources

Act. No. 150/2002 Coll., Code of judicial procedure in administrative matters, as amended.

Achour, G. (2022). Klimatická žaloba: Podle rozhodnutí Městského soudu v Praze musí Česká republika zpřísnit opatření, která slouží ke zmírnění či zpomalení změny klimatu. Získáno z https://www.achourpartners.com/focuses/klimaticka-zaloba-podle-rozhodnuti-mestskeho-soudu-v-praze-musi-ceska-republika-zprisnit-opatreni-ktera-slouzi-ke-zmirneni-ci-zpomaleni-zmeny-klimatu/.

Břicháček, T. (2021). EVROPA: Evropský klimatický  zákon. Získáno z https://neviditelnypes.lidovky.cz/zahranici/evropa-evropsky-klimaticky-zakon.A210624_155301_p_zahranici_wag#:~:text=Evropsk%C3%BD%20klimatick%C3%BD%20z%C3%A1kon%20neboli%20Evropsk%C3%BD%20pr%C3%A1vn%C3%AD%20r%C3%A1mec%20pro,pro%20dosa%C5%BEen%C3%AD%20tzv.%20klimatick%C3%A9%20neutrality%20k%20roku%202050..

Dostálová, K. (2022) Ministerstvo životního prostředí podalo kasační stížnost proti rozhodnutí o klimatické žalobě. Získáno z https://ct24.ceskatelevize.cz/domaci/3514158-ministerstvo-zivotniho-prostredi-podalo-kasacni-stiznost-proti-rozhodnuti-o.

Chytil, D. (2023). Klimatická žaloba před Nejvyšším správním soudem: boj o klima pokračuje. Získáno z https://denikreferendum.cz/clanek/34950-klimaticka-zaloba-pred-nejvyssim-spravnim-soudem-boj-o-klima-pokracuje.

Judgment of Supreme administrative court delivered on 20th February, f. n. 9 As 116/2022-166.

Klimatická žaloba ČR z. s.. KLIMATIKCÁ ŽALOBA ČR: Skupinová žaloba na českou vládu. Získáno z Úvodní stránka – Klimatická žaloba ČR (klimazaloba.cz).

Krkoška, D. (2022). Ministerstva se kvůli klimatické žalobě obrátí na Nejvyšší správní soud. Získáno z Ministerstva se kvůli klimatické žalobě obrátí na Nejvyšší správní soud — ČT24 — Česká televize (ceskatelevize.cz).

Müllerová, H. (2022). První česká klimatická žaloba z velké části uspěla. Získáno z Komentujeme | Ústav státu a práva Akademie věd České republiky (cas.cz).

Nejvyšší správní soud. (2023). Tisková zpráva: Nejvyšší správní soud zčásti zrušil rozsudek Městského soudu v Praze ve věci klimatické žaloby. Získáno z Nejvyšší správní soud zčásti zrušil rozsudek Městského soudu v Praze ve věci klimatické žaloby — Nejvyšší správní soud (nssoud.cz).

Pancíř, T. (2023). Klimatický zákon není nic, co by mohlo být rychle „sfouknuté“, říká poslankyně Kocmanová. Získáno z Klimatický zákon není nic, co by mohlo být rychle ‚sfouknuté‘, říká poslankyně Kocmanová | iROZHLAS - spolehlivé zprávy.

Paris Agreement Official Journal of the European Union, L 282, 19 October 2016. Available from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AL%3A2016%3A282%3AFULL.

Resolution No. 2/1993 Coll., of presidium of Czech Nacional council about declaration of Declaration of fundamental rights and freedoms as a part of constitutional order of Czech Republic, as amended.

Šudová, D. (2022). Klimatická žaloba – český boj za lepší životní prostředí. Bulletin lidských práv, XIV. ročník (6. číslo), s. 39-40. Získáno z https://www.centrumlidskaprava.cz/sites/default/files/attachement/bulletin/Bulletin%20%C4%8Dervenec-srpen%202022.pdf.

Photo

Our days our climate. Lípa u Vítova (2), autor: Jan Polák, 26. květen 2012, zdroj: Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0 DEED.