Abstract
Rule of law is a complex concept, with a meaning that is highly dependent on the specific context in which it is applied. Yet, in all systems, one of its essential components is an effective system of fundamental rights that are protected by independent and impartial courts. In this framework, climate change litigation is an important test for the impact and evolution of the rule of law. It is a recent but highly significant phenomenon, through which individuals, groups, and associations use litigation in order to force a change in the way in which climate change is addressed (“regulation through litigation”). This trend (which exists also in other areas of environmental protection), is developing on a global scale, but has specific features that depend on the characteristics (institutions, principles, and rules) of the legal system where the judicial action is brought and handled. This is true also for the EU, which is a multi-level system, with an integrated system of judicial protection, comprising both the European Court of Justice and national courts. The analysis of a recent leading case, Carvalho (decided in 2019 by the General Court and on appeal by the Court of Justice in 2021), shows that the limits for judicial review of the validity of EU acts by individuals are very narrow, due to both the way in which the rules (art. 263(4) TFEU) are formulated and the interpretation that the courts have given to them. The conservative position of case law stands in stark contrast with the active and progressive character of EU legislation on environmental protection, and also with the gradual emergence of case law protecting fundamental rights related to the environment in various national legal systems.
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.
- 2.
- 3.
https://worldjusticeproject.org. The rule of law is described as “the foundation for communities of justice, opportunity, and peace—underpinning development, accountable government, and respect for fundamental rights. Research shows that rule of law correlates to higher economic growth, greater peace, less inequality, improved health outcomes, and more education.” The organization also publishes a Rule of Law Index, with extensive data covering over 190 countries: https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/.
- 4.
https://worldjusticeproject.org/about-us/overview/what-rule-law. The concept of rule of law is made operational in the World Justice Project through eight factors: constraints on government powers, absence of corruption, open government, fundamental rights, order and security, regulatory enforcement, civil justice, and criminal justice.
- 5.
See Merdzanovic and Nicolaidis (2021): “A fundamental aspect of the rule of law is that its importance becomes visible only ‘in the breach’” (p. 297).
- 6.
The rule of law has both an international and external dimension in the EU. In the latter, according to art. 21 TEU “The Union’s action on the international scene shall be guided by the principles which have inspired its own creation, development and enlargement, and which it seeks to advance in the wider world: democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.” For a comprehensive review of the meaning and impact of the notion of the rule of law in the EU see Pech (2010). See also Special Issue (2021).
- 7.
Merdzanovic and Nicolaidis (2021).
- 8.
- 9.
In April 2019 the Commission sponsored a Eurobarometer survey in all Member States, which was published together with the Communication on 17 July 2019: https://data.europa.eu/data/datasets/s2235_91_3_489_eng?locale=en. According to the Commission “The results show overwhelming support for the rule of law, with limited differences between Member States. The importance of the key principles of the rule of law was recognised by over 80% of citizens in all Member States. The Eurobarometer also underlined that Europeans consider it important that the rule of law applies throughout the EU, with 89% supporting the need for the rule of law to be respected in all other EU Member States. It has further revealed that over half of Europeans do not feel sufficiently informed about the EU’s fundamental values.”
- 10.
On the impact of the rule of law in the environmental sphere see Voigt (2013).
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
See Mayer (2018).
- 14.
FCCC/INFORMAL/84, GE.05-62220 (E) 200705.
- 15.
FCCC/CP/1997/L.7/Add.1, 10 December 1997.
- 16.
The Protocol only was binding only for developed countries, with a heavier burden on them, as they are mostly responsible for the current high levels of GHG emissions in the atmosphere, in accordance with the principle of “common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities.”
- 17.
United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 3156 C.N.63.2016.TREATIES-XXVII.7.d, 16 February 2016. The new agreement has been ratified by 185 out of 197 States parties of the UNFCCC, a very significant result. The EU has ratified it with Decision 2016/1841, OJ 2016/L 282, p. 1; see infra p. 20.
- 18.
