CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

TOMÁŠ BRUNER CYIL 14 (2023) The Supreme Administrative Court referred to current complaints submitted to the ECtHR: Duarte Agostinho and others against Portugal and others, complaint no. 39371/20 (passed to the Grand Chamber on 29 June 2022); Carême against France, complaint no. 7189/21 (passed to the Grand Chamber on 31 May 2022); Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and others against Switzerland, complaint no. 53600/20 (passed to the Grand Chamber on 26 April 2022) (…) and Greenpeace Nordic and others against Norway, complaint no. 34068/21. 39 Although the ECtHR could possibly re-interpret the human rights obligations when dealing with some of these complaints, the Supreme Administrative Court might not speculate what the future decisions of the ECtHR would be. Additionally, the ECtHR usually does leave states with a wide space for consideration on how to protect human rights of their citizens against environmental threats. The Supreme Administrative Court reminded in this regard the decision Budayeva v Russia as of 3 March 2008, and complaints no. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02, and 15343/02. 40 As a result, international human rights obligations of the Czech Republic 41 could not be interpreted in a way that provides a legal basis for particular GHG emissions reduction. In conclusion, the alleged insufficient activity of the Czech Ministries in regard to climate change mitigation could neither be illegal nor violate plaintiffs’ rights. Neither international nor the Czech domestic law contain provisions that would require the specific activity – cutting GHG emissions by 55% until 2030 in comparison with 1990. The Supreme Administrative Court overturned the previous decision of the Municipal Court regarding mitigation measures and thus ordered the Municipal Court to continue with the proceedings. The Supreme Administrative Court also advised that if the plaintiffs wanted to succeed in an the proceedings in front of the Municipal Court, they would have to refer to Czech domestic sectoral legislation. They would need to find specific sectoral legislation requiring the defendants to undertake particular action and subsequently demonstrate that the defendants were failing to conduct this step. The proceedings in front of the Municipal Court are now pending. 42 The Municipal Court shall remain fully bound by the opinions expressed by the Supreme Administrative Court, it will consequently be focused more on domestic legislation as the Supreme Administrative Court advised. 3. Consequences and Context of the Litigation The case is important for international environmental law, because it contains significant interpretation, which can be summarised in five essential points:

39 Ibid., pp. 43–44, para 152, translated from Czech by the author. 40 Ibid. p. 44, paras 153–154.

41 The Supreme Administrative Court also briefly acknowledged that the right to favourable environment is mentioned in art. 24, para 2, letter c) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, also this right could not be interpreted in a way that would oblige concerned Ministries to cut off the emissions by 55%. Ibid., p. 44, para 155. 42 Note: after the deadline of this volume, the Municipal Court declined the lawsuit, following the reasoning of the Supreme Administrative Court.

478