First Czech lawsuit against the state over climate protection in the works

The Climate Lawsuit association, founded last year, announced in a press release issued last week that it intends to sue the Czech government, following the example of climate lawsuits abroad. According to the association's members, the government is not doing enough to address climate change.

The association decided to take this step due to a “lack of other effective means of redress”. If successful, the court should order the state to do more on climate change. The lawsuit is to be filed as early as this autumn with the Prague Municipal Court.

Rising temperatures and state inaction

The association argues that, according to the 2018 Environmental Report, Czechia's per-capita greenhouse gas emissions are above the EU average, by as much as 47% overall. According to the report, 2018 was also exceptionally warm in Czechia, with an average annual air temperature of 9.6 °C, 1.7 °C above the 1981–2010 norm. Czechia also suffered from severe drought and a substantial decline in soil water reserves.

The association's members point out that, under the Paris Agreement, Czechia committed together with the entire EU to cut emissions by at least 40% by 2030 compared with 1990. However, it has so far done nothing in this regard. According to the association, the government is also breaching Article 7 of the Czech Constitution, under which the state must ensure the prudent use of natural resources and the protection of natural wealth.

Mixed reactions

The association's press release prompted mixed reactions. According to some, it is not the role of the courts to tell the state how to carry out its policies. Hana Müllerová, a lawyer at the Institute of State and Law of the Czech Academy of Sciences, argues instead that the right to turn to a court to protect one's rights is one of the fundamental attributes of a state governed by the rule of law. As the head of the Public Law Department points out, citizens may also seek protection before the courts in cases of unlawful state inaction. A court may also rule on whether the government has breached individuals' rights arising from international treaties.

The lawyer also notes that such decision-making does not conflict with the principle of the separation of powers, as some had suggested in connection with the press release. For example, in the Dutch Urgenda case, the court ruled that the government should increase its emissions-reduction target, but did not order it how specifically to achieve this. That would have conflicted with the principle of the separation of powers.

Climate lawsuits are nothing new abroad

Climate lawsuits are no longer anything new abroad. The most attention has been drawn by the aforementioned Dutch Urgenda case, which ended in success for the claimant and a Supreme Court ruling requiring the Dutch government to adopt additional climate-protection measures. Specifically, the court ruled that the state must cut emissions by 25% by the end of this decade, raising its original target by 8 percentage points.

Norway has also faced a lawsuit, while an Austrian administrative court addressed climate issues in a case concerning the expansion of Vienna Airport. The Austrian court explicitly established a public interest in climate protection.