Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reducing GHG Emissions in a Constitutional Democracy: When EU Civil Courts Adjust the EU Emission Trading System

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2022

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EUROYEAR,volume 13))

  • 550 Accesses

Abstract

The climate crisis triggers debates about climate policies on all levels—from parliaments to civil courts. The EU legislature has introduced the EU Emission Trading System (ETS) to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigate the consequences of global heating. Through this cap and trade system, companies receive and trade ETS allowances which they can use to cover their GHG emissions. However, two civil courts in the EU recently went one step further: they held private companies liable for GHG emissions and its effects on the environment although they had the necessary ETS allowances. This paper compares and critically analyses the 2021 Shell decision by The Hague District Court and the 2017 RWE decision of the Higher Regional Court of Hamm. In doing so, the paper asks what role the ETS has in proceedings for injunctive relief and claims for removal of an interference, more specifically how it shapes the duty of care and how it can serve as a justification of an interference with the rights of others. Through a comparison of Dutch and German Civil law, this paper depicts the powers and limits of German and Dutch civil courts in the interplay with the legislature when making EU climate change policy.

The author thanks Anna Masser, Partner at Allen & Overy LLP and head of the arbitration group in Germany, for her critical review and comments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Directive 2003/87/EC of 13 October 2003 establishing a system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (EU ETS Directive).

  2. 2.

    Commission, EU ETS, https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-system-eu-ets_en (last accessed 27 September 2022).

  3. 3.

    Commission, EU ETS, https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-system-eu-ets_en (last accessed 27 September 2022). The sectors covered are CO2 from electricity and heat generation, energy-intensive industry sectors, and commercial aviation within the European Economic Area; nitrous oxide (N2O) from production of nitric, adipic and glyoxylic acids and glyoxal; and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) from production of aluminium (Annex I and II).

  4. 4.

    Climate Action Tracker, EU. https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/eu/#:~:text=We%20rate%20the%20EU's%20policies,the%20effect%20of%20the%20pandemic (last accessed 27 September 2022).

  5. 5.

    CJEU, case T-330/18, Carvalho, ECLI:EU:T:2019:324.

  6. 6.

    CJEU, case T-330/18, Carvalho, ECLI:EU:T:2019:324, para. 33.

  7. 7.

    Dutch Supreme Court, case 19/00135, Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands, NL:HR:2019:2007.

  8. 8.

    Belgium (Brussels Court of First Instance, case no. 2015/4585/A, VZW Klimaatzaak v Kingdom of Belgium & Others), Germany (German Constitutional Court, 1 BvR 2656/18, 1 BvR 78/20, 1 BvR 96/20, 1 BvR 288/20, Climate Protection, ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2021:rs20210324.1bvr265618), France (Conseil d’État, Association Friends of the Earth, n° 394254; Conseil d’État, Municipality of Grande-Synthe, n° 427301; Conseil d’État, July 1, 2021, Municipality of Grande-Synthe, n° 427301, n° 427301; Paris Administrative Court, Association notre affaire à Tous et autres, n°1904967, 1904968, 1904972, 1904976/4-1), Ireland (Irish Supreme Court, appeal no. 205/19, Friends of the Irish Environment CLG v The Government of Ireland).

  9. 9.

    Higher Regional Court of Hamm, I-5 U 15/17, Luciano Lliuya v. RWE, ZUR 2018, 118; The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339.

  10. 10.

    In Poland, the claim is based on Article 323 Polish Environmental Protection Law: Regional Court of Lodz, ClientEarth v. Polska Grupa Energetyczna, filed September 2019; Regional Court of Lodz, Greenpeace Poland v. PGE GiEK, filed 11.03.2020 (accessible via http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case-category/ghg-emissions-reduction/). In France, the legal basis is Article 225-102-4 French Commercial Code: Nanterre Court of Appeal, Friends of the Earth et al. v. Total, filed 23.10.2019 (accessible via http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case-category/ghg-emissions-reduction/).

  11. 11.

    ClientEarth started legal actions against the Board of Shell by alleging that it breached its duties under the UK Companies Act because it failed to adopt and implement a climate strategy that truly aligns with the Paris Agreement, https://www.clientearth.org/latest/press-office/press/clientearth-starts-legal-action-against-shell-s-board-over-mismanagement-of-climate-risk/ (last accessed 27 September 2022).

