The EU General Court rejects two NGOs’ attempt to indirectly challenge the 2030 climate target

Global Legal Action Network and CAN-Europe argued that the European 2030 emissions reduction targets are insufficient for the 1.5°C objective. The Court ruled that they cannot be reopened by challenging the act through which the Commission calculates the Member States’ annual emissions allocations. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action by which two environmental organisations sought to obtain a review of the Member States’ annual emissions allocations, arguing that they are based on climate targets that are insufficiently ambitious to limit global warming to 1.5°C. The Court held that such a procedure cannot be used to require the European Commission to indirectly amend climate objectives established by the European Parliament and the Council through legislation. In brief Global Legal Action Network and CAN-Europe challenged the Commission’s refusal to review the decision establishing the Member States’ annual emissions allocations for the period 2023–2030. The NGOs argued that the EU target of reducing net emissions by at least 55% by 2030 compared with 1990 and the 40% target for sectors covered by the Effort Sharing Regulation are insufficient in light of the Paris Agreement. The General Court held that these objectives are legislative choices adopted by Parliament and the Council, and that the Commission cannot amend them when calculating annual allocations through an implementing act. The Court identified two errors of law in the reasoning used by the Commission to reject certain arguments, including concerning the scope of the concept of “environmental law”, but found that another legal ground was sufficient to uphold the decision. The action was dismissed in its entirety. The General Court’s judgment may be appealed to the Court of Justice only on points of law. The dispute concerns how the European climate objectives for 2030 are translated into annual limits for the Member States. The European Climate Law establishes, for the EU economy as a whole, a binding net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of at least 55% by 2030 compared with 1990 levels, with a view to achieving climate neutrality by 2050. For sectors covered by the Effort Sharing Regulation, such as road transport, buildings, agriculture, waste and other activities outside the current main emissions trading system, the legislation separately provides for an EU-wide reduction of 40% in 2030 compared with 2005. Parliament and the Council raised this target in 2023 as part of the legislative package intended to implement the overall target of at least 55%. The Commission must then convert the legislative framework into annual allocations expressed in tonnes of CO₂ equivalent for each Member State. In June 2023, it adopted the decision establishing the new allocations for the period 2023–2025 and the pathway required through to 2030. Global Legal Action Network, an organisation based in Ireland, and Climate Action Network Europe, based in Brussels, asked the Commission in August 2023 for an internal review of this decision under the Aarhus Regulation, a mechanism that allows organisations and certain members of the public to request the review of administrative acts of EU institutions if those acts allegedly contravene environmental law. The NGOs’ argument went beyond the concrete calculation of the allocations. They argued that the overall target of at least 55% by 2030 had been established on the basis of an insufficient assessment and that the EU should have pursued greater reductions, including 60% or 65% compared with 1990, in order to contribute adequately to the Paris Agreement objective of limiting the rise in global temperature to 1.5°C. The organisations also criticised the impact assessment carried out by the Commission in 2020, before the proposal that led to the adoption of the 55% target. The arguments presented included the assessment of the global reductions required, the EU’s fair contribution, the feasibility of greater domestic reductions and the effects of climate change on fundamental rights. The Commission refused the review, explaining mainly that, when establishing the annual allocations, it did not have the political discretion to choose a different climate target. The levels of ambition had already been set by Parliament and the Council, and the Commission’s task was to apply them using the formula provided for by the legislation. The General Court confirmed this division of powers. Implementing acts may specify how legislation is applied uniformly, but they may not amend or supplement the essential choices made by the legislature. In the case of the emissions allocations, the Commission was required to use the targets established by the European Climate Law and the Effort Sharing Regulation. If it had used a different target on the grounds that the 55% level was insufficient in light of the Paris Agreement or other environmental rules, the Commission would have exceeded its implementing powers and interfered with a legislative choice belonging to Parliament and the Council. The same principle also limits what the Commission may do when it receives a request for an internal review. The General Court held that the Aarhus mechanism does not allow the Commission to use the examination of an administrative act to reopen the legislation that act is required to apply. Such a possibility would affect the division of powers between the EU institutions and legal certainty. The Court emphasised that the overall 55% target and the 40% objective for Effort Sharing sectors were established through legislative acts adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure. Those acts themselves cannot be subject to the internal review procedure provided for non-legislative administrative acts. The judgment does not determine whether the European 55% target is scientifically sufficient to limit warming to 1.5°C, nor whether a target of 60% or 65% would have been more appropriate. The General Court resolved the issue of the powers and procedure through which the NGOs sought to obtain a review of the level of ambition. However, the Court did not fully endorse the legal reasoning initially used by the Commission. On one point, the General Court held that the institution was wrong to consider that the mere fact that the 2020 impact assessment produced no external legal effects prevented any shortcomings in it from being relied upon in an action against the final act. Defects in a preparatory document may, under certain conditions, be invoked when the definitive act based on it is challenged. The General Court found a second error when the Commission treated the Effort Sharing Regulation as the only relevant “environmental law” for examining the legality of its decision. The concept in the Aarhus Regulation must be interpreted broadly and may also encompass other EU rules that contribute to the objectives of environmental policy. These findings did not, however, change the outcome of the proceedings. The 2020 impact assessment had been carried out as part of the process that led to the legislative proposal to raise the climate target, and the General Court considered that its link to the legislative process provided a separate and lawful reason why the arguments in question could not be used in this review procedure. The General Court therefore concluded that the arguments formally presented against the annual allocations did not identify independent shortcomings in the way the Commission had carried out the calculation. In essence, they amounted to a challenge to the legislative targets for 2030 and to the assessment that preceded their adoption. The action was dismissed in full. However, because the General Court found errors of law in some of the grounds relied upon by the Commission, the applicant organisations were ordered to bear their own costs and only one third of the Commission’s costs, rather than being ordered to pay them in full. The General Court’s judgment is not necessarily the final stage of the dispute. An appeal may be brought before the Court of Justice within the prescribed period, but it is limited to points of law and does not constitute a fresh full examination of the facts of the case.

https://2eu.brussels/ro/news/tribunalul-ue-respinge-incercarea-a-doua-ong-uri-de-a-contesta-indirect-tinta-climatica-pentru-2030