It was the first major climate trial in Spain. The lawsuit presented in 2020 by environmental groups demanded that the Spanish Government increase the cut in greenhouse gas emissions contemplated in the Integrated Energy and Climate Plan (PNIEC). Greenpeace, Ecologistas en Acción, and Oxfam Intermón accused the Executive of not doing enough to comply with the commitments made in the Paris Agreement and, therefore, of failing to protect citizens from the consequences of climate change. The Supreme Court rejected this request in 2023, in a ruling that was appealed by these groups – plus Fridays For Future and La Coordinadora de Organizaciones para el Desarrollo – and that has been admitted by the Constitutional Court.
“It does not seem that the decision of the Spanish Administration, in the legitimate exercise of directing the national and international policy conferred upon it by the Constitution, can be described as arbitrary, quite the contrary,” the third chamber of the Supreme Court ruled. Now the Constitutional Court must rule on whether the Supreme Court ruling violated any fundamental right; In short, if climate change affects fundamental rights.
The background
The organizations went to court in September 2020 for what they considered “inactivity of the Administration” as this plan had not been completed within the deadline provided by the European Union. Then, after the publication of the document in March 2021, the same organizations appealed its content on the grounds that it “fails to meet the emissions reduction objectives contemplated in the Paris Agreement.” More specifically: the PNIEC establishes that, by 2030, greenhouse gas emissions must have fallen by 23% in Spain and what was requested in the lawsuit is that they reach 55%.
This action incorporated Spain into the list of environmental litigation such as those posed to Germany, France, New Zealand or Canada and came nine months after the environmental movement obtained a great judicial victory in Holland. In December 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court established that the Government of the central European country must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 23%. It was a milestone.
The Supreme Court refused twice, once in June and another in September 2021, to close the first process as the State Attorney’s Office had requested. But finally, in June 2023, the Supreme Court ended up rejecting the lawsuit promoted by environmental organizations who understood that the climate strategy of the Spanish authorities did not sufficiently protect the environment against the effects of climate change.
The judges then understood that the National Integrated Energy and Climate Plan – which contemplated measures and objectives from 2021 to 2030 – meant “integrating into the commitment assumed by the European Union” and ruled out, as the environmentalists requested, forcing the Executive to toughen its terms.
The environmental groups appealed the sentence for “violation of human rights,” understanding that the Supreme Court “ignores science and international agreements” in addition to “unprotecting citizens.” This is the appeal that has now been admitted by the Constitutional Court, which will have the last word on this lawsuit.
The case of Switzerland
Last March, in a historic ruling, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) considered that Switzerland has violated the human rights of a group of women because “critical gaps” have been found in the country’s policies against climate change. The Verein KlimaSeniorinnen association, made up of older women – many are over 75 years old – sued Switzerland, arguing the consequences for their health of “increasingly frequent and intense” heat waves. European judges considered that the country failed to comply with its obligations to prevent these people from suffering the effects of global warming. In the ruling, the court concludes that there has been a violation of the right to respect for private and family life and access to the courts, enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.
“This ruling is a milestone in the fight for a livable climate for all. And the verdict is a satisfaction. After the Swiss courts did not listen to us, the ECtHR has confirmed it: climate protection is a human right,” Anne Mahrer, co-president of KlimaSeniorinnen, welcomed at the time.
At the beginning of this month, the largest climate case began at the International Court of Justice, promoted by 98 countries and 12 social organizations that have appeared in The Hague to request that legal limits be established to combat the climate emergency. The UN decided to unanimously ask the court to issue an opinion on the obligations of States with respect to climate change. The resolution will take a few months, and although it will not be binding, it will have relevance from a political point of view because it will indicate the responsibility of the Governments in their commitment to tackle the effects of global warming with policies. In recent years, the number of climate causes has doubled worldwide.
#Constitutional #Court #rule #largest #climate #lawsuit #Spain