  12. 12.

    Legality for Climate Network, Press release to the Application to the OECD NCP against ENI, 15.02.2022 (accessible via http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/rete-legalita-per-il-clima-legality-for-climate-network-and-others-v-eni/). OECD National Contact Point, Rete LegalitĂ  per il Clima (Legality for Climate Network) and others v. ENI, filed 26.07.2021; OECD National Contact Point, Rete LegalitĂ  per il Clima (Legality for Climate Network) v. Intensive livestock farming multinational companies operating in Italy, filed 06.12.2021 (accessible via http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case-category/ghg-emissions-reduction/).

  13. 13.

    For example, the possibility to prove the causal link between a company’s GHG emissions and the violation of rights of others due to climate change, and the rights protected under tort law: Higher Regional Court of Hamm, I-5 U 15/17, Luciano Lliuya v. RWE, ZUR 2018, 118; The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339; Börstra and Römling (2022); Kahl and Weller (2021); Setzer and Higham (2022).

  14. 14.

    Higher Regional Court of Hamm, I-5 U 15/17, Luciano Lliuya v. RWE, ZUR 2018, 118.

  15. 15.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339.

  16. 16.

    Magnus, Principles of European Tort Law. https://max-eup2012.mpipriv.de/index.php/Principles_of_European_Tort_Law_(PETL)#c.29_Causation (last accessed 27 September 2022), para. 1, 5d.

  17. 17.

    Magnus, Principles of European Tort Law. https://max-eup2012.mpipriv.de/index.php/Principles_of_European_Tort_Law_(PETL)#c.29_Causation (last accessed 27 September 2022), para. 4.

  18. 18.

    In Comandé et al. (2005), The European Group on Tort Law compares tort law in EU Member States and elaborated common principles. Art. 2:102 Principles of European Tort Law contains a list of protected rights.

  19. 19.

    Comandé et al. (2005), Art. 1:101 Principles of European Tort Law.

  20. 20.

    GĂĽnther M (2021), Application and Claim by Greenpeace et al., p. 7. http://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/non-us-case-documents/2021/20211111_16019_petition.pdf (last accessed 27 September 2022).

  21. 21.

    RDS changed its name to “Shell plc”. However, this does not change the fact that the legal proceedings in this matter before the Dutch Courts work for and against Shell plc (thereafter: Shell).

  22. 22.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 2.5.1.

  23. 23.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 2.2.2.

  24. 24.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 4.4.5.

  25. 25.

    Bernoville T. (2022) What are Scopes 1, 2 and 3 of Carbon Emissions? https://plana.earth/academy/what-are-scope-1-2-3-emissions/#:~:text=Scope%202%20emissions%20are%20indirect,%2C%20steam%2C%20heat%20and%20cooling (last accessed 27 September 2022).

  26. 26.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 4.4.6.

  27. 27.

    Translation by http://www.dutchcivillaw.com/legislation/dcctitle6633.htm. Dutch original version: “Hij die jegens een ander een onrechtmatige daad pleegt, welke hem kan worden toegerekend, is verplicht de schade die de ander dientengevolge lijdt, te vergoeden.”

  28. 28.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 4.4.1.

  29. 29.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 4.1.3.

  30. 30.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 4.4.9.

  31. 31.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 4.4.18.

  32. 32.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 4.4.27.

  33. 33.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/456689/HA ZA 13-1396, Urgenda, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:7196, para. 4.46; Jagers and van der Heijden (2008), pp. 855, 857; Macchi and van Zeben (2021), p. 412.

  34. 34.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 4.4.19.

  35. 35.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 4.4.46.

  36. 36.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 5.3.

  37. 37.

    Shell plc (2022), Frequently asked Questions (FAQ) on Dutch District Court legal case. https://www.shell.com/media/news-and-media-releases/2021/shell-confirms-decision-to-appeal-court-ruling-in-netherlands-climate-case/_jcr_content/par/grid_copy_copy_copy_/p0/textimage.stream/1647925854400/460167304a697f411be1b9f80c6e05be0ac057fb/dutch-district-legal-case-faq.pdf (last accessed 27 September 2022).

  38. 38.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 5.8.

  39. 39.

