CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

TOMÁŠ BRUNER CYIL 14 (2023) advocated that a national GHG budget can be derived mathematically directly from the aims to limit global warming as set by the Paris Agreement. Finally, they reiterated the reasons why the adaptation measures of the Ministries had been insufficient and why the lawsuit against the government was fully permissible from their perspective. 28 The cassation complaints started the appellate proceedings in front of the Czech Supreme Administrative Court. This Court held all the complaints procedurally admissible and decided the case on 20 February 2023. Its conclusions are explained in the following chapter. 2. The second instance: Judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court The Supreme Administrative Court confirmed the opinion of the Municipal Court that the government cannot be sued, because it was not responsible for the adoption of particular measures, but only for the coordination of the activities of the other defendants. From a domestic law viewpoint, its actions or omissions were not administrative acts that could be subjected to litigation. 29 The Supreme Administrative Court also upheld the conclusions of the Municipal Court in regard to adaptation measures. The adaptation measures set by the defendants were not legally insufficient: Article 7 of the Paris Agreement only contains general requirements concerning adaptation measures. Together with the Article 5 of the EU regulation 2021/1119 (so called European climate law) 30 the defendants were required to produce adaptation measures, not to achieve specific goals within given deadlines. As a result, neither the Municipal Court nor the Supreme Administrative Court could accept the plaintiffs’ arguments that the adaptation measures were insufficient, because the Paris Agreement did not contain criteria of sufficiency that would have to be met by the Ministries. Thus, the scope as well as the character of the adaptation measures remained within the discretion of the defendants. 31 Nonetheless, the Supreme Administrative Court changed the decision of the Municipal Court in regard to insufficient mitigation measures. The Supreme Administrative Court argued that it is impossible to order Ministries to adopt measures cutting off GHG emissions by 55 % until 2030 in comparison with 1990. Neither the international, the European, nor the Czech law contain the obligation of Czech public authorities to cut off the emissions in this way. 32 According to the Court, the Paris Agreement contains certain (directly) binding and self-executing clauses with specific obligations, e.g., to set national contributions according to its Article 4(2). Nonetheless, it also includes general targets which need to be further specified and thus are not self-executing. Climate change mitigation measures represent one of them and the specification of this general target for the Czech Republic shall occur through the EU. The EU Member States opted for the possibility envisaged by Article 4(16)-(18) of the Paris Agreement. 33 On 17 December 2020, the EU submitted its updated joint, collective EU NDC promising 55% reduction of GHG. 34 The Municipal court incorrectly asserted 28 Ibid., pp. 21–23, paras 70–75. 29 Ibid., p. 26, paras 83–86. 30 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. 31 The Judgement no. 9 As 116/2022 – 166, pp. 53–55, para 188v193. 32 Ibid., p. 30, paras 101–102. 33 Ibid., p. 32, paras 107–108, 110. 34 Ibid., p. 33, para 112.

476