CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

TOMÁŠ BRUNER CYIL 14 (2023) plaintiffs) directly. In this regard, the Municipal Court referred 13 to a similar decision of the Administrative Court in Berlin. 14 The Municipal Court also concluded that it is possible to apply the Paris Agreement on the given case, because it can serve as an interpretation tool for determining the obligations of the defendants arising from the subjective constitutional right of the plaintiffs to a favourable environment. For this purpose, the Municipal Court solved whether the Paris Agreement is a self-executing treaty or whether it requires additional implementation. 15 The Paris Agreement does not directly prescribe a GHG budget for the Czech Republic, it contains only a general aim of the international community to limit the global rise of temperatures, which is not self-executing. The Municipal Court refused to use this sole limit for determining individual obligations of the Ministries and counting the respective Czech GHG budget that the Ministries should respect. 16 Instead, the Court referred to Nationally Determined Contributions (the NDC) defined in Article 4 of the Paris Agreement. The NDC contain obligations to reduce GHG emissions on a national basis which should safeguard that global warming remains within the limits set by the Paris Agreement. The Czech Republic did not submit its own NDC but specified its NDC through the NDC of the EU. The EU NDC stipulates that the EU Member States shall reduce the GHG emissions by 55 % until 2030 in comparison with 1990. 17 The fact that the EU NDC does not list individual contributions of the EU Member States but contains a joint, collective contribution, does not diminish the responsibility of these Member States under Article 4(18) of the Paris Agreement. Different interpretations would impair the purpose of the Paris Agreement, as the Municipal Court argued with reference to the Urgenda case. 18 The Czech Republic is also a direct state party to the Paris Agreement, therefore its responsibility cannot be simply avoided by referring to the fact that its obligation is detailed by the collective EU NDC. As a result, the contributions according to EU NDC must be interpreted as individual contributions for each country as well as collective contributions for all the EU Member States. 19 The English wording of the Article 4(2) of the Paris Agreement suggests that the mitigation measures must aim at meeting the contribution specified in the NDC. The Paris Agreement in comparison with the UNFCCC 20 emphasises the role of the NDC (as obvious from its Article 4(2) sentence 2 and para (17). Therefore, the Paris Agreement together with the EU NDC contains a sufficiently specific obligation of the Czech Republic to reduce the GHG emissions by 55 % until 2030 in comparison with 1990. This obligation was achievable and 13 The Judgement no. 14A 101/2021 – 248, pp. 32–37, paras 197–225. 14 The Judgement of the Administrative Court in Berlin, 31 October 2019, no. 10 K 412/18, para 73. 15 The Judgement no. 14A 101/2021 – 248, pp. 37–38, paras 230–231. 16 Ibid., pp. 38–40, paras 233–242. 17 Submission by Germany and the European Commission on Behalf of the European Union and its Member States, The update of the nationally determined contribution of the European Union and its Member States (17 December 2020), available at https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/NDC/2022-06/EU_NDC_Submission_ December%202020.pdf . 18 Judgement of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 20 December 2019, De Staat der Nederlanden tegen Stichting Urgenda, para 7.3.2, (the Urgenda case). 19 Judgement no. 14A 101/2021 – 248, pp. 40–43, paras 244–260. 20 Conference of the Parties: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (adopted on 9 May 1992, in force 21 March 1994) 1771 UNTS 107 (the UNFCCC).

474