    Higher Regional Court of Hamm, I-5 U 15/17, Luciano Lliuya v. RWE, ZUR 2018, 118.

  40. 40.

    District Court of Essen, 2 O 285/15, Luciano Lliuya v. RWE, ECLI:DE:LGE:2016:1215.2O285.15.00, para. 4-12.

  41. 41.

    Higher Regional Court of Hamm, I-5 U 15/17, Luciano Lliuya v. RWE, ZUR 2018, 118, para. III.

  42. 42.

    Higher Regional Court of Hamm, I-5 U 15/17, Luciano Lliuya v. RWE, ZUR 2018, 118, para. I.2.

  43. 43.

    Official translation of Section 1004 (https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/englisch_bgb.html#p3984). German original version: “(1) Wird das Eigentum in anderer Weise als durch Entziehung oder Vorenthaltung des Besitzes beeinträchtigt, so kann der Eigentümer von dem Störer die Beseitigung der Beeinträchtigung verlangen. Sind weitere Beeinträchtigungen zu besorgen, so kann der Eigentümer auf Unterlassung klagen.”

  44. 44.

    Higher Regional Court of Hamm, I-5 U 15/17, Luciano Lliuya v. RWE II, 1 March 2018, para. 2: A claim for reimbursement of expenses would be based on Sections 683, 670, 677, or Sections 684, 812, para. 1, sentence 1 GCC. While these legal bases are mutually exclusive, the Higher Regional Court of Hamm left unanswered which of them it would apply as it is not relevant for this case.

  45. 45.

    District Court of Essen, 2 O 285/15, Luciano Lliuya v. RWE, ECLI:DE:LGE:2016:1215.2O285.15.00, paras. 28, 31, 32.

  46. 46.

    District Court of Essen, 2 O 285/15, Luciano Lliuya v. RWE, ECLI:DE:LGE:2016:1215.2O285.15.00, paras. 41 seq.

  47. 47.

    Higher Regional Court of Hamm, I-5 U 15/17, Luciano Lliuya v. RWE, ZUR 2018, 118, para. I.1.

  48. 48.

    Higher Regional Court of Hamm, I-5 U 15/17, Luciano Lliuya v. RWE, ZUR 2018, 118, para. I.2.

  49. 49.

    Higher Regional Court of Hamm, I-5 U 15/17, Luciano Lliuya v. RWE II, 1 March 2018, para. 3.

  50. 50.

    German Supreme Court, V ZR 230/03, BGHZ 160, 232, para. 7.

  51. 51.

    Higher Regional Court of Hamm, I-5 U 15/17, Luciano Lliuya v. RWE, ZUR 2018, 118, para. I.2.

  52. 52.

    Higher Regional Court of Hamm, I-5 U 15/17, Luciano Lliuya v. RWE, ZUR 2018, 118, para. I.2.

  53. 53.

    Higher Regional Court of Hamm, I-5 U 15/17, Luciano Lliuya v. RWE, ZUR 2018, 118, para. III.

  54. 54.

    Higher Regional Court of Hamm, I-5 U 15/17, Luciano Lliuya v. RWE II, 1 March 2018.

  55. 55.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 4.4.5.

  56. 56.

    Gupta A. (2021), The 90 companies responsible for two-thirds of historical greenhouse gas emissions. https://stacker.com/stories/3971/90-companies-responsible-two-thirds-historical-greenhouse-gas-emissions (last accessed 27 September 2022).

  57. 57.

    In the RWE case, the Court did not mention the ETS specifically, its decision addressed the question of RWE’s lawful behaviour in general. RWE’s GHG emissions fall within the scope of the ETS and require allowances (RWE (2021), Climate Change 2021. https://www.rwe.com/-/media/RWE/documents/09-verantwortung-nachhaltigkeit/2021-rwe-response-to-cdp-climate-change.pdf (last accessed 27 September 2022), para. C.11.1b, C11.1d).

  58. 58.

    The wording of Section 6:162 DCC refers only to claims for damages, but it is also the legal basis for the claim directed at the restoration of the original condition and the omission of an act (Sieburgh (2019), paras. 151, 153). Concerning claims for damages, the equivalent provision in German law is Section 823(1) GCC (Börstra and Römling (2022), p. 37).

  59. 59.

