Abstract
In an Austrian climate lawsuit raised in 2021, the claimants demanded the adoption of a national ban on the sale of fossil fuels based on an ordinance pursuant to the National Trade Regulation Act. Thereby, the claimants derived their right to require the issuing of an ordinance on fossil fuel sales bans from EU Secondary Law, namely the Effort Sharing Regulation, which stipulates greenhouse gas emission reduction obligations for EU Member States. Given this lawsuit, the present article examines the existence of climate-related individual rights laid down in EU Secondary Law. It thereby presents a line of arguments indicating that the EU climate change framework may confer certain individual rights. Furthermore, the requested sales ban shall be examined as to its conformity with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and EU Primary Law.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Le Treut et al. (2007). The first IPCC report was published as early as 1990 and lead to the adoption of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (adopted 9 May 1992, entry into force 21 March 1994) UNTC No 30822.
- 2.
For an overview of the media coverage of climate change from 2004 until 2022 see: Media and Climate Change Observatory (2022).
- 3.
See, for example, the contribution of Working Group II to the latest IPCC Report: Pörtner et al. (2022).
- 4.
In fact, the climate policies in place worldwide would result in global warming of 2.7 °C; even the implementation of the nationally determined contributions (NDCs) agreed upon in the Paris Agreement would limit global warming only to 2.4 °C, see Climate Action Tracker (2021); on the problem of compliance with internationally agreed mitigation targets see Mayer (2018), pp. 218 ff.
- 5.
A major example is the “Fridays for Future” movement—see Marquardt (2020).
- 6.
According to the Sabin Center Climate Change Litigation Databases, almost 2000 climate cases have been raised worldwide, see Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (2022).
- 7.
United Nations Environment Programme (2017), p. 6.
- 8.
Setzer and Higham (2021), p. 6.
- 9.
Setzer and Higham (2021), pp. 27–29.
- 10.
- 11.
For example, fundamental rights play a focal role in the cases of Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands and Neubauer et al. v. Germany.
- 12.
The Public Trust Doctrine was, for example, invoked in the case of Juliana v. United States.
- 13.
For example, in the Colombian case of Future Generations v. Ministry of the Environment the Colombian Constitutional Court acknowledged the legal subjectivity of the Amazon rainforest.
- 14.
The application Fliegenschnee et al. v. Austria (in German) is available at https://www.global2000.at/sites/global/files/Antrag-Klimaschutzverordnung.pdf (last accessed 29 June 2022).
- 15.
Regulation (EU) 2018/842 of 30 May 2018 on binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions by Member States from 2021 to 2030 contributing to climate action to meet commitments under the Paris Agreement and amending Regulation (EU) No 525/2013.
- 16.
According to Annex I ESR, Austria is obliged to reduce its GHG emissions in the Non-ETS Sectors by 36% until 2030 in 2030 in relation to their 2005 levels; however, the reduction levels may be increased (see COM[2021] 555 final).
- 17.
Paris Agreement (adopted 12 December 2015, entered into force 4 November 2016) UNTC No 54113; according to Article 2(1) lit (a) of the Paris Agreement, the parties aim at “holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels (…)”.
- 18.
According to this interpretation principle, national authorities shall give “full force and effect” to EU law. The claimants argue that the Effort Sharing Regulation aims at protecting European citizens from dangerous climate change and therefore establishes inalienable individual rights to enforce Austria’s obligation under the said regulation to “full effect”. On the effet utile principle see, e.g., Potacs (2009), pp. 465–487.
- 19.
Directive 2008/50/EC of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe; See CJEU, case C-237/07, Dieter Janecek v Freistaat Bayern, ECLI:EU:C:2008:447; CJEU, case C-404/13, ClientEarth v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, ECLI:EU:C:2013:805. Most recently, the case C-61/21 is subject to the question whether the Directive 2008/50/EC establishes a right of an individual to obtain compensation for damage to health resulting from an infringement of EU law; see Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, case C-61/21, JP v Ministre de la Transition écologique. Premier minister, ECLI:EU:C:2022:359.
- 20.
The relevant authority is the Federal Minister of Digitalisation and Business Location.
- 21.
See Fliegenschnee et al. v. Austria (application), pp. 29 ff.
- 22.
Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed at Aarhus on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1).
- 23.
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
- 24.
In concrete terms, the applicants requested the adoption of a ban on the sale of (1) solid fossil fuels from 1 January 2025, (2) fossil heating oil from 1 January 2030, (3) fossil fuels from 1 January 2035 and (4) fossil fuels for aviation from 1 January 2040. In eventu, the claimants requested the adoption of the same measures at other appropriate dates.
- 25.
Trade Regulation Act 1994, Federal Law Gazette I No. 194/1994.
- 26.
See Fliegenschnee et Al. v. Austria (application), pp. 21 ff.
- 27.
