HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER

It analyses the CJEU’s interpretation of this principle and compares it to the legal reasoning applied by New Zealand courts in the cases of Mr. Teitiota 12 , the first individual asylum seeker to invoke climate change as grounds for protection, and the subsequent decisions of the United Nations Human Rights Committee 13 (hereinafter referred to as “UNHRC”) on his complaint. A central aspect of this analysis is the concept of “serious harm” that a person must prove to qualify for subsidiary protection under the Qualification directive. This article primarily focuses on the legal arguments put forward by Mr. Teitiota under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 14 (hereinafter referred to as “ICCPR”) , which received the most thorough judicial scrutiny by New Zealand courts and ultimately formed the basis of his UNHRC complaint. Additionally, the article considers his refugee status within the meaning of the 1951 Refugee Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 15 (hereinafter referred to as “Refugee Convention”) , which was part of the judicial decisions but is addressed mainly in the legal background. By examining the legal background of serious harm, the reasoning of New Zealand’s courts, and the decision of the UNHRC, the author aims to respond to the following question: Does the CJEU’s interpretation of serious harm provide sufficient protection for environmental migrants compared to the (more progressive) decisions of the United Nations Human Rights Committee? 12 Immigration and Protection Tribunal of New Zealand. AF (Kiribati) [2013] NZIPT 800413.; Court of Appeal of New Zealand. Teitiota v. the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment CA50/2014 [2014] NZCA 173. New Zealand, 8 May 2014; Supreme Court of New Zealand. Teitiota v. the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2015] NZSC 107. New Zealand, 20 July 2015 [online]. [cit. 2024-06-15]. Available at: https://www. courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/ioane-teitiota-v-the-chief-executive-of-ministry-of-business-innovation-and employment-. 13 UN Human Rights Committee. V iews adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 2728/2016 (Teitiota v. New Zealand) [online]. CCPR/ C/127/D/2728/2016, 7 January 2020, p. 15 [cit. 2024-06-15]. Available at: https://digitallibrary. un.org/record/3979204?v=pdf. 14 UN General Assembly. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. United Nations, Treaty Series [online]. vol. 999, p. 171 [cit. 2024-06-15]. Available at: : https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/ UNTS/Volume%20999/volume-999-I-14668-English.pdf. 15 UN General Assembly. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. United Nations, Treaty Series [online]. Vol. 189, p. 137 [cit. 2024-06-19]. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/ UNTS/Volume%20189/v189.pdf.

77