    German Supreme Court, V ZR 230/03, BGHZ 160, 232, para. 7; Dutch Supreme Court, No. 9885, Kelderluik, ECLI:NL:HR:1965:AB7079.

  60. 60.

    Wagner and Arntz (2021), para. 88.

  61. 61.

    In Dutch law, the term is known as zorgvuldigheidsnorm (in the English translation of the Shell decision: “standard of care”). In German law, the term is known as Sicherungspflicht (“duty of safety”; German Supreme Court, V ZR 218/18, para. 8). The German Supreme Court distinguished it from the term Verkehrspflicht under Section 823(1) GCC. However, the distinction is not entirely clear (Pöttker (2014), pp. 93, 107; Wagner and Arntz (2021), para. 88). For simplicity’s sake, this paper uses the term “duty of care” as a reference to all three terms. The findings in this paper should in principle apply to all.

  62. 62.

    Dutch Supreme Court, No. 9885, Kelderluik, ECLI:NL:HR:1965:AB7079; Börstra and Römling (2022), p. 32.

  63. 63.

    Raff (2020), paras. 209, 218–221; Sieburgh (2019), para. 57.

  64. 64.

    Raff (2020), para. 209.

  65. 65.

    CJEU, C-6/64, Flaminio Costa v E.N.E.L., ECLI:EU:C:1964:66.

  66. 66.

    Translation by http://www.dutchcivillaw.com/legislation/dcctitle6633.htm. Dutch original version: “Als onrechtmatige daad worden aangemerkt een inbreuk op een recht en een doen of nalaten in strijd met een wettelijke plicht of met hetgeen volgens ongeschreven recht in het maatschappelijk verkeer betaamt, een en ander behoudens de aanwezigheid van een rechtvaardigingsgrond.”

  67. 67.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 4.4.1; Sieburgh (2019), para. 57.

  68. 68.

    Sieburgh (2019), para. 57.

  69. 69.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/456689/HA ZA 13-1396, Urgenda, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:7196, para. 4.46; Jagers and van der Heijden (2008), pp. 855, 857; Macchi and van Zeben (2021), p. 412.

  70. 70.

    Börstra and Römling (2022), p. 37.

  71. 71.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 4.4.1.

  72. 72.

    German Supreme Court, VI ZR 311/11, BGHZ 195, 30, para. 8.

  73. 73.

    Thöne (2022), p. 331.

  74. 74.

    Pöttker (2014), p. 117.

  75. 75.

    Börstra and Römling (2022), p. 36.

  76. 76.

    Section 6:162(2) DCC.

  77. 77.

    Translation by http://www.dutchcivillaw.com/legislation/dcctitle6633.htm. Dutch original version: “een en ander behoudens de aanwezigheid van een rechtvaardigingsgrond.”

  78. 78.

    German original version: “(2) Der Anspruch ist ausgeschlossen, wenn der Eigentümer zur Duldung verpflichtet ist.”

  79. 79.

    German Supreme Court, III ZR 198/98, BGHZ 142, 227, para. 20; Berger (2021), para. 21.

  80. 80.

    Fritzsche (2022), para. 107. The question to what the requirement of unlawfulness refers is highly debated among German commentators. The view presented here corresponds to the dominant view among commentators. Ahrens gives a full picture of the debate in the context of an analysis of the RWE decision: Ahrens (2019), pp. 652 seq.

  81. 81.

    German Supreme Court, V ZR 38/74, BGHZ 66, 37, para. 13; Raff (2020), paras. 199–200; Fritzsche (2022), para. 107.

  82. 82.

    Dutch Supreme Court, C04/142HR, ECLI:NL:HR:2005:AT8823; Fritzsche (2022), para. 119.

  83. 83.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 4.4.46.

  84. 84.

    Dutch Supreme Court, C04/142HR, ECLI:NL:HR:2005:AT8823, para. 3.5.1, translated to English by authors.

  85. 85.

    German Supreme Court, V ZR 78/58, Dance café, NJW 1959, 2013, para. 17; German Supreme Court, VI ZR 233/93, Owner’s duty to ensure safety in the event of dangerous glazing in an apartment building, NJW 1994, 2232, para. 14. Further also: Hinteregger (2017), paras. 238, 253 f.; Ipsen et al. (2021), p. 1849; Wagner (2020), para. 80.

  86. 86.