In fact, the competent authority argued that the requested climate protection measure does not constitute a trade policy measure in the sense of its competences in the field of trade (Art 10, para. 1, no 8 of the Federal Constitutional Law, Federal Law Gazette No 1 1930 as amended by Federal Law Gazette I No 194/1999). It thus concluded that the adoption of the requested measure under the Trade Regulation Act would not be in conformity with the Austrian constitution.
- 28.
Verwaltungsgericht Wien 25 April 2022, VGW-101/053/13231/2021-4 et al., pp. 36 ff. The decision is available at https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Lvwg/LVWGT_WI_20220425_VGW_101_053_13231_2021_00/LVWGT_WI_20220425_VGW_101_053_13231_2021_00.pdf (last accessed 29 June 2022).
- 29.
The Verwaltungsgericht Wien argued that there was no legally tangible direct connection between the climate crisis and the State’s positive obligations arising from the right to life (Art 2 ECHR, Art 2 CFR); instead, it suggested that positive obligations only occur in case of natural disasters limited to a certain area. This view is, however, ambivalent to findings of the Dutch Supreme Court in the much-discussed judgement Urgenda.
- 30.
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (adopted 30 October 1947, entry into force 1 January 1948) UNTS vol. 64, p. 187; the applicability of GATT results from the fact that fossil fuels are considered as “goods” (see later); for the purpose of this article, the Energy Charter Treaty will not be considered.
- 31.
Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2012) OJ C 326 (TFEU).
- 32.
See in this context Wallner and Nigmatullin (2022), pp. 78 ff.
- 33.
Other frameworks, such as the Directive (EU) 2018/2001 (“Renewable Energy Directive”), may also serve as a legal basis for climate-related individual rights. The examination of the entire EU climate change framework would go beyond the scope of the discussion, which is why the present articles focuses on the ESR.
- 34.
CJEU, joined cases C-165/09 to C-167/09, Stichting Natuur en Milieu, ECLI:EU:C:2011:348, para. 94.
- 35.
See also CJEU, case 26/62, van Gend & Loos, ECLI:EU:C:1963:1, p. 26.
- 36.
See for instance in the context of Procurement and State Aid Law CJEU, case C-433/93, Commission/Germany, ECLI:EU:C:1995:263, para. 17; CJEU, case C-174/02, Streekgewest Westelijk Noord-Brabant, ECLI:EU:C:2005:10, paras. 17 ff.
- 37.
See CJEU, case C-426/05, Tele 2, ECLI:EU:C:2008:103, paras. 27, 34 ff; CJEU, case C-58/89, Commission/Germany, ECLI:EU:C:1991:391, para. 14.
- 38.
CJEU, case 26/62, van Gend & Loos, ECLI:EU:C:1963:1, p. 26.
- 39.
See for the difference of the two approaches Giera (2021), pp. 172 ff.
- 40.
See for example CJEU, case C-445/06, Danske Slagterier, ECLI:EU:C:2009:178, paras. 22–26; CJEU, case C-429/09, Danske Slagterier, ECLI:EU:C:2010:717, paras. 49–50; CJEU, case C-501/18, Balgarska Narodna Banka, ECLI:EU:C:2021:249, paras. 63 and 86.
- 41.
CJEU, case C-236/92, Comitato di coordinamento per la difesa della cava and Others, ECLI:EU:C:1994:60, para. 9.
- 42.
CJEU, joined cases C-165/09 to C-167/09, Stichting Natuur en Milieu, ECLI:EU:C:2011:348, para. 97.
- 43.
See for example CJEU, joined cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, Francovich and Others, ECLI:EU:C:1991:428, para. 11; CJEU, case C-62/00, Marks & Spencer, ECLI:EU:C:2002:435, para. 25.
- 44.
This very structure may be derived from the line of arguments taken upon by the CJEU in its rulings; see Giera (2021), pp. 110 ff.
- 45.
Giera (2021), pp. 110 f.
- 46.
Giera (2021), p. 111.
- 47.
CJEU, case C-237/07, Dieter Janecek v Freistaat Bayern, ECLI:EU:C:2008:447, para. 38.
- 48.
CJEU, case C-197/18, Wasserleitungsverband Nördliches Burgenland, CLI:EU:C:2019:824, para. 39.
- 49.
See for instance in the context of Procurement Law CJEU, C-433/93, Commission/Germany, ECLI:EU:C:1995:263, para. 17; in the context of equality CJEU, joint Cases C-87/90 and C-89/90, Verholen et al., ECLI:EU:C:1991:314, paras. 24 ff.
- 50.
It is for the national court to settle in each particular case whether the condition of “direct concernment” is met.
- 51.
CJEU, case C-197/18, Wasserleitungsverband Nördliches Burgenland, CLI:EU:C:2019:824, paras. 40, 45.
- 52.
CJEU, case C-664/15, Protect, ECLI:EU:C:2017:987, para. 58.
- 53.
See Giera (2021), p. 111.
- 54.
CJEU, case C-237/07, Dieter Janecek v Freistaat Bayern, ECLI:EU:C:2008:447, para. 42.
- 55.
CJEU, case C-404/13, ClientEarth v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, ECLI:EU:C:2013:805, para. 56.
