CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

CYIL 14 (2023) FIRST CZECH CLIMATE LITIGATION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF INTERNATIONAL … 1. The First Instance Proceedings and Cassation Complaints The case was firstly dealt with by Municipal Court in Prague in the first instance proceedings. These proceedings were initiated in 2021 by four natural persons, two associations, and one municipality (the plaintiffs) who filed a lawsuit against the Czech government, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Industry and Trade, Ministry of Agriculture, and Ministry of Transport of the Czech Republic (the defendants or the Ministries, where the government is uninvolved). The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants failed to produce adequate measures for climate change mitigation and adaptation. The measures adopted so far would not suffice to fulfil the Paris Agreement. As a result, plaintiffs’ rights had been breached by this inaction at least since 4 November 2017 (effective date of the Paris Agreement for the Czech Republic). 7 The plaintiffs asked the Municipal Court to declare that the inactivity of the defendants breached inter alia Article 2(2), Article 3, and Article 4(3) of the Paris Agreement, which violated subjective rights of the plaintiffs enshrined in Article 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 8 The plaintiffs requested that the Municipal Court order the defendants to adopt necessary and adequate measures aimed at lowering GHG emissions and adapting for climate change within 6 months. 9 The Municipal Court rejected the lawsuit as impermissible to the extent to which it was aimed against the government. The government was supposed to play the role of a coordinator only, not to set specific adaptation or mitigation measures itself. 10 The Municipal Court also dismissed the claim regarding adaptation measures. It declared that according to Article 7(1) of the Paris Agreement the defendants themselves decide which adaptation measures to undertake and how. The Court felt not entitled to interfere in this political, technical, and administrative process, it just verified that certain adaptation measures had been set and that most of them were being fulfilled or had been finished. 11 Nonetheless the Municipal Court accepted the claims regarding the insufficiency of mitigation measures. It deduced that the Ministries failed in setting specific mitigation measures leading to a reduction of GHG emissions by 55 % until 2030 compared to the emission levels in 1990. The Municipal Court decided that this was an illegal course of action of the Ministries and ordered them to stop this illegal interference (omission) by adopting specific mitigation measures leading to reduction of GHG emission by 55 % until 2030 in comparison with 1990. 12 By doing so, the Municipal Court confirmed that the climate lawsuit by individuals was permissible, because the plaintiffs’ rights had been directly violated by the inactivity of the Ministries. Although the adverse impacts of climate change concern the entire population, the failure of the Ministries to mitigate them curtails individual rights of specific persons (the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as amended; adopted on 4 November 1950, in force 3 September 1953). (the European Convention on Human Rights). 9 The Judgement no. 14A 101/2021 – 248, p. 8, para 29. 10 Ibid, pp. 28–29, paras 167–175. Essentially, the reasons for such conclusion stem from Czech domestic law, not from international law. 11 Ibid., pp. 4–55, paras 284–321. 12 Ibid., p. 2. 7 The Judgement no. 14A 101/2021 – 248, pp. 5–8, paras 12–28. 8

473