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/. The emission targets were revised in 2012 by the Doha Amendment, covering the period from 2013 to 2020. See van Calster et al. (2016). Updated data on Governments’ action in order to reduce GHG emissions are provided on the website of the CAT (Climate Action Tracker) Climate Target Update Tracker: https://climateactiontracker.org/climate-target-update-tracker-2022/.
- 19.
See the results of COP 26, which was held in Glasgow in November 2021 (https://unfccc.int/conference/glasgow-climate-change-conference-october-november-2021), and of COP 27 held in November 2022 in Cairo (https://unfccc.int/cop27).
- 20.
- 21.
- 22.
OJ L 169, 29 June 1987, pp. 1–28. The SEA entered into force in 1987.
- 23.
OJ C 191, 29 July 1992, pp. 1–112. The Maastricht Treaty entered into force in 1993.
- 24.
OJ C 306, 17 December 2007, pp. 1–271. Consolidated version of 2016, OJ C 202, 7 June 2016, pp. 1–405. The Lisbon Treaty entered into force in 2009.
- 25.
Art. 191 TFEU: 1. Union policy on the environment shall contribute to pursuit of the following objectives:—preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment,—protecting human health,—prudent and rational utilization of natural resources,—promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change. 2. Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay. In this context, harmonization measures answering environmental protection requirements shall include, where appropriate, a safeguard clause allowing Member States to take provisional measures, for non-economic environmental reasons, subject to a procedure of inspection by the Union. 3. In preparing its policy on the environment, the Union shall take account of:—available scientific and technical data,—environmental conditions in the various regions of the Union,—the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action,—the economic and social development of the Union as a whole and the balanced development of its regions. 4. Within their respective spheres of competence, the Union and the Member States shall cooperate with third countries and with the competent international organizations. The arrangements for Union cooperation may be the subject of agreements between the Union and the third parties concerned. The previous subparagraph shall be without prejudice to Member States’ competence to negotiate in international bodies and to conclude international agreements.
- 26.
Dir. 2003/87 (2003), modified in 2018 in order to reduce the total level of emissions; see infra p. 20.
- 27.
EU Commission (2019b).
- 28.
Reg. 2021/119 (2021).
- 29.
Council Regulation 2020/2093, 17 December 2020, laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027, OJ L 433I, 22.12.2020, pp. 11–22. Within the MFF, the LIFE + program is the most ambitious EU climate and environmental program, which will receive 5.4 billion euros, with 3.5 billion for environmental policies, 1.9 billion euros for climate action projects, which include climate change mitigation, adaptation and clean energy transition projects. Moreover, a new Just Transition Fund supports the most vulnerable carbon intensive regions in their transition towards a climate-neutral economy.
- 30.
EU Commission (2020).
- 31.
Its main pillar is the Recovery and Resilience Facility, which provides loans and grants to Member States on the basis of national Recovery and Resilience Plans.
- 32.
See Hedemann-Robinson (2015).
- 33.
See Preston (2021a, b). A large on-line databasis on climate litigation in the world is run by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law: http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-climate-change-litigation/.
- 34.
- 35.
See Knox and Pejan (2018).
- 36.
Vereniging Milieudefensie et al. (2021).
- 37.
A significant feature that reflects the hybrid nature of the procedure is the time limit for bringing an action: according to art. 263(6), the claim must be lodged “within two months of the publication of the measure, or of its notification to the plaintiff, or, in the absence thereof, of the day on which it came to the knowledge of the latter, as the case may be.” The review of the legality of secondary EU can take place even beyond this deadline through a preliminary reference procedure (art. 267 TFEU), if a national judge considers that there is a doubt concerning the legality of a secondary act whose rules are relevant for the decision of the case; in this case, the review only applies to the specific case, and does not have general effects as in the case of annulment.
- 38.
The grounds for asking the annulment are: “lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application, or misuse of powers” (art. 263 TFEU). These elements also cover fundamental principles of EU law, of which fundamental rights (now enshrined in the EU Charter of fundamental rights) are an essential part.
- 39.
Nowadays the General court, and on appeal the Court of Justice.
- 40.
- 41.
Carvalho and others v. Council and Parliament (2019).
