EU Climate Change Litigations: Dream or Reality? - Individuals' possibilities to challenge the legality of EU climate actions within the system of legal remedies in EU law
(2018) JURM02 20182Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- In August 2018, the legality of EU acts implementing the 2030 emissions reduction target was for the first time challenged by individuals before the General Court. Their claim is that the target is insufficient in order to prevent infringements of fundamental rights caused by climate change. The purpose of the thesis is to examine and analyse to what extent individuals can challenge the legality of such EU climate actions within the system of legal remedies in EU law, in light of the norms applicable and the relationship between direct and indirect judicial review. In order to achieve this, a legal dogmatic method has been used in combination with an EU legal method.
The thesis has shown that the substantive and procedural difficulties... (More) - In August 2018, the legality of EU acts implementing the 2030 emissions reduction target was for the first time challenged by individuals before the General Court. Their claim is that the target is insufficient in order to prevent infringements of fundamental rights caused by climate change. The purpose of the thesis is to examine and analyse to what extent individuals can challenge the legality of such EU climate actions within the system of legal remedies in EU law, in light of the norms applicable and the relationship between direct and indirect judicial review. In order to achieve this, a legal dogmatic method has been used in combination with an EU legal method.
The thesis has shown that the substantive and procedural difficulties with EU climate change litigations relate not only to the nature and effect of climate change, but rather to how the system of legal remedies is shaped. The lack of strong legislation dealing with climate change is another important factor contributing to individuals’ difficulties with enforcing the policy objective to combat climate change. The EU ETS case law is of most significance in relation to judicial review of EU climate actions, as it is one of the few concrete EU climate law instruments. However, the focus has remained on assuring that the EU’s regulatory powers exercised respect the rule of law and not on the legality of the climate change laws per se. Furthermore, the CJEU’s interpretation of the standing requirements for natural or legal persons under Article 263(4) TFEU has prevented individuals from bringing actions before the CJEU. This has not been without criticism, in relation to the EU’s obligations under the Aarhus Convention and in relation to the right to an effective judicial protection. Where there is individual harm in rights-based claims, the chain of causation is also problematic, which affects individuals’ capability to bring damages actions.
The thesis questions the “completeness” of the system of legal remedies available for climate change litigants, as initiating national proceedings in order to provoke a preliminary ruling from the CJEU might not be a realistic alternative. The system is constructed as to ensure an effective judicial protection before the national courts and tribunals, which presupposes a well working interplay between the CJEU and national courts and tribunals. However, the individual interest to challenge the legality of the EU environmental norms themselves, without invoking individual rights, seems to fall outside that system. Because of this potential “gap” in the system of legal remedies, there is in my opinion a need to strengthen the EU legislation granting individuals procedural rights in environmental matters. It may in turn contribute to a more effective EU policy and legal framework dealing with climate change as well as a more effective judicial protection for individuals suffering harm caused by climate change. (Less) - Popular Abstract (Swedish)
- I augusti 2018 väcktes för första gången en ogiltighetstalan vid Europeiska unionens tribunal av enskilda som hävdar att EU:s klimatmål för 2030 inte är tillräckliga för att förhindra kränkningar av grundläggande rättigheter orsakade av klimatförändringar. Denna uppsats syftar till att undersöka och analysera i vilken utsträckning enskilda kan väcka talan mot EU:s klimatåtgärder inom systemet för rättslig prövning, i ljuset av tillämpliga normer samt förhållandet mellan direkt och indirekt talan. Jag har använt mig av rättsdogmatisk metod i kombination med EU rättslig metod.
Framställningen har visat att de materiella och processuella svårigheterna med klimaträttegångar på EU-nivå inte endast beror på klimatförändringars natur och... (More) - I augusti 2018 väcktes för första gången en ogiltighetstalan vid Europeiska unionens tribunal av enskilda som hävdar att EU:s klimatmål för 2030 inte är tillräckliga för att förhindra kränkningar av grundläggande rättigheter orsakade av klimatförändringar. Denna uppsats syftar till att undersöka och analysera i vilken utsträckning enskilda kan väcka talan mot EU:s klimatåtgärder inom systemet för rättslig prövning, i ljuset av tillämpliga normer samt förhållandet mellan direkt och indirekt talan. Jag har använt mig av rättsdogmatisk metod i kombination med EU rättslig metod.
