After Switzerland Comes Austria
The KlimaSeniorinnen judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has been the subject of intense debate for several weeks. One focus was on the question of standing, i.e., who can bring a lawsuit connected to climate change and human rights before the ECtHR. However, less attention has been paid to the question of the impact of the judgment on currently pending climate change cases before the ECtHR. This blog post sheds light on “climate change case number four”, a case against Austria primarily challenging the shortcomings of the Austrian Climate Protection Act.
Continue reading >>
A Taxonomy of Standing
On June 21, the General Court handed down its order in T-628/22 René Repasi v the European Commission. Repasi had challenged the validity of the Commission Delegated Regulation 2022/1214, a complementary taxonomy regulation on nuclear energy and natural gas. The General Court dismissed the action due to lack of standing. To surmount the notoriously strict standing requirements before the CJEU, Repasi relied on his position as a Member of Parliament (MEP) and argued that a claim of a wrong choice of the legal basis that leads to deviation from the ordinary legislative procedure (OLP) gives an MEP standing before the EU courts. The difficulties that MEPs encounter while fulfilling their legislative responsibilities make Repasi’s argument appealing. However, creating a new semi-privileged standing category through the Union courts could also present its own set of difficulties. Continue reading >>
Climate Change Litigation Before the ECtHR
Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland is the first case of climate change litigation before the ECtHR where all domestic remedies have been exhausted. The Chamber to which the case had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber. This reinforces the potential of the case to become a landmark ruling determining the Court’s approach to climate change.
Continue reading >>