CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

CYIL 14 (2023) FIRST CZECH CLIMATE LITIGATION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF INTERNATIONAL … Currently, the adopted EU legislation 61 will establish an additional basis for the climate lawsuits against business corporations. Factories, banks, and insurance companies will face the danger of being sued for insufficient activity in combating climate change. The decision of the Supreme Administrative Court will be analogically useful in this regard. It may provide a hint that insufficient actions of business corporations against climate change should constitute an aspect that the customers consider when purchasing goods and services from these corporations rather than the reason to sue these corporations. Conclusion The Czech Supreme Administrative Court clarified that the EU NDC is a collective obligation and simply cannot be taken as a duty of each EU Member State individually. This conclusion might become very useful for courts in other EU countries without specific climate acts or an individual NDC. The Court also concluded that the Article 2 of the Paris Agreement is not self-executing, that the adaptation measures under Article 7 of the Paris Agreement shall be defined by states (not courts) and that the current international human rights obligations of the Czech Republic do not include a direct duty to adopt mitigation and adaptation measures against climate change. Unlike the point concerning the EU NDC, these conclusions are rather a contribution to ongoing international debates than a legal interpretation that could finally resolve these debates. Certain recent decisions of other climate litigations express different opinions. Further clarification could be soon provided by the ECJ and the IACHR in expected advisory opinions. Nonetheless, the decision of the Czech Supreme Administrative Court is especially important for the Czech practice of (international) law. The restrained approach of the Court may protect the judiciary from receiving too many climate lawsuits against government and corporations. Such influx of lawsuits could in fact circumvent necessary political and economic actions and choices; such actions and choices ought to tackle climate change in the first place, instead of courtroom decisions.

Reflections, In 52 (5-6) Environmental Policy and Law 2022. Available online: https://content.iospress.com/ articles/environmental-policy-and-law/epl219044#fn42. 61 Especially regulation nicknamed “Taxonomy”, regulation abbreviated as SFRD, directive abbreviated as CSRD and proposed directive abbreviated as CSDDD: Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088, Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 on sustainability‐related disclosures in the financial services sector, Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as regards corporate sustainability reporting; Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937.

483