    German Supreme Court, V ZR 78/58, Dance café, NJW 1959, 2013, para. 17.

  87. 87.

    German Supreme Court, V ZR 78/58, Dance café, NJW 1959, 2013, para. 17; Ipsen et al. (2021), pp. 1850 seq.

  88. 88.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 4.4.45. In the RWE case, the Court did not mention the ETS specifically, its decision addressed the question of RWE’s lawful behaviour in general. But RWE’s GHG emissions fall within the scope of the ETS and require allowances (RWE (2021), Climate Change 2021. https://www.rwe.com/-/media/RWE/documents/09-verantwortung-nachhaltigkeit/2021-rwe-response-to-cdp-climate-change.pdf (last accessed 27 September 2022), para. C.11.1b, C11.1d).

  89. 89.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, paras. 4.4.44–4.44.48.

  90. 90.

    RWE submitted in its Response to the Higher Regional Court’s order that it complied with ETS (http://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/non-us-case-documents/2017/20171127_Case-No.-2-O-28515-Essen-Regional-Court_na.pdf, para. B). The Higher Regional Court of Hamm replied that it had already discussed this point in the oral hearings and in its order (Higher Regional Court of Hamm, I-5 U 15/17, Luciano Lliuya v. RWE II, 1 March 2018, para. 5).

  91. 91.

    Article 3(a) EU ETS Directive.

  92. 92.

    Article 10(1) EU ETS Directive.

  93. 93.

    Article 12(1) EU ETS Directive.

  94. 94.

    Article 9 and 11 EU ETS Directive.

  95. 95.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 4.4.46.

  96. 96.

    Chatzinerantzis and Appel (2019), p. 884; Ipsen et al. (2021), p. 1851; Spitzer and Burtscher (2017), pp. 162 seq.; Wagner and Arntz (2021), paras. 89, 90.

  97. 97.

    Regional Court of Stuttgart, 17 O 789/21, DUH v Mercedes-Benz Group AG, 13 September 2022, p. 7; Thöne (2022), p. 331; Wagner and Arntz (2021), para. 89.

  98. 98.

    Ipsen et al. (2021), p. 1851.

  99. 99.

    Proposal for a Directive amending the Directive establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, in respect of the Kyoto Protocol’s project mechanisms (Proposal for the EU ETS Directive), COM/2003/0403 final, para. 1.1.

  100. 100.

    Commission, EU ETS Handbook. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/system/files/2017-03/ets_handbook_en.pdf, p. 5.

  101. 101.

    Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 2003/87/EC to enhance cost-effective emission reductions and low-carbon investments, COM(2015) 337 final, para. 3.

  102. 102.

    Proposal for the EU ETS Directive, COM/2003/0403 final, para. 1.1.

  103. 103.

    Ipsen et al. (2021), p. 1851.

  104. 104.

    Ipsen et al. (2021), p. 1851.

  105. 105.

    Wagner (2020), para. 1055.

  106. 106.

    Thöne (2022), p. 333.

  107. 107.

    Pöttker (2014), p. 438.

  108. 108.

    German Constitutional Court, 1 BvR 2656/18, 1 BvR 78/20, 1 BvR 96/20, 1 BvR 288/20, Climate Protection, ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2021:rs20210324.1bvr265618, para. 26; Regional Court of Stuttgart, 17 O 789/21, DUH v Mercedes-Benz Group AG, 13 September 2022; Wagner (2021), para. 39.

  109. 109.

    Recital 27 EU ETS Directive; Proposal for amending Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union, Decision (EU) 2015/1814 concerning the establishment and operation of a market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading scheme and Regulation (EU) 2015/757 (Proposal for a renewed EU ETS), COM/2021/551 final, para. III.

  110. 110.

    Thöne (2022), p. 331; Wagner (2021), para. 47.

  111. 111.

    German Constitutional Court, 1 BvR 2656/18, 1 BvR 78/20, 1 BvR 96/20, 1 BvR 288/20, Climate Protection, ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2021:rs20210324.1bvr265618, para. 152; Dutch Supreme Court, State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation, NL:HR:2019:2007, para. 8.2.6; Brussels Court of First Instance, 2015/4585/A, VZW Klimaatzaak v. Kingdom of Belgium & Others, p. 80.

  112. 112.

