CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

CYIL 14 (2023) FIRST CZECH CLIMATE LITIGATION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF INTERNATIONAL … should be fulfilled by the Ministries. The Ministries were insufficiently active to fulfil it. Therefore, the Municipal Court declared their inaction illegal and ordered them to remedy it by adopting adequate measures. 21 Additionally, the Municipal Court acknowledged that the obligation to reduce the GHG emissions was a so called progressive (gradual) obligation according to human rights theory. Instead of an immediate fulfilment of the reduction goal, it required due diligence in the gradual adoption of mitigatory measures leading to the fulfilment of the obligation in the future. However, the obligation stipulated in Article 4(2) of the Paris Agreement to set domestic mitigatory measures leading to a general reduction was an immediate one and requested the Ministries to adopt specific and realistic plans for these measures. The Ministries should have done so no later than on 18 December 2020 (the day when the secretariat of the UNFCCC accepted the first update of the EU NDC, and the defendants thus must have been aware of the insufficient mitigation measures). 22 The Municipal Court refused to alter its conclusions due to the fact that the EU was yet to determine individual country contributions through its secondary legislation (e.g., fit for 55 package). 23 International law and European Union law could apply simultaneously and overlap. EU legislation might neither change nor alter the Paris Agreement and its direct binding character for the Czech Republic. The Municipal Court referred to similar arguments in the Urgenda case. 24 If the aims set in the EU secondary legislation differed from those stipulated by the Paris Agreement, the higher of the two standards would apply. 25 The Municipal Court promulgated the judgement on 15 July 2022. All the four Ministries appealed by submitting cassation complaints and so did two of the plaintiffs: one association and the municipality. On the one hand, the Ministry of Environment objected that the valid international obligations of the Czech Republic did not contain sufficient grounding for the conclusions of the Municipal Court. The EU NDC sets a joint obligation of all the EU Member States, not an individual obligation of the Czech Republic. 26 This joint obligation could not be directly transferred on an individual level as binding for the Czech Republic; it is only a general, common target. Various countries and industrial sectors might contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions differently. The Ministry of Environment added several procedural reasons and asserted that it had proved the adoption of sufficient mitigatory measures. 27 The remaining three Ministries stated comparable arguments in their cassation complaints. On the other hand, the plaintiffs argued that the Municipal Court did not cover the obligations of the defendants until 2050, only until 2030. They suggested that the Municipal Court should have also emphasised the inactivity of the defendants in regard to climate neutrality which the EU promised to achieve by 2050 via the Green Deal. The plaintiffs also 23 A bulk of legislation tackling climate change in different sectors, for details see Council of the European Union. Fit for 55 (25 July 2023), available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/green-deal/fit-for-55-the eu-plan-for-a-green-transition/. 24 The Urgenda case, para 7.3.3. 25 The Judgement no. 14A 101/2021 – 248, p. 42, paras 256–257; p. 46, para 278. 26 The Judgement no. 9 As 116/2022 – 166, pp. 11–12, para 35. 27 Ibid., pp. 12–13, 15–16, paras 36–39, 48–49. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid., pp. 43–46, paras 261–276.

475