Legal Action for Climate Protection — impulses on the international level from the German Federal Constitutional Court: the Court Order from March 2021 on the Unconstitutionality of the Federal German Climate Protection Act

Stephan Tomerius

doi:10.5327/Z2176-94781329

Authors

Stephan Tomerius HWR Berlin ( Berlin School of Economics and Law) - Germany https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5928-9449

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-94781329

Keywords:

Paris agreement of 2015; climate litigation; greenhouse gases; global warming; CO2-emissions; German federal climate protection act; constitutional law; legislation; sustainability; natural resources; future generations.

Abstract

Against the background of the international climate protection aim deriving from the “Paris Agreement” of December 2015, demanding a limitation of global warming to 1,5 Celsius at best, the public discussion and anger on the mid- and longterm consequences of a constantly growing greenhouse effect have clearly risen. Along with that, “climate litigation” has turned into serious means to sue governments for inadequate measures to reach international and domestic climate protection goals. In a line of several legal actions and high court decisions in different countries during the last years is the court order of the Federal German Constitutional Court from March 2021. The judges considered the German Federal Climate Protection Act unconstitutional due to a lack of clearing a reliable legal path to reach the CO₂-reduction goals and this decision was seen as a milestone in climate litigation. Combined with the obligation of the state to protect the natural resources by legislation, the court invented the “advance interference-like effect”on future generations and the “intertemporal guarantees of freedom”, two legal figures which could be possibly applied to constitutional law abroad and thus fertilize argumentation in climate litigation outside of Germany, too.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Berlin Administrative Court, 2019. judgement from 31.10.2019 – VG 10 K 412.18.

BlackRock. Launching climate-aware return assumptions. BlackRock (Accessed on: January 20, 2022) at:. https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual/insights/blackrock-investment-institute/investing-in-climate-awareness.

Bodle, R.; Sina, S., 2021. The German Federal Constitutional Court’s decision on the Climate Change Act. Ecologic Institute, Berlin (Accessed on: January 20, 2022) at:. https://www.ecologic.eu/sites/default/files/publication/2021/bodle-21-Ecologic-Institut-policy-brief-constitutional-court-climate-change-act.pdf.

Brohmer, J., 2020. Germany’s Climate Change Agenda: a critical overview. University of Western Australia Law Review, v. 48, (1), 264-294.

Bumke/Voßkuhle, 2019. German Constitutional Law: introduction, cases and principles, Oxford University Press.

Bundesverfassungsgericht, 2021. Constitutional complaints against the Federal Climate Change Act partially successful. Bundesverfassungsgericht (Accessed on: January 20, 2022) at:. https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2021/bvg21-031.html;jsessionid=8022094ACB126B163B860FB10CBB63B4.1_cid506.

Calliess, 2021. Das “Klimaurteil” des Bundesverfassungsgerichts: “Versubjektivierung” des Article 20 a GG? ZUR, pp. 355.

Climatec, 2022. (Accessed on: January, 2022) at:. http://climatecasechArticlecom/climate-change-litigation/non-us-case/urgenda-foundation-v-kingdom-of-the-netherlands/.

Climatec, 2022. (Accessed on: January 20, 2022) at:. http://climatecasechArticlecom/non-us-case/notre-affaire-a-tous-and-others-v-france/?mc_cid=2ee16a4b8f&mc_eid=c70ad85e80.

Climatec, 2022. (Accessed on: January 20, 2022) at:. http://climatecasechArticlecom/climate-change-litigation/non-us-case/milieudefensie-et-al-v-royal-dutch-shell-plc/?mc_cid=e15e769911&mc_eid=c70ad85e80.

Columbia Law School, 2021. A look back at significant decisions in climate litigation in 2021. Columbia Law School, New York (Accessed on: January 18, 2022) at:. http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2021/12/23/a-look-back-at-significant-decisions-in-climate-litigation-in-2021/.

Corlett, E., 2021. New Zealand lawyers sue climate change body over alleged failure to meet targets. The Guardian (Accessed on: January 18, 2022) at:. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/02/new-zealand-lawyers-sue-climate-change-body-over-alleged-failure-to-meet-targets.

Deutsche Welle, 2021. German climate law is partly unconstitutional, top court rules. Deutsche Welle, Germany (Accessed on: January 18, 2022) at:. https://www.dw.com/en/german-climate-law-is-partly-unconstitutional-top-court-rules/a-57369917.

Ekardt/Heß, 2021. Bundesverfassungsgericht, neues EU-Klimaschutzrecht und das Klima-Ziel des Paris-Abkommens, NVwZ, pp. 1421.

European Central Bank, 2021. Climate change litigation and central banks. Legal Working Paper Series. European Central Bank, Europe (Accessed on: January 18, 2022) at:. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scplps/ecb.lwp21~f7a250787a.en.pdf.

Federal Court of Australia, 2021. Sharma by her litigation representative Sister Marie Brigid Arthur v Minister for the Environment (No 2) FCA 774. Federal Court of Australia, Australia (Accessed on: January 18, 2022) at:. https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2021/2021fca0774.

Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Action, 2022. Habeck presents Germany’s current climate action status: “Need to triple the rate of emission reductions”. Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Action, Germany (Accessed on: January 18, 2022) at:. https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/EN/Pressemitteilungen/2022/20220111-habeck-presents-germanys-current-climate-action-status-need-to-triple-the-rate-of-emission-reductions.html.

German Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU), 2020. Using the CO2 budget to meet the Paris climate targets. SRU, Germany (Accessed on: January 18, 2022) at:. https://www.umweltrat.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/01_Environmental_Reports/2020_08_environmental_report_chapter_02.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=5.

Germany. The Federal Government. Climate Action Programme 2030. The Federal Government, Germany (Accessed on: January 18, 2022) at:. https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/issues/climate-action.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2021. Climate change 2021: the physical science basis. Summary for policymakers. IPCC, Switzerland (Accessed on: Jan 21, 2022) at:. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf.

Leitsätze, 2010. zum Urteil des Ersten Senats vom 24. November 2010. (Accessed on: January 20, 2022) at:. https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/2010/11/fs20101124_1bvf000205.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1.

Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC), 2022. That’s how fast the carbon clock is ticking. MCC (Accessed on: January 20, 2022) at:. https://www.mcc-berlin.net/en/research/co2-budget.html.

Setzer/Bangalore, 2017 Regulating climate change in the courts. In: Averchenkova/Fankhauser/Nachmany (Eds.), Trends in climate change litigation. UK, pp. 175-192.

Talmon, S., 2021. The Federal Constitutional Court’s Climate Change Order and the interplay between international and domestic climate protection law. Germany Practice in International Law, Germany (Accessed on: January 20, 2022) at:. https://gpil.jura.uni-bonn.de/2021/05/the-federal-constitutional-courts-climate-change-order-and-the-interplay-between-international-and-domestic-climate-protection-law/.

United Nations, 2022. The Paris Agreement. United Nations (Accessed on: January 20, 2022) at:. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement.

Urgenda, 2022. Landmark decision by Dutch Supreme Court. Urgenda (Accessed on: January, 2022) at:. https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-case/.

U.S. Department of Justice, 2007. Massachusetts V. EPA, 549 U.S. 497. U.S. Department of Justice, Massachusetts (Accessed on: January 18, 2022) at:. https://www.justice.gov/enrd/massachusetts-v-epa.