    German Constitutional Court, 1 BvR 2656/18, 1 BvR 78/20, 1 BvR 96/20, 1 BvR 288/20, Climate Protection, ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2021:rs20210324.1bvr265618, para. 266; Dutch Supreme Court, State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation, NL:HR:2019:2007, para. 8.3.5.

  113. 113.

    German Constitutional Court, 1 BvR 2656/18, 1 BvR 78/20, 1 BvR 96/20, 1 BvR 288/20, Climate Protection, ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2021:rs20210324.1bvr265618, para. 152; Dutch Supreme Court, State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation, NL:HR:2019:2007, para. 8.2.6; Brussels Court of First Instance, 2015/4585/A, VZW Klimaatzaak v. Kingdom of Belgium & Others, p. 80.

  114. 114.

    German Constitutional Court, 1 BvR 2656/18, 1 BvR 78/20, 1 BvR 96/20, 1 BvR 288/20, Climate Protection, ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2021:rs20210324.1bvr265618, para. 162.

  115. 115.

    Pöttker (2014), p. 443.

  116. 116.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 4.4.46.

  117. 117.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 2.5.5.

  118. 118.

    Article 2(1) and Annex I EU ETS Directive.

  119. 119.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 4.4.46.

  120. 120.

    Hale T., Oxford Net Zero (2020), Mapping of current practices around net zero targets. https://4bafc222-18ee-4db3-b866-67628513159f.filesusr.com/ugd/6d11e7_347e267a4a794cd586b1420404e11a57.pdf (last accessed 27 September 2022): The Oxford Report summarises the current practice of organisations within the climate action community. The report explained that “in general, targets should aim to cover all gasses and all activities and scopes, as data allows” (p. 1).

  121. 121.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 4.4.18.

  122. 122.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 4.4.18.

  123. 123.

    Proposal for the EU ETS Directive, COM/2003/0403 final, para. 3.2.

  124. 124.

    Annex III EU ETS Directive.

  125. 125.

    Proposal for the EU ETS Directive, COM/2003/0403 final, para. 3.2.

  126. 126.

    According to Article 1(12)(e) Proposal for a renewed EU ETS, COM/2021/551 final, the compensation for indirect costs shall not apply to companies anymore that receive free allowances.

  127. 127.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 4.4.46.

  128. 128.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 4.4.47.

  129. 129.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 4.4.47.

  130. 130.

    Directive 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community.

  131. 131.

    Commission, Reducing emissions from aviation. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/transport-emissions/reducing-emissions-aviation_en (last accessed 27 September 2022).

  132. 132.

    Bradford (2020), p. 221.

  133. 133.

    Bradford (2020), p. 221.

  134. 134.

    Bradford (2020), p. 222.

  135. 135.

    Kieninger (2022), p. 6.

  136. 136.

    Proposal for a Regulation establishing a carbon border adjustment mechanism, COM(2021) 564 final.

  137. 137.

    Nordhaus (2015).

  138. 138.

    Higher Regional Court of Hamm, I-5 U 15/17, Luciano Lliuya v. RWE, ZUR 2018, 118, para. I.2.

  139. 139.

    Article 2(1)(a) and (b) Paris Agreement.

  140. 140.

    European Environment Agency, What is the difference between adaptation and mitigation? https://www.eea.europa.eu/help/faq/what-is-the-difference-between#:~:text=In%20essence%2C%20adaptation%20can%20be,(GHG)%20into%20the%20atmosphere (last accessed 27 September 2022).

  141. 141.

    European Environment Agency, What is the difference between adaptation and mitigation? https://www.eea.europa.eu/help/faq/what-is-the-difference-between#:~:text=In%20essence%2C%20adaptation%20can%20be,(GHG)%20into%20the%20atmosphere (last accessed 27 September 2022).

  142. 142.

    Commission, Adaptation to climate change. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/adaptation-climate-change_en (last accessed 27 September 2022).

  143. 143.

    IPCC, Climate Change 2022—Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability—Summary for Policy Makers. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ (last accessed 27 September 2022), para. B.1.

  144. 144.

    Article 2, 3(a), (b) EU ETS Directive.

  145. 145.

    Commission, Development of EU ETS (2005–2020). https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-system-eu-ets/development-eu-ets-2005-2020_en (last accessed 27 September 2022).

