Green activists seek to force revision of EU’s climate targets

Backers of EU court challenge are emboldened by a recent legal finding that suggests failing to effectively tackle climate change violates human rights

The European Commission may have acted unlawfully when it refused to consider a greenhouse gas emissions cut of more than 55% by 2030, environmental activists  have argued as they pursue a complex legal case through the EU courts.
“The European Court of Human Rights made clear in April that states are obliged to adopt science-based emissions targets consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C,” a senior lawyer with the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), Gerry Liston, said today.
Liston was referring to a ruling by the Strasbourg-based court which found that insufficient government action to mitigate climate change violates fundamental human rights, in a case brought by a group of elderly Swiss women.
GLAN, with the NGO umbrella group Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe,  requested an internal review of national emissions allocations based on the 55% target last August  – an essential first legal step, as civil society groups do not have direct access to the EU courts in Luxembourg.
The 2030 target, which seeks to reduce greenhouse gases compared to 1990 levels, is enshrined in the EU’s Climate Law, part of a wider Green Deal goal of cutting emissions to net-zero by 2050.
But  the 55% goal is legally binding only at European level, leaving the Commission to set indicative individual national targets for each member state.
It is this administrative act that the NGOs are challenging, a move made possible by recent EU legislation implementing the United Nations’ Aarhus Convention on access to environmental justice.
They argue by extension that the 55% target is legally flawed, not least because the Commission refused to model the effects of a more ambitious cut in the impact assessment it conducted before proposing the climate law in 2020.
Environmental groups in Brussels pushed at the time, and continue to push, for a target of at least 65%, which means roughly halving net emissions from current levels across the 27-member bloc within the next six years.
The Commission deemed the administrative challenge unfounded, prompting the groups to turn to the EU’s General Court in February. Three months later, the president of the court granted the challenge priority over other cases – a move the NGOs see as recognition of the urgency of climate action.
“We have to use all available channels to push the European Commission to bring the EU’s climate ambition on track with its fair share for the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement,” said CAN Europe’s head of climate Sven Harmeling, referring to the global deal intended to curb climate change.
The European Commission called last month for the court to dismiss the case and order the NGOs to cover all costs. The EU executive argues the case targets not just the administrative acts, but the 2030 target itself, which is fixed in EU legislation and so falls outside the scope of the Aarhus Regulation.
The outcome of the case will depend on how the EU court interprets this legal distinction, and could set a precedent for future challenges to EU environmental law.
“I think that our chances to win are realistic, otherwise we wouldn’t have pursued this case,” said Romain Didi, climate governance and human rights policy coordinator at CAN Europe.
“What we are hoping to get with this case is the first ever climate ruling from an EU court that would say that there is actually a legal obligation for the EU to do much more than it is currently doing, and to rapidly reduce its emissions,” Didi told Euronews.
The civil society groups have just submitted final arguments to the General Court, and the Commission is due to send its written response next month. After that, the case will move to a public hearing, with the NGOs hoping for a ruling some time next year.
“The commission explicitly refused to assess whether greater than 55% reductions were feasible, and we say that this is clearly unlawful,” Liston said.
Because of a parallel requirement to increase carbon capture from European forests, the Commission says the 2030 target is a de facto 57% cut in net greenhouse gases. The climate law also requires the EU executive to propose an interim target for 2040, with President Ursula von der Leyen having committed to the 90% minimum recommended by an independent panel of climate scientists.
The European Commission said it could not comment on an ongoing legal case.