- 42.
- 43.
See https://peoplesclimatecase.caneurope.org/. As stated on the website “People’s Climate Case is the litigation action initiated by 10 families from Portugal, Germany, France, Italy, Romania, Kenya, Fiji, and the Saami Youth Association Sáminuorra. Their homes, livelihoods, traditional family occupation and culture are affected by climate change and they are taking the EU institutions to court to protect their fundamental rights and to prevent dangerous climate change. (…) The plaintiffs are accompanied by a broad range of NGOs, scientists and citizens who firmly believe that the EU can and must be more ambitious regarding its 2030 climate target. The scientists from the scientific think tank Climate Analytics provide interdisciplinary scientific background to the People’s Climate Case to show clear evidence on how the families are impacted by climate change and indicate what is doable to further reduce emissions far beyond the current EU’s climate target. The German NGO, Protect the Planet, is bearing all the costs related to the legal case to ensure that the families have a decent chance to pursue their action and to exercise their legal and human rights. Climate Action Network, Europe’s largest NGO coalition working on climate and energy issues, with over 150 member organisations in more than 30 European countries, representing over 1700 NGOs, is also supporting this courageous action of plaintiff families and recognises the urgency to act for protecting their fundamental rights.” The fact that the group of claimants also comprised non-EU nationals is related to the idea of “open statehood,” i.e., that legal protection should be granted to all people affected by the action within a certain juridiction, in this case the EU.
- 44.
The request was to increase the percentage of GHG emissions reduction from the 40% established in the EU package, to at least 50-60% compared to 1990 levels, considering that this is possible under the technical and economic capacity of the EU.
- 45.
EU Council Decision (EU) (2016).
- 46.
EU Council Decision (EC) (2002).
- 47.
- 48.
The damage, current and future, consisted in the adverse effects caused by the lack of sufficient action against GHG emissions, curtailing activities and livelihood of the parties and resulting in physical damage.
- 49.
UN Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, 25 June 1998, Treaty Series, 30 October 2001, No. 37770, vol. 2161, p. 447, Art. 9(3). The Convention has been ratified by the EU through Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, OJ L 124, 17.5.2005, p. 1. See infra p. 26.
- 50.
- 51.
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v. Parliament and Council, C-583/11 P, 3 October 2013, ECLI:EU:C:2013:625.
- 52.
Union de Pequenos Agricoltores v. Council, C-50/00 p, EU:C:2002:197; Jégo-Quéré v. Commission, T-177/01, EU:T:2022:112; Commission v. Jégo-Quéré, C-263/02 P, EU:C:2004:210.
- 53.
In the alternative, if the provisions could not be amended before 2021, the applicants requested that they remain in force until a date to be determined by the court.
- 54.
The applicants, on the other hand, claimed that there is a significant difference between the two claims, because an action for damages operates only inter partes, whereas an action for annulment has erga omnes effects.
- 55.
Armando Carvalho and others v. European Parliament and Council, C-565/19 P., cit.
- 56.
The court refers to the case Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v. Parliament and Council (2013).
- 57.
See in the same line the order in Sabo and Others v. Parliament and Council (2021).
- 58.
A Swedish law of 1971 on Reindeer Husbandry (amended in 1993) confers a right to Sami people use public and private land for their reindeer herds, which represent a common good.
- 59.
- 60.
In a recent case, JP v. Ministre de la transition écologique (2022), the ECJ (Grand Chamber) has stated that the directives establishing specific air quality standards and limit values of pollutants are not intended to confer rights on individuals that entitle them to compensation in case of breach of these standards by member States, because the aim of the directives is the general protection of human health and the environment as a whole, as opposed to individual rights (par. 55). The Court, on the other hand, considers that individuals must be able at the national level to force national authorities to adopt the measures required by the directives, also through judicial actions (par. 58). The decision further limits the possibility of judicial protection of fundamental rights related to environmental protection at the EU level, by eliminating the possibility of guaranteeing indirect protection through damages. This position is presumably due to the desire to avoid overwhelming compensation claims for State, but does not seem to be solid from a logical point of view, and entails a risk of divergent solution in the member States, leading to legal fragmentation.