  146. 146.

    Raff (2020), paras. 209, 218–221; Sieburgh (2019), para. 57.

  147. 147.

    Regional Court of Stuttgart, 17 O 789/21, DUH v Mercedes-Benz Group AG, 13 September 2022, p. 7; Raff (2020), para. 209.

  148. 148.

    IPCC (2022), Climate Change 2022—Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability—Summary for Policy Makers. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ (last accessed 27 September 2022).

  149. 149.

    Communication from the Commission, The European Green Deal, COM(2019) 640 final, para. 2.1.1; Proposal for the EU ETS Directive, COM/2003/0403 final, para. 1.1.

  150. 150.

    Proposal for a renewed EU ETS Directive, COM/2021/551 final, para. 1.

  151. 151.

    The Hague District Court, C/09/571932/HA ZA 19-379, Climate case against RDS, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339, para. 4.4.46.

  152. 152.

    Article 2(1)(a) Paris Agreement.

  153. 153.

    IPCC (2022), Climate Change 2022—Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability—Summary for Policy Makers. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ (last accessed 27 September 2022), para. B.4.

  154. 154.

    Articles 2, 3, 7 and 17 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

  155. 155.

    Article 3 Paris Agreement.

  156. 156.

    Council of the EU, Submission to the UNFCCC on behalf of the European Union and its Member States on the update of the nationally determined contribution of the European Union and its Member States, 14005/20.

  157. 157.

    Germany and the European Commission, Update of the NDC of the European Union and its Member States. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/NDC/2022-06/EU_NDC_Submission_December%202020.pdf (last accessed 27 September 2022).

  158. 158.

    Recital 6 Proposal for a renewed EU ETS Directive, COM/2021/551 final.

  159. 159.

    European Commission, 2030 climate & energy framework. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/climate-strategies-targets/2030-climate-energy-framework_en (last accessed 27 September 2022).

  160. 160.

    Climate Action Tracker, EU. https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/eu/ (last accessed 27 September 2022).

  161. 161.

    Lehmann and Eichel (2019), pp. 86 seq.; Kieninger (2022), pp. 9–10.

  162. 162.

    European Commission, Free allocation. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-system-eu-ets/free-allocation_en (last accessed 27 September 2022).

  163. 163.

    Article 10a(6) EU ETS Directive.

  164. 164.

    Lehmann and Eichel (2019), pp. 86 seq.; Kieninger (2022), pp. 9–10.

  165. 165.

    CJEU, C-314/85 Foto-Frost v Hauptzollamt LĂĽbeck-Ost, ECLI:EU:C:1987:452, para. 15.

  166. 166.

    GC, T-330/18, Carvalho, ECLI:EU:T:2019:324, para. 33; CJEU, C-565/19 P, Carvalho, ECLI:EU:C:2021:252, para. 48.

  167. 167.

    CJEU, C-314/85, Foto-Frost v Hauptzollamt LĂĽbeck-Ost, ECLI:EU:C:1987:452, para. 15.

  168. 168.

    Procurator General of the Dutch Supreme Court, case 19/00135, Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands, NL:HR:2019:2007 (http://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/non-us-case-documents/2019/20190913_2015-HAZA-C0900456689_opinion-1.pdf, last accessed 27 September 2022), paras. 4.1009–4.1119; Winter (2020), p. 159.

  169. 169.

    Procurator General of the Dutch Supreme Court, case 19/00135, Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands, NL:HR:2019:2007 (http://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/non-us-case-documents/2019/20190913_2015-HAZA-C0900456689_opinion-1.pdf, last accessed 27 September 2022), para. 4.1116.

  170. 170.

    Wagner (2021), para. 39.

  171. 171.

    IPCC (2022), Climate Change 2022—Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability—Summary for Policy Makers. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ (last accessed 27 September 2022).