- 56.
See Article 288(3) TFEU.
- 57.
See Article 288(2) TFEU; in general, regulations are not transposed to domestic law, unless otherwise provided for in the regulation in question.
- 58.
See for example CJEU, case C-34-73, Variola, ECLI:EU:C:1973:101, para. 7.
- 59.
CJEU, case 43/71, Politi, ECLI:EU:C:1971:122, para. 9.
- 60.
See for the limits of measures of application by the Member States CJEU, case 34/73, ECLI:EU:C:1973:101, Variola, paras. 9 ff; CJEU, case 39/72, Commission/Italy, ECLI:EU:C:1973:13, paras. 14 ff; CJEU, case 94/77, ECLI:EU:C:1978:17, Zerbone, paras. 22 and 27.
- 61.
CJEU, case C-403/98, Monte Arcosu, ECLI:EU:C:2001:6, paras. 26 f.
- 62.
CJEU, case 43/71, Politi, ECLI:EU:C:1971:122, para. 9; Harratsch et al. (2020), p. 167.
- 63.
See CJEU, case C-426/05, Tele 2, ECLI:EU:C:2008:103, paras. 27, 34 ff; CJEU, case C-222/02, Peter Paul, ECLI:EU:C:2004:606, paras. 39 ff.
- 64.
Satzger and von Maltitz (2021), p. 3.
- 65.
Wustlich (2003), pp. 328 ff.
- 66.
- 67.
See in general Wallner and Nigmatullin (2022), pp. 78 ff.
- 68.
Harratsch et al. (2020), p. 167.
- 69.
See Sect. 2.1.
- 70.
In this sense Harratsch et al. (2020), p. 167.
- 71.
According to Article 4 Directive 2001/81/EC, “Member States shall limit their annual national emissions of the pollutants sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH3) to amounts not greater than the emission ceilings laid down in Annex I”.
- 72.
CJEU, joined cases C-165/09 to C-167/09, Stichting Natuur en Milieu, ECLI:EU:C:2011:348, paras. 96 ff; the CJEU hold that the relevant provision “does not lay down any unconditional and sufficiently precise obligation requiring the adoption of specific individual policies or measures intended to enable the result prescribed to be achieved”, which is, why “individuals cannot rely directly before a national court upon Article 4 of the NEC Directive”.
- 73.
In this sense Schulev-Steindl et al. (2020), p. 14.
- 74.
One may argue that the ESR requires the implementation of national measures by the Member States, since the objectives of the provisions laid down therein (the reduction of GHG emissions levels) cannot be achieved otherwise.
- 75.
See Sect. 2.2.1.
- 76.
CJEU, case C-298/95, Kommission/Deutschland, ECLI:EU:C:1996:501, para. 15.
- 77.
In the present case, the Verwaltungsgericht Wien argued that the ESR only defines the distribution of GHG reduction efforts and therefore does not have the capacity to interfere with individual’s interest.
- 78.
Art 4(1) sentence 7 German Climate Protection Act, which serves the purpose of achieving the GHG reduction levels for Germany in the Non-ETS-Sectors, provides that Climate Protection Act does not confer any individual rights on natural and legal persons. This provision has declaratory effect; the academia has discussed effect and scope of this statutory right’s exclusion in the light of fundamental rights and EU law. See Frenz (2022), p. 687; Fellenberg and Guckelberger (2022), pp. 109 ff.
- 79.
See Sect. 2.2.1.
- 80.
See CJEU, case C-565/19 P, Carvalho, ECLI:EU:C:2021:252, in which the CJEU denied the appellant’s claim due the lacking individual concern. The concept of “individual concern” under Article 263(4) TFEU is different from the concept of “direct concern” developed by the CJEU with regard to the establishment of individual rights in the framework on ambient air quality. See Giera (2021), pp. 106 ff.
- 81.
CJEU, joined cases C-165/09 to C-167/09, Stichting Natuur en Milieu, ECLI:EU:C:2011:348.
- 82.
Giera (2021), p. 136.
- 83.
See Art 1 and 4 ESR.
- 84.
Schulev-Steindl et al. (2020), p. 14.
- 85.
CJEU, case C-216/02, Zuchtverband für Ponys, ECLI:EU:C:2004:703, para. 36.
- 86.
According to Article 6(5) of the Regulation (EU) 2018/858, Member States shall not prohibit the placing on the market, the registration or the entry into service of vehicles, systems, components or separate technical units that comply with the Regulation.
- 87.
CJEU, case C-403/98, Monte Arcosu, ECLI:EU:C:2001:6, paras. 26 f.
- 88.
See CJEU, case C-251/91, Teulie, ECLI:EU:C:1992:430, paras. 13 f.
- 89.
See the last sentence of Article 4(1) German Federal Climate Change Act.
- 90.
Positive obligations arguably oblige the state to comply with the Paris temperature target, compare Voigt (2022), p. 152.
- 91.