- 61.
Art. 5(4) TEU: “Under the principle of proportionality, the content and form of Union action shall not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties.”.
- 62.
In case of a damage to a human right related to environmental protection the standard for establishing causation should be that of adequacy and substantial proximity of the action and the damage. A crucial role in establishing the necessary causation link is played by scientific evidence, which in the area of climate change is currently well developed in the reports of the IPCC, as well as in a number of other documents of scientific bodies worldwide.
- 63.
UN Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, 1998, cit.
- 64.
- 65.
Reg. 367/2006 (2006).
- 66.
Case law of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee 2004–2011, at https://unece.org/DAM/env/pp/Media/Publications/ACCC_Jurisprudence_Ecoforum_2011.pdf.
- 67.
- 68.
Reg. 2021/1767 (2021).
- 69.
- 70.
Moreover, while many rules are “hard law,” many important standards are defined by soft law obligations.
- 71.
For example, several of the final Recommendations by the European Citizens’ Panels of the Conference on the Future of Europe concern environmental protection and climate change: see Conference on the Future of Europe—Report on the Final Outcome, May 2022, Panel 3 on Climate change, environmental, health, available at: https://prod-cofe-platform.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/qtde64rjnkdaf5u2j54ocssxyn9w?response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3D%22Book_CoFE_Final_Report_EN_full.pdf%22%3B%20filename%2A%3DUTF-8%27%27Book_CoFE_Final_Report_EN_full.pdf&response-content-type=application%2Fpdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA3LJJXGZPDFYVOW5V%2F20230131%2Feu-central-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20230131T182925Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=58b4c6c756d01296607320bc267161d03dc27f4f84df654fffb50b4412cc9a7e.
- 72.
See Merdzanovic and Nicolaidis (2021).
References
Azmanova, A., Howard, B., Binding The Guardian—On the European Commission’s failure to safeguard the rule of law, Brussels, 2021.
Carvalho and others v. Council and Parliament, T-330/18, 8 May 2019, EU:T:2019:324.
Carvalho and others v. Council and Parliament, C-565/19 P, 25 March 2021, ECLI:EU:C:2021:252.
Codorniu v. Council, 18 May 1994, C-309/89, ECLI:EU:C:1994:197.
Commission v. Jégo-Quéré, C-263/02 P, 1 April 2004, ECLI:EU:C:2004:210.
Conference on the Future of Europe—Report on the Final Outcome, May 2022 (available at: https://prod-cofe-platform.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/qtde64rjnkdaf5u2j54ocssxyn9w?response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3D%22Book_CoFE_Final_Report_EN_full.pdf%22%3B%20filename%2A%3DUTF-8%27%27Book_CoFE_Final_Report_EN_full.pdf&response-content-type=application%2Fpdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA3LJJXGZPDFYVOW5V%2F20230131%2Feu-central-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20230131T182925Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=58b4c6c756d01296607320bc267161d03dc27f4f84df654fffb50b4412cc9a7e).
Dir. 2003/87, establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, 25.10.2003, OJ 2003 L 275/32.
Dir. 2018/410 on enhancing cost-effective emission reductions and low-carbon investments, 14.3.2018, OJ 2018 L 76, p. 3.
Dupuy, P.-M., Viñuales, J.E., International Environmental Law, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Law, 2018.
Expert Group on Global Climate Obligations, Oslo Principles on Global Climate Obligations, Eleven, 2015 (available at: https://climateprinciplesforenterprises.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/osloprincipleswebpdf.pdf).
EU Commission, Strengthening the rule of law within the Union—A Blueprint for Action, Communication of 17 July 2019, COM (2019) 343 fin.
EU Commission, The European Green Deal, Communication of 11 December 12 2019, COM(2019) 640 fin.
EU Commission, Europe’s moment: Repair and Prepare for the Next Generation, Communication of 27.5.2020, COM/2020/456 fin.
EU Commission, Improving access to justice in environmental matters in the EU and its Member States, Communication of 14.10.2020, COM/2020/643 fin.