References

  • Ahrens HJ (2019) AuĂźervertragliche Haftung wegen der Emission genehmigter Treibhausgase? Versicherungsrecht, pp 645–654

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger C (2021) § 1004 BGB. In: Jauernig O (ed) Sachenrecht. BĂĽrgerliches Gesetzbuch, vol 3. C.H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Börstra B, Römling D (2022) Klimaklagen gegen Unternehmen. Zeitschrift fĂĽr europäische Umwelt- und Planungsrecht 1:30–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradford A (2020) The Brussels effect: how the European Union rules the world. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chatzinerantzis A, Appel M (2019) Haftung fĂĽr den Klimawandel. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 72(13):881–886

    Google Scholar 

  • ComandĂ© G, Faure M, Moreteau O et al (2005) Principles of European tort law: text and commentary. European Group on Tort Law. Springer, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritzsche J (2022) § 1004 BGB. In: Hau W, Poseck R (eds) BeckOK BGB. C.H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinteregger M (2017) Civil liability and the challenges of climate change: a functional analysis. J Eur Tort Law 8(2):238–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Ipsen N, WaĂźmuth G, Plappert L (2021) Klimawandel als Haftungsrisiko. Zeitschrift fĂĽr Wirtschaftsrecht:1843–1853

    Google Scholar 

  • Jagers N, van der Heijden MJ (2008) Corporate human rights violations: the feasibility of civil recourse in The Netherlands. Brooklyn J Int Law 33(3):833–870

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahl W, Weller MP (2021) Climate change litigation. C.H. Beck, Munich

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kieninger EM (2022) Das international Privat- und Verfahrensrecht der Klimahaftung. Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts, pp 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann M, Eichel F (2019) Globaler Klimawandel und Internationales Privatrecht. Rabel J Comp Int Priv Law 83(1):77–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Macchi C, van Zeben J (2021) Business and human rights implications of climate change litigation: Milieudefensie et al. v Royal Dutch Shell. Rev Eur Comp Int Environ Law 30(3):409–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus W (2015) Climate clubs: overcoming free-riding in international climate policy. Am Econ Rev 105(4):1339–1370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pöttker E (2014) Klimahaftungsrecht. Mohr Siebeck, TĂĽbingen

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Raff T (2020) § 1004. In: Gaier R (ed) Sachenrecht, §§ 854-1296, WEG, ErbBauRG. MĂĽnchener Kommentar, vol 8. C.H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Setzer J, Higham C (2022) Global trends in climate change litigation: 2022 snapshot. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy. London School of Economics and Political Science, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieburgh CH (2019) De Verbintenis uit de wet. In: Sieburgh CH (ed) Verbintenissenrecht. Mr. C. Assers Handleiding tot de beofening van het Nederlands Burgerlijk Recht, vol 6(4). Wolters Kluwer, Deventer, pp 1–568

    Google Scholar 

  • Spitzer M, Burtscher B (2017) Liability for climate change: cases, challenges and concepts. J Eur Tort Law 8(2):137–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Thöne M (2022) Klimaschutz durch Haftungsrecht – vier Problemkreise. Zeitschrift fĂĽr Umweltrecht 66(6):323–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner G (2020) § 823. In: Habersack M (ed) Schuldrecht – Besonderer Teil IV, §§ 705-853, Partnerschaftsgesellschaftsgesetz, Produkthaftungsgesetz. MĂĽnchener Kommentar zum BĂĽrgerlichen Gesetzbuch, vol 7. C.H. Beck, MĂĽnchen

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner G (2021) Klimaschutz durch Gerichte. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 31:2256–2263

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner G, Arntz A (2021) Liability for climate damages under German law of torts. In: Kahl W, Weller MP (eds) Climate change litigation. C.H. Beck, Munich, pp 405–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter G (2020) Armando Carvalho and Others v EU: invoking human rights and the Paris Agreement for better climate protection legislation. Transnatl Environ Law 9(1):137–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Berlin, Germany

    Ina Frieling

Authors
  1. Ina Frieling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Leuphana University, LĂĽneburg, Germany

    Jelena Bäumler

  2. Bundeswehr University Munich, Neubiberg, Germany

    Christina Binder

  3. Saarland University, SaarbrĂĽcken, Germany

    Marc Bungenberg

  4. University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany

    Markus Krajewski

  5. Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany

    Giesela RĂĽhl

  6. University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

    Christian J. Tams

  7. Leuphana University, LĂĽneburg, Germany

    Jörg Philipp Terhechte

  8. Université de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Andreas R. Ziegler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Frieling, I. (2023). Reducing GHG Emissions in a Constitutional Democracy: When EU Civil Courts Adjust the EU Emission Trading System. 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_99

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2022_99

  • 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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation