Supporters of challenging the current targets at the EU Court are encouraged by a recent ruling suggesting that failing to effectively tackle climate change violates human rights.
The European Commissionmay have acted illegally by refusing to consider cutting greenhouse gas emissions by more than 55% for 2030is what the environmental activistswhich They carry out a complex legal process before the EU courts.
“The European Court of Human Rights made clear in April that states are obliged to adopt science-based emissions targets consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C,” Gerry Liston, lawyer for the Network, said today. Global Legal Action (GLAN).
Liston was referring to a ruling by Strasbourg Court which ruled that insufficient government action to mitigate climate change violates fundamental human rightsin a case brought by a group of elderly Swiss women.
GLAN, together with the ONG Climate Action Network (CAN) Europerequested last August an internal review of national emissions allocations based on the 55% target, an essential first legal step, as civil society groups do not have direct access to the EU courts in Luxembourg.
Reduce greenhouse gases
The 2030 target, which aims to reduce greenhouse gases compared to 1990 levels, is enshrined in the EU Climate Law and is part of a broader Green Deal goal: reducing emissions to zero by 2050. .
But The 55% target is only legally binding at European levelwhich leaves the Commission with the task of setting indicative national targets for each Member State.
NGOs are challenging this administrative act, made possible by recent EU legislation applying the United Nations Aarhus Convention on access to environmental justice.
They argue, by extension, that the 55% target is legally erroneous, among other things because the Commission refused to model the effects of a more ambitious cut in the impact assessment it carried out before proposing the climate law in 2020.
Green groups in Brussels once advocated, and continue to do so, for a target of at least 65%, which means roughly halving the net emissions of the 27 member states over the next six years.
The Commission considered the administrative appeal unfoundedwhich led the groups to appeal to the EU General Court in February. Three months later, the president of the Court gave priority to the appeal over other matters, which NGOs consider a recognition of the urgency of climate action.
“We have to use all available channels to put pressure on the European Commission to bring the EU’s climate ambition into line with the 1.5°C target of the Paris Agreement,” said CAN Europe climate manager Sven Harmeling, referring to to the global agreement aimed at curbing climate change.
The European Commission last month asked the Court to dismiss the case and order the NGOs to cover all costs. The EU executive argues that the case concerns not only administrative acts, but the 2030 target itself, which is set in EU law and therefore falls outside the scope of the Aarhus Regulation.
The outcome of the case will depend on how the EU Court interprets this legal distinction, and could set a precedent for future challenges of EU environmental legislation.
“I think our chances of winning are realistic, otherwise we would not have gone ahead with this case,” said Romain Didi, CAN Europe’s climate governance and human rights policy coordinator.
The first climate sentence
“What we hope to achieve with this case is the first climate ruling from an EU Court saying that there is actually a legal obligation for the EU to do much more than it is currently doing, and to rapidly reduce its emissions,” he said. Didi to ‘Euronews’.
ADVERTISINGCivil society groups have just presented their final arguments to the General Court, and the Commission is due to send its written response next month. The case will then go to a public hearing, and NGOs hope that a ruling will be handed down next year.
“The Commission explicitly refused to assess which reductions greater than 55% were feasible, and we say this is clearly illegal,” Liston said.
Due to the parallel demand to increase carbon capture from European forests, the Commission affirms that the objective for 2030 represents a de facto reduction of 57% of net greenhouse gases.
The Climate Law also requires the EU executive to propose a provisional target for 2040, and the president, Ursula von der Leyen has committed to reaching the 90% minimum recommended by an independent group of climate scientists.
ADVERTISINGThe European Commission said it could not comment on an ongoing court matter.