EU Council Decision 2002/358/EC, concerning the approval, on behalf of the European Community, of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the joint fulfilment of commitments thereunder, 25.4.2002, OJ 2002 L 130, p. 1.
EU Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, OJ L 124, 17.5.2005, p. 1.
EU Council Decision (EU) 2016/1841 of 5 October 2016 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Paris Agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, OJ L 282, 19.10.2016, pp. 1–3.
Fitzmaurice, M., Wong, M.S., Crampin, J., International Environmental Law—Text, Cases and Materials, Elgar, 2022.
Hedemann-Robinson, M., Enforcement of European Union Environmental Law—Legal Issues and Challenges, 2nd rev. ed., Routledge, 2015.
Heyvaert, V., Transnational Environmental Regulation and Governance—Purpose, Strategies and Governance, Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Heyvaert, V., Duvic-Paoli, L.-A., Research Handbook on Transnational Environmental Law, Elgar, 2020.
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v. Parliament and Council, C-583/11 P, 3 October 2013, ECLI:EU:C:2013:625.
Jégo-Quéré v. Commission, T-177/01, 3 May 2002, ECLI:EU:T:2022:112.
Jessup, P.C., Transnational Law, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956 (The Storrs Lectures).
JP v. Ministre de la transition écologique, C-61/21, 22 December 2022, ECLI:EU:C:2022:1015.
Kingston, S., European Environmental Law, Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Knox, J.H., Pejan, R. (eds), The Human Right to a Healthy Environment, Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Krämer, L., Orlando, E. (eds), Principles of environmental law, Elgar, 2018.
Martin, P., Bigdeli, S.Z., Daya-Winterbottom, T., du Plessis, W., Kennedy, A. (eds), The Search for Environmental Justice, Elgar, 2017.
Mayer, B., The international law on climate change, Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Mayer, B., International law obligations on climate change, Oxford University Press, 2022.
Merdzanovic, A., Nicolaidis, K., A Citizen’s Guide to the Rule of Law—Why We Need to Fight for the Most Precious Human Invention of All Time, ibidem Press, 2021.
Merdzanovic, A., Nicolaidis, K., ‘Advocacy for a citizen-centric rule of law agenda: How do we bring the rule of law to life?’, Eur. L. J., 27 (2021), pp. 297–305.
Milieu Consulting, Study on EU implementation of the Aarhus Convention in the area of access to justice in environmental matters—Final report, 2/10/2019, 07.0203/2018/786407/SER/ENV.E.4, report prepared for the EU Commission (available at: https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/3b48eff1-b955-423f-9086-0d85ad1c5879/library/e8c08bfc-4246-4503-8840-46f857eb2bcc/details?download=true).
Palombella, G., Walker, N. (eds), Relocating the Rule of Law, Hart Publishing, 2009.
Pech, L., ‘A Union Founded on the Rule of law’: Meaning and Reality of the Rule of law as a Constitutional Principle of EU Law’, European Constitutional Law Review, 2010, vol. 6, pp. 359–396.
Peeters, M., Eliantonio, M. (eds), Research handbook on EU environmental law, Elgar, 2020.
Plaumann v. Commission, 15 July 1963, C-25/62, ECLI:EU:C:1963:17.
Popovski, V. The implementation of the Paris agreement on climate change, Routledge, 2019.
Postema, G., Law’s Rule—The Nature, Value, and Viability of the Rule of Law, Oxford University Press, 2022.
Preston, B.J., ‘The Influence of the Paris Agreement on Climate Litigation: Legal Obligations and Norms (Part I)’, Journal of Environmental Law, vol. 33 (2021a), pp. 1–32.
Preston, B.J., ‘The Influence of the Paris Agreement on Climate Litigation: Causation, Corporate Governance and Catalyst (Part II)’, Journal of Environmental Law, vol. 33 (2021b), pp. 227–256.
Reg. 367/2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies, OJ L 264, 25.9.2006, pp. 13–19.