Fundamental rights constitute fundamental legal positions that are essential for the equal recognition and development of the individual in a complex, multi-layered society; they primarily protect the individual and—in certain instances—also legal persons and groups (e.g. right to property, freedom of assembly), see Berka et al. (2019), pp. 3f.
- 92.
Müller (2020), pp. 295 (305).
- 93.
Giera (2021), p. 45.
- 94.
CJEU, case 26/62, van Gend & Loos, ECLI:EU:C:1963:1, p. 26.
- 95.
Knox (2009), p. 163.
- 96.
BVerfG 24 March 2021, 1 BvR 2656/18 et al., recital 122, 183.
- 97.
BVerfG 24 March 2021, 1 BvR 2656/18 et al., recital 183.
- 98.
BVerfG 24 March 2021, 1 BvR 2656/18 et al., recital 249.
- 99.
For instance, the Renewable Energy Directive may grant such rights (in future). The European Unions published a proposal on the amendment of the Renewable Energy Directive (COM/2022/222 final). The proposal entails a provision, according to which Member States shall adopt plans designating so-called “renewables go-to areas”. One could argue that concerned individuals may have the right to require the adoption of such plan, when Member States fail to meet their adoption obligation.
- 100.
Compare, for example, the German Federal Climate Change Act 2021, Federal Law Gazette I Nr. 59, Section 4 in conjunction with Annex 2 and Section 8.
- 101.
On this issue and possible solutions compare Stuart-Smith et al. (2021), p. 651.
- 102.
Such measures include, for example, carbon pricing (either introduced through emission trading (“cap and trade”) or carbon taxation, possibly combined with a carbon border adjustment mechanism), subsidies for green energy sources, use of carbon capture technologies, establishment of carbon sinks or other, less-intrusive, regulatory measures. See in this context, Hufbauer (2021) and Tamiotti et al. (2009).
- 103.
See the chart on p. 11 of Kirchengast et al. (2020).
- 104.
Carbon leakage occurs if, due to costs associated with climate protection measures, businesses relocate production to other countries with laxer emission constraints; see: European Commission (2022). The Directive 2003/87/EC (“Emissions Trading Directive”) addresses the risk carbon leakage by allowing the Member States to apply the free allocation of emission allowances to a certain extent.
- 105.
Haumer and Lindner (2015), pp. 1 ff.
- 106.
Ordinance on the limitation of the sulphur content of heating oil, Federal Law Gazette 1989/94 as amended by Federal Law Gazette 1994/545.
- 107.
In the context of sales bans, one has to distinguish between product requirements and related sales bans on the one hand and absolute bans on certain product groups on the other hand. For example, the EU takes the former approach in regulating the CO2 emission performance standards for new passenger cars and for new light commercial vehicles in the Regulation (EU) 2019/631. Adversely, the claimants took on the latter approach in the present climate litigation effort and requested an absolute sales ban on fossil fuels.
- 108.
This is clear from the wording and purpose of Art 69(1) Trade Regulation Act; for a detailed analysis of this provision see: Haumer and Lindner (2015), pp. 1 ff.
- 109.
- 110.
See the chart on p. 11 of Kirchengast et al. (2020).
- 111.
Since the EU emission reduction framework for the EU-ETS is a market-based mechanism, the introduction of a statutory ban on the combustion of fossil fuels in the relevant sectors might be incoherent. The Austrian Emission Trading Act, which transposes the provisions of Directive 2003/87/EC (“Emissions Trading Directive”), allows the competent authority to implement GHG emission limits for direct emissions only in certain environmental pollution scenarios.
- 112.
Lester and Mercurio (2008), p. 66.
- 113.
It has been argued that energy has the elements of both goods and services. This distinction is particularly relevant under WTO law as “goods” fall within the scope of the GATT whereas “services” are covered by the GATS. With regard to (extracted and tradable) oil, gas and coal, it has been argued that they constitute “goods” in the sense of the GATT, see Cottier et al. (2011), pp. 213 f; Marhold (2021), p. 89; World Trade Organization (2022), p. 13, paras. 51 f.
- 114.
Birnie et al. (2009), p. 757.
- 115.
This was highlighted by the Appellate Body in US – Gasoline, p. 30.
- 116.
- 117.
See on this distinction: Lester and Mercurio (2008), p. 262.
- 118.
Marhold (2021), pp. 73 f.
- 119.
Naturally the attractiveness of importing fossil fuels to Austria decreases considerably when imported goods cannot be sold on Austrian territory; this will be discussed later.
- 120.
In more detail see: Lavdari (2021), pp. 16–29.
- 121.
A violation of Art III:2 GATT does not occur as the measure at hand does not constitute a tax measure; however, a violation of Art III:4 GATT is possible—it occurs if a regulatory measure grants less favourable treatment to imported products than to like domestic products so as to afford protection to domestic production; in more detail see: Ming Du (2015), pp. 139–163.
- 122.
Article III:4 GATT refers to regulatory measures whereas Art I GATT has a broad scope and refers to “duties and charges of any kind” as well as to “all rules and formalities in connection with importation and exportation” and all measures covered by Art III:2 and Art III:4 GATT, see Lester and Mercurio (2008), p. 324.
- 123.
Article III:4 GATT explicitly refers to regulatory measures and the MFN principle in Art I GATT is understood to cover such measures.
- 124.
- 125.
EC – Asbestos, para. 101.
- 126.
Naturally, products can only be considered “like” in their group, meaning that e.g. domestic and imported gas constitute “like products” and so on.
- 127.
Likeness of fossil fuels and renewable energy sources, such as solar energy or hydropower cannot be established. Likeness appears arguable with regard to the final product “electricity”: Electricity from fossil fuels and electricity from renewable sources might be considered as “like”. However, as to primary energy sources, “likeness” can be ruled out with a view to differing physical properties (water or wind can hardly be considered “like” fossil oil or gas), but also with a view to energy generation. While energy from fossil fuels is obtained through combustion, combustion processes are not involved in the generating of energy from water, wind or the sun.
- 128.
Federal Ministry for Climate Protection (2021).
- 129.
Federal Ministry for Climate Protection (2021), pp. 56–48.
- 130.
See Schlager (2022).
- 131.
Federal Ministry for Climate Protection (2021), p. 38.
- 132.
See on this question Kluttig (2003), pp. 15 ff.
- 133.
Of course, when introducing sales, but not import bans, the imported goods could still be used by the importing person. However, the sale of the imported goods would be prohibited. This would pose a significant obstacle to the current value chain.
- 134.
Lester and Mercurio (2008), p. 262.
- 135.
See the Panel Report India – Auto, para. 7.261.
- 136.
Lester and Mercurio (2008), p. 262.
- 137.
In US – Gasoline, the Appellate Body held that Members “have a large measure of autonomy to determine their own policies on the environment […], their environmental objectives and the environmental legislation they enact and implement”, of course, provided that the requirements of GATT are respected, see the Appellate Body report, p. 30.
- 138.
Article XX GATT; for further information on the chapeau see Bartels (2017), pp. 95–125.
- 139.
For an overview of environmental disputes see: World Trade Organization (2022).
- 140.
- 141.
Climate change will cause the extinction of one-third of Earth’s animal and plant species by 2050, if current GHG emission trajectories continue; it is projected that between 2030 and 2050 climate change will cause about 250,000 additional deaths per year; see: Center for Biological Diversity (2022) and World Health Organization (2022).
- 142.
Tamiotti et al. (2009), p. 108; Appellate Body Report in Korea – Various Measures on Beef, paras. 163–164; Appellate Body Report in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 178.
- 143.
Brazil – Retreated Tyres, para. 178.
- 144.
United Nations (2021).
- 145.
Center for Biological Diversity (2022).
- 146.
According to our World in Data, the overwhelming majority of CO2 emissions in Austria stem from the burning of coal, oil and gas; from a global perspective, the reduction of GHG emissions would be relatively small as in 2020, Austria only accounted for 0.32% of global CO2 emissions; see Ritchie and Roser (2020).
- 147.
The idea behind carbon pricing is to internalise the environmental costs of GHG emissions by setting a price on such emissions either my means of a carbon tax or by a “cap and trade” system. In the latter case, a cap on total emissions is fixed which then translates into emission allowances that can be traded on an allowance market. See in more detail Tamiotti et al. (2009), pp. 88 ff.
- 148.
A carbon sink is “anything that absorbs more carbon from the atmosphere than it releases”; carbon sinks include, for example, plants, soil or the ocean, see ClientEarth (2020).
- 149.
The geological storage of carbon dioxide is regulated in the Directive 2009/31/EC. According to its Article 4, it is within the Member States discretion to not allow any storage in the whole of their territory.
- 150.
According to the Appellate Body, the means must be reasonably related to the ends, see US – Shrimp, para. 141.
- 151.
The so-called even-handedness requirement requires a certain amount of even-handedness but not identity of treatment; instead, restrictions either on domestic production or consumption are satisfactory, see the Appellate Body Report in US – Gasoline, p. 21; Birnie et al. (2009), p. 773.
- 152.
See the Appellate Body report in US – Shrimp, paras. 130–131.
- 153.
In US – Gasoline the Panel found that “clean air” constitutes an exhaustible natural resource, see the Panel report, para. 6.37; accordingly, Marhold (2021), p. 78 argued that measures inconsistent with the GATT that promote clean air and curb CO2 emissions may be justified under Art XX (g) GATT.
- 154.
Already in 2007, Pauwelyn suggested that “it would be surprising if the WTO would not accept that the planet’s atmosphere […] is an “exhaustible natural resource”, see: Pauwelyn (2007), p. 35.
- 155.
See the Appellate Body report in US – Shrimp, para. 383.
- 156.
US – Shrimp, para. 141.
- 157.
US – Shrimp, para. 141.
- 158.
See the Appellate Body Report US – Gasoline, p. 21; Birnie et al. (2009), p. 773.
- 159.