Framställningen har visat att de materiella och processuella svårigheterna med klimaträttegångar på EU-nivå inte endast beror på klimatförändringars natur och globala påverkan, utan snarare på hur systemet med rättsmedel är utformat. Avsaknaden av en stark klimatlagstiftning är en annan viktig faktor som bidrar till enskildas svårigheter med att genomdriva klimatpolitiska mål. EU domstolens praxis kring EU:s utsläppshandelssystem är av störst betydelse i förhållande till rättslig prövning av EU:s klimatåtgärder, eftersom det hör till en av få konkreta klimatlagstiftningar inom EU-rätten. Fokus har dock legat på huruvida EU agerat utöver sina tilldelade befogenheter i enlighet med rättsstatsprincipen och inte på lagligheten av klimatlagstiftningen i sig. Vidare har EU domstolens tolkning av enskildas talerätt i princip uteslutit enskilda från att föra ogiltighetstalan vid EU domstolen. Detta kritiseras i uppsatsen i förhållande till EU:s åtaganden enligt Århuskonventionen och rätten till ett effektivt domstolsskydd. När enskilda åberopar skada orsakad av klimatförändringar är även kausaliteten problematisk att bevisa, vilket även påverkar möjligheterna att föra talan om EU:s utomobligatoriska ansvar.
Uppsatsen ifrågasätter ”fullständigheten” av det system med rättsmedel och förfaranden som är tillgängliga för enskilda som vill inleda klimaträttegångar på EU-nivå, eftersom väckandet av nationell talan i syfte att få nationell domstol att begära ett förhandsavgörande av EU domstolen inte alltid är ett realistiskt alternativ. Systemet är uppbyggt för att försäkra ett effektivt domstolsskydd vid nationella domstolar, vilket förutsätter ett väl fungerande samspel mellan EU domstolen och nationella domstolar. Enskildas intresse att få EU-rättsakter som rör klimatförändringar ogiltigförklarade utan att åberopa en medlemsstats åsidosättande av tillämpliga EU-rättsliga normer eller enskilda rättigheter som följer av EU-rätten, faller dock till synes utanför systemet. På grund av de brister i systemet med rättsmedel som lyfts fram i uppsatsen, finns det enligt min mening ett behov av att stärka EU:s lagstiftning kring enskildas tillgång till rättslig prövning i miljöfrågor. Det skulle i sin tur kunna bidra såväl till en effektivare klimatpolitik och klimatlagstiftning på EU-nivå som till ett effektivare domstolsskydd för enskilda som lidit skada orsakade av klimatförändringar. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8965562
- author
- Vesterberg, Fanny LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Klimaträttegångar på EU-nivå: Dröm eller verklighet? - Enskildas möjligheter att få EU:s klimatåtgärder lagprövade inom ramen för EU:s system med rättsmedel
- course
- JURM02 20182
- year
- 2018
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- EU law, EU environmental law, EU procedural law, Climate change litigation, EU climate policy
- language
- English
- id
- 8965562
- date added to LUP
- 2019-02-02 10:35:59
- date last changed
- 2019-02-02 10:35:59
@misc{8965562,
abstract = {{In August 2018, the legality of EU acts implementing the 2030 emissions reduction target was for the first time challenged by individuals before the General Court. Their claim is that the target is insufficient in order to prevent infringements of fundamental rights caused by climate change. The purpose of the thesis is to examine and analyse to what extent individuals can challenge the legality of such EU climate actions within the system of legal remedies in EU law, in light of the norms applicable and the relationship between direct and indirect judicial review. In order to achieve this, a legal dogmatic method has been used in combination with an EU legal method.
The thesis has shown that the substantive and procedural difficulties with EU climate change litigations relate not only to the nature and effect of climate change, but rather to how the system of legal remedies is shaped. The lack of strong legislation dealing with climate change is another important factor contributing to individuals’ difficulties with enforcing the policy objective to combat climate change. The EU ETS case law is of most significance in relation to judicial review of EU climate actions, as it is one of the few concrete EU climate law instruments. However, the focus has remained on assuring that the EU’s regulatory powers exercised respect the rule of law and not on the legality of the climate change laws per se. Furthermore, the CJEU’s interpretation of the standing requirements for natural or legal persons under Article 263(4) TFEU has prevented individuals from bringing actions before the CJEU. This has not been without criticism, in relation to the EU’s obligations under the Aarhus Convention and in relation to the right to an effective judicial protection. Where there is individual harm in rights-based claims, the chain of causation is also problematic, which affects individuals’ capability to bring damages actions.
The thesis questions the “completeness” of the system of legal remedies available for climate change litigants, as initiating national proceedings in order to provoke a preliminary ruling from the CJEU might not be a realistic alternative. The system is constructed as to ensure an effective judicial protection before the national courts and tribunals, which presupposes a well working interplay between the CJEU and national courts and tribunals. However, the individual interest to challenge the legality of the EU environmental norms themselves, without invoking individual rights, seems to fall outside that system. Because of this potential “gap” in the system of legal remedies, there is in my opinion a need to strengthen the EU legislation granting individuals procedural rights in environmental matters. It may in turn contribute to a more effective EU policy and legal framework dealing with climate change as well as a more effective judicial protection for individuals suffering harm caused by climate change.}},
author = {{Vesterberg, Fanny}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{EU Climate Change Litigations: Dream or Reality? - Individuals' possibilities to challenge the legality of EU climate actions within the system of legal remedies in EU law}},
year = {{2018}},
}