Reg. 2018/841 on the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions and removals from land use, land use change and forestry in the 2030 climate and energy framework, 30.5.2018, OJ 2018 L 156, p. 1.
Reg. 2018/842 on binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions by member States from 2021 to 2030, 30.5.2018, OJ 2018 L 156, p. 26.
Reg. 2020/2093, 17 December 2020, laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027, 22.12.2020, OJ 2018 L 433, pp. 11–22.
Reg. 2021/119 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999, ‘European Climate Law’, 9.7.2021, OJ 2021 L 243, pp. 1–17.
Reg. 2021/1767 of 6 October 2021 amending Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies, 8.10.2021, OJ 2021 L 356, pp. 1–7.
Sabo and Others v. Parliament and Council, C-297/20 P, 14 January 2021, ECLI:EU:C: 2021:24.
Single European Act (SEA), 29 June 1987, OJ 1987 L 169, pp. 1–28.
Special issue on ‘Ten Years On: Rethinking Transnational Environmental Law’, Transnational Environmental Law, vol. 10, 2021.
Special Issue ‘Between Ought and Is: European integration through the rule of law’, Eur. L. J., 27 (2021), pp. 1–347.
Stichting Woonpunt and Others v. Commission, C-132°/12 P, 27 February 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:100.
Stichting Woonlinie and Others v. Commission, C-133/12 P, 27 February 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:105.
Tanzi, A., Iapichino, L., Fasoli, E. (eds), La convenzione di Aarhus e l'accesso alla giustizia in materia ambientale, CEDAM, 2011.
Telefònica v. Commission, C-274/12 P, 19 December 2013, ECLI:EU:C:2013:852.
Treaty on the European Union (Maastricht Treaty), 29.7.1992, OJ 1992 C 191, pp. 1–112.
Treaty on the European Union and Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Treaty of Lisbon), 17.12.2007, OJ 2007 C 306, pp. 1–271; consolidated version of 2016, 7.6.2016, OJ 2016 C 202, pp. 1–405.
UN Convention on Biological Diversity, 5 June 1992, United Nations, Treaty Series, 29 December 1993, No. 30619, vol. 1760, p. 79.
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) 1992, FCCC/INFORMAL/84, GE.05-62220 (E) 200705.
UN Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCC, FCCC/CP/1997/L.7/Add.1, 10 December 1997.
UN Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, 25 June 1998, Treaty Series, 30 October 2001, No. 37770, vol. 2161, p. 447.
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 13 September 2007 (A/61/L.67 and Add.1) (A/RES/61/295).
UN Paris Agreement on Climate Change, Treaty Series, vol. 3156 C.N.63.2016.TREATIES-XXVII.7.d, 16 February 2016.
Union de Pequeños Agricoltores v. Council, C-50/00 P, 25 July 2002, ECLI:EU:C:2002:197.
van Calster, G., Reins, L., EU Environmental Law, Elgar, 2017.
van Calster, G., Vandenberghe, W., Reins, L. (eds), Research Handbook on Climate Change Mitigation Law, Elgar, 2016.
van Wolferen, M., Eliantonio, M., ‘Access to justice in environmental matters in the EU: The EU’s difficult road towards non-compliance with the Aarhus Convention’, in M. Peeters, M. Eliantonio (eds), Research handbook on EU environmental law, Elgar, 2020, pp. 148–163.
Vereniging Milieudefensie et al. v Royal Dutch Shell, 26 May 2021, The Hague District Court, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339 (available at: http://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/non-us-case-documents/2021/20210526_8918_judgment-1.pdf).
Voigt, C. (ed.), Rule of Law for Nature: New Dimensions and Ideas in Environmental Law, Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Winter, G., ‘Case comment—Armando Carvalho and Others v. EU: Invoking Human Rights and the Paris Agreement for Better Climate Protection Legislation’, Transnational Environmental Law, vol. 9 (2020), pp. 137–164.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Antoniolli, L. (2024). Climate Change Litigation and the Rule of Law in the European Union. In: Antoniolli, L., Ruzza, C. (eds) The Rule of Law in the EU. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55322-6_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55322-6_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-55321-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-55322-6
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)