Appellate Body in US – Shrimp, para. 158; the principle of good faith prohibits abuse of the exceptions in Article XX GATT, see Kluttig (2003) p. 24.
- 160.
See Lester and Mercurio (2008), p. 388.
- 161.
Lester and Mercurio (2008), p. 414.
- 162.
The European Coal and Steel Community was founded as early as 1951, in 1957, the European Energy Community (Euratom) and the European Economic Community (EEC) followed, see Kaczorowska (2011), pp. 2 ff.
- 163.
Articles 26–28 TFEU.
- 164.
- 165.
Articles 34–46 TFEU; Frenz (2012), p. 259.
- 166.
See Piska (2019), recital 2.
- 167.
CJEU, case 7/68, Commission v Italy, ECLI:EU:C:1968:51.
- 168.
According to CJEU, case 8/74, Dassonville, ECLI:EU:C:1974:82, para. 5, a cross-border element is present whenever a measure is capable of either “directly or indirectly, actually or potentially” hindering intra-EU trade.
- 169.
- 170.
In this regard, the CJEU takes a broad interpretation. In essence, it acknowledges that acts of legislative, judicial and administrative bodies are attributable to the Member State and may as such violate the free movement of goods; see Commission Notice, Guide on Articles 34–46 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) 2021/C 100 100/03, p. 6, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021XC0323(03)&from=EN (last accessed 29 June 2022).
- 171.
CJEU, case 8/74 Dassonville, ECLI:EU:C:1974:82, para. 5.
- 172.
Commission Notice Guide on Articles 34–46 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) 2021/C 100 100/03EU, p. 15.
- 173.
CJEU, case 120/78, Rewe Zentrale v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein, ECLI:EU:C:1979:42.
- 174.
According to the CJEU’s landmark judgment Keck and Mithouard, sale and distribution modalities do not constitute measures of equivalent effect. By restricting its earlier Dassonville judgement, the CJEU held that “the application to products from other Member States of national provisions restricting or prohibiting certain selling arrangements is not such as to hinder directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, trade between Member States within the meaning of the Dassonville judgment (Case 8/74 [1974] ECR 837), so long as those provisions apply to all relevant traders operating within the national territory and so long as they affect in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and of those from other Member States”; see CJEU, joined cases C-267/91 and C-268/91, Keck and Mithouard, ECLI:EU:C:1993:905, para. 16.
- 175.
Article 36 TFEU.
- 176.
CJEU, case 302/86, Commission v Denmark, ECLI:EU:C:1988:421, para. 8.
- 177.
The proportionality test requires a measure to be appropriate (measure suitable for attaining the desired objective) and necessary (measure does not restrict free movement of goods more than necessary); further, Member States are required to pursue the stated objectives in a “consistent and systematic manner”; see e.g. CJEU, case C-320/03, Commission v Austria, ECLI:EU:C:2005:684, para. 85 and CJEU, case C-319/05, Commission v Germany (Garlic), ECLI:EU:C:2007:678, para. 87; for further information see Harbo (2015), pp. 20 ff.
- 178.
For an overview of the development of CO2 and other GHG emission levels and their impacts see https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions (last accessed 29 June 2022).
- 179.
See for example Mayer (2019), pp. 107–121; he discusses how the State’s mitigation obligation under international and domestic law can be interpreted and thereby distinguishes between the top-down and bottom-up approach.
- 180.
For an overview of CO2 emission levels in Austria see Ritchie and Roser (2020).
- 181.
See Commission Notice Guide on Articles 34–46 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) 2021/C 100 100/03, p. 16, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021XC0323(03)&from=EN (last accessed 29 June 2022).
- 182.
See e.g. CJEU, case C-421/09, Humanplasma GmbH v Republic of Austria, ECLI:EU:C:2010:760, para. 45.
- 183.
In many cases, the production and consumption of goods causes GHG emissions; those emissions constitute so-called “negative externalities” since their negative effects are often not represented in the product’s or service’s price; carbon pricing (carbon taxation and emissions trading) seeks to establish cost truth by attributing a price to GHG emissions. For the Austrian carbon pricing scheme, see the Emissions Certificate Trading Act 2022 (“Nationales Emissionszertifikatehandelsgesetz 2022”).
- 184.
See for example a ministerial proposal regarding an Austrian “Renewable Heat Act” (212/ME), which inter alia entails the statutory obligation to set aside fossil heat generation systems within a certain period of time.
- 185.
For examples of other traffic restrictions see Schulev-Steindl et al. (2021), p. 237.
- 186.
This has been suggested by the German Constitutional Court in the case “Neubauer” BVerfG 24 March 2021, 1 BvR 2656/18 et al., paras. 143 ff.
References
Bartels L (2017) The Chapeau of the general exceptions in the WTO GATT and GATS Agreements: a reconstruction. Am J Int Law 109(1):95–125. https://doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.109.1.0095
Bäumler J, Dorwig J (2022) Klimaschutzmaßnahmen im Lichte des Welthandelsrechts. KlimR 2022, 38
Berka W (2022) Verfassungsrecht. Verlag Österreich, Wien
Berka W, Binder C, Kneihs B (2019) Die Grundrechte, 2nd edn
Birnie P, Boyle A, Redgwell C (2009) International law & the environment, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Center for Biological Diversity (2022) Global Warming and Endangered Species Initiative. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/global_warming_and_endangered_species/index.html#:~:text=Global%20warming%20is%20projected%20to,human%20societies%20across%20the%20globe
ClientEarth (2020) What is a carbon sink? https://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/stories/what-is-a-carbon-sink/
Climate Action Tracker (2021) Temperatures. Addressing global warming. https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/
Commission Notice, Guide on Articles 34-46 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) 2021/C 100 100/03, 6, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021XC0323(03)&from=EN
Cosbey A, Mavroidis PC (2014) Heavy fuel: trade and the environment in the GATT/WTO case law. RECIEL 23(3):288–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12089
Cottier T et al (2011) Energy in WTO law and policy. In: Cottier T, Delimatsis P (eds) The prospects of International Trade Regulation. From fragmentation to coherence. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511792496.007
Czech (2021) Art. 6 StGG. In: Kahl A, Khakzadeh L, Schmid S (eds) Kommentar zum Bundesverfassungsrecht. B-VG und Grundrechte. https://rdb.manz.at/document/1287_1_stgg_a0006?execution=e2s2&highlight=art+6+stgg
European Commission (2022) Carbon leakage. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-system-eu-ets/free-allocation/carbon-leakage_de
Federal Ministry for Climate Protection, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology (2021) Energie in Österreich. Zahlen, Daten, Fakten. https://nachhaltigwirtschaften.at/resources/nw_pdf/Energie_in_OE2021_UA.pdf
Fellenberg F, Guckelberger A (2022) Klimaschutzrecht. C.H. Beck, München
Frenz W (2010) Handbuch Europarecht, Band 5: Wirkungen und Rechtsschutz. Springer, Berlin
Frenz W (2012) Handbuch Europarecht, Band 1: Europäische Grundfreiheiten, vol 2. Springer, Berlin
Frenz W (2022) Klimaschutzrecht, vol 2. Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin
Giera U (2021) Individualrechte im europäischen Umweltrecht. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Harbo TI (2015) The function of the proportionality analysis in European law. Nijhoff studies in European Union law, vol 8. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden
Harratsch A, Koenig C, Pechstein M (2020) Europarecht, vol 12. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Haumer, Lindner (2015) § 69 GewO. In: Ennöckl D, Raschauer N, Wessely W (eds) Kommentar zur Gewerbeordnung. https://rdb.manz.at/document/1189_GewO_p0069
Hinteregger M (2018) Klimaschutz mit den Mitteln des Privatrechts? Der Beitrag des Haftungsrechts. In: Kirchengast G, Schulev-Steindl E, Schnedl G (eds) Klimaschutzrecht zwischen Wunsch und Wirklichkeit. Studien zu Politik und Verwaltung, vol 13. Böhlau, Wien, pp 197 ff
Hufbauer GC (2021) Which proposed climate policies are compatible with WTO rules? PIIE. https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/which-proposed-climate-policies-are-compatible-wto-rules
Kaczorowska A (2011) European Union law, 2nd edn. Routledge, London
Kirchengast G et al (2020) Referenzplan als Grundlage für einen wissenschaftlich fundierten und mit den Pariser Klimazielen in Einklang stehenden Nationalen Energie- und Klimaplan für Österreich (Ref-NEKP). Exekutive Summary. https://doi.org/10.1553/Ref-NEKP-Summary
Klaushofer R (2021) Art 5 StGG. In: Kahl A, Khakzadeh L, Schmid S (eds) Kommentar zum Bundesverfassungsrecht. B-VG und Grundrechte. https://rdb.manz.at/document/1287_1_stgg_a0005?execution=e1s2&highlight=5+stgg
Kluttig B (2003) Welthandelsrecht und Umweltschutz – Kohärenz statt Konkurrenz. In: Tletje C, Kraft G (eds) Arbeitspapiere aus dem Institut für Wirtschaftsrecht 12, pp 5–39. https://www2.jura.uni-halle.de/INSTITUT/Heft12.pdf. Last accessed 29 June 2022
Knox J (2009) Climate change and human rights law. Virginia J Int Law 50(1):163
Lavdari F (2021) Principle of most favoured nation. Description, modern evolution, and analysis of the exceptionality of the principle in a contemporary world. Ext Rev 1(1):16–29. https://doi.org/10.21467/exr.1.1.4296
Le Treut H et al (2007) Historical overview of climate change. In: Solomon S et al (eds) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Lester S, Mercurio B (2008) World trade law. Text, materials, commentary. Hart, Oxford
Marhold A (2021) The current WTO Legal Framework relevant to energy. In: Marhold A (ed) Energy in International Trade Law. Concepts, regulation and changing markets. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/energy-in-international-trade-law/current-wto-legal-framework-relevant-to-energy/A7B826B0B36C2C8EAF71E08CE1E8FEC3
Marquardt J (2020) Fridays for future’s disruptive potential: an inconvenient youth between moderate and radical ideas. Front Commun. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00048/full
Mayer B (2018) The international law of climate change. Cambridge University Press, p 218 ff. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108304368
Mayer B (2019) Interpreting States’ general obligations on climate change mitigation: a methodological review. RECIEL 28(2):107–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12285
Media and Climate Change Observatory (2022) 2004-2022 World Newspaper Coverage of Climate Change or Global Warming. https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/icecaps/research/media_coverage/world/index.html
Ming Du M (2015) ‘Treatment No Less Favourable’ and the future of National Treatment Obligation in GATT Article III:4 after EC-Seal products. World Trade Rev 15(1):139–163. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745615000245
Müller T (2020) Ansprüche auf Erlass genereller Verwaltungsakte und ihre Durchsetzung. ZöR 2:295
Pauwelyn J (2007) U.S. Federal Climate Policy and competitiveness concerns: the limits and options of International Trade Law. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1669336
Piska CM (2019) Art 34 AEUV. In: Jaeger T, Stöger K (eds) EUV/AUEV. MANZ, Wien. https://rdb.manz.at/document/1118_9_euv-aeuv_aeuv_art-0034
Pörtner HO et al (2022) Climate Change 2022. Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Working group II contribution to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press
Potacs M (2009) Effet utile als Auslegungsgrundsatz. Europarecht 44(4):465–487. https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/0531-2485-2009-4-465/effet-utile-als-auslegungsgrundsatz-jahrgang-44-2009-heft-4?page=1
Ritchie H, Roser M (2020) Austria: CO2 country profile. https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/austria#cumulative-how-much-co2-has-it-produced-to-date
Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (2022) Climate litigation databases – about. http://climatecasechart.com/about/
Satzger H, von Maltitz N (2021) Das Klimastrafrecht – ein Rechtsbegriff der Zukunft. ZSTW 2021
Schlager R (2022) Kasachstan ist Österreichs größter Erdöllieferant. Wiener Zeitung, 7 January 2022. https://www.wienerzeitung.at/nachrichten/wirtschaft/oesterreich/2133565-Kasachstan-ist-Oesterreichs-groesster-Erdoellieferant.html
Schulev-Steindl E, Hofer M, Franke L (2020) Evaluierung des Klimaschutzgesetzes, p 14. https://www.bmk.gv.at/dam/jcr:0e6aead9-19f5-4004-9764-4309b089196d/KSG_Evaluierung_ClimLawGraz_ua.pdf
Schulev-Steindl E, Romirer C, Liebenberger L (2021) Mobilitätswende: Klimaschutz im Verkehr auf dem rechtlichen Prüfstand (Teil I). RdU 125(6):237
Setzer J, Higham C (2021) Global trends in climate change litigation: 2021 snapshot. https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Global-trends-in-climate-change-litigation_2021-snapshot.pdf
Statista (2022a) Länder mit der höchsten Abhängigkeit von Energieimporten der EU-27 im Jahr 2020. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/224707/umfrage/laender-mit-der-hoechsten-abhaengigkeit-von-energieimporten-in-der-eu-27/
Statista (2022b) Struktur der Energieimporte in Österreich nach Energieträger von 2013 bis 2020. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/286982/umfrage/struktur-der-oesterreichischen-energieimporte/
Stuart-Smith R et al (2021) Filling the evidentiary gap in climate litigation. Nat Clim Change 11:651
Tamiotti L et al (2009) Trade and climate change. WTO-UNEP Report. https://stg-wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/22882/Trade_climate_change.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
United Nations (2021) Climate change ‘Biggest Threat Modern Human Have Ever Faced’. World-Renowned Naturalist Tells Security Council, Calls for Greater Cooperation. https://www.un.org/press/en/2021/sc14445.doc.htm
United Nations Environment Programme (2017) The status of climate change litigation. A global review. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/20767/climate-change-litigation.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Voigt C (2022) The climate change dimension of human rights: due diligence and states’ positive obligations. In: Kobylarz N, Grant E (eds) Human rights and the planet. Edward Elgar, p 152
Wallner J, Nigmatullin E (2022) Durchsetzbares “Recht auf saubere Energie” im Gewerberecht? NR 2022:28–81
Wilde M (2021) Causation and climate change litigation: ‘bridge too far’? Austrian Law J 8(2):268–228. https://digital.obvsg.at/alj/periodical/titleinfo/6884490
World Health Organization (2022) Climate change and health. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health
World Trade Organization (2022) Environmental disputes in GATT/WTO. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/edis00_e.htm
Wustlich G (2003) Die Atmosphäre als globales Umweltgut. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wallner, J., Nigmatullin, E. (2022). Climate-Related Individual Rights Under EU Secondary Law and Limitations to Their Material Scope. In: Bäumler, J., et al. European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2022. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 13. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2022_92
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2022_92
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-28531-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-28532-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)