Here, @lucysmaxwell and I identify some of the positive findings relevant for other climate cases.
Judgment link below😊
🧵
2/10 STANDING✔️ Despite widespread and future impacts of CC, all plaintiffs had standing inc 2 associations [164]; a municipality [166] & individuals [198].
3/10 #R2HE 🌍✔️defined as the right ‘to live in climatic conditions allowing the undisturbed exercise of life's human needs’ [213]. Despite (again) uncertainty re precise and future impacts, Ct recognised interference citing precautionary principle [223].
4/10 DUTY ✔️ Ct drew on the #ParisAgreement as an ‘interpretive aid for determining the scope of the obligation imposed on the def by the right to a favourable environment’ [230], which requires the adoption of mitigation measures aimed at achieving NDC objective [248].
5/10 Ct identified Art 4(2) of the Paris Agreement as a ‘due diligence obligation’, which requires taking ‘reasonable steps’ to reduce emissions: ‘the preparation of mitigation measures should be transparent, accurate and complete’ [262]
6/10 EU NDC: Interestingly, Ct found EU NDC *individually* binding on Czech. How? 'Climate protection at EU level is not without prejudice to protection under the Paris Agreement; the two instruments work side by side and may overlap.' [256]
7/10 BREACH ✔️ Czech is in breach of its Charter duty b/c no 'sufficiently specific and realistic plan of concrete mitigation measures that will lead to a ... GHG reduction of 55% by 2030, [which] is an immediate obligation' [276].
8/10 CAUSATION✔️ Czech’s ‘failure to act is a partial cause of the current adverse impacts of climate change’ [325]. Rejection (again!) of drop in ocean defence [326].
9/10 TRANSJUDICIAL DIALOGUE✔️ Ct cites @Urgenda, German Family Farmers, and various ECtHR cases – adding to the ongoing rich dialogue b/w Cts (the impetus behind the @WCEL#JudicialHandbook!)