The Czech Climate Case: Uncertainty after the Case’s Dismissal

On November 26, 2024, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic dismissed the country’s first strategic climate case (Klimatická žaloba ČR v. Czech Republic), finding that the European Union (EU)’s commitment to reduce emissions by 55 percent by 2030 is a collective obligation, not an individual one for Czechia. In the EU Member States, cases referring to the 55% target have appeared also in Spain and Belgium. The plaintiffs, partially successful in the first instance court (see here), have already filed a constitutional complaint with the Czech Constitutional Court. Meanwhile, the process of updating the Czech Climate Protection Policy, the main national document regarding climate protection, was halted due to this year’s elections. This blog post discusses the case and its implications for future climate litigation and policy in Czechia.

History of the Case

Background to the Claim

In April 2021, a group of plaintiffs led by the Czech Climate Litigation Association (Klimatická žaloba ČR), and including a municipality and several individuals, filed a case against the central government of the Czech Republic and four subsidiary ministries for their inaction on climate change. The plaintiffs claimed unlawful interference under the Code of Administrative Justice, given that the government had failed to take mitigation and adaptation measures as required under the Paris Agreement, resulting in harm to the plaintiffs’ human rights. These rights include the constitutional right to a favorable environment, the right to local self-government, the right to property, the right to carry out economic activity, the right to health protection, and the right to private and family life. The plaintiffs demanded that the government adopt necessary and reasonable measures within six months for both climate change mitigation and adaptation and to ensure that the specific climate budget calculated for the Czech Republic by experts from Tyndall Center (800 Mt CO2 from January 2021 until the end of the century) is not exceeded.

Decision of Prague Municipal Court in 2022

On June 15, 2022, the Prague Municipal Court upheld the mitigation claims against four ministries, but dismissed the claims against the government, as well as the claims regarding adaptation (see full analysis in a blog post from October 2022). In summary, the Court ordered the Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Industry and Trade, Ministry of Agriculture, and Ministry of Transport to take specific measures to achieve a 55 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s request for the establishment of a carbon budget based on the Tyndall Center estimates. Instead, the Court derived Czechia’s obligation from the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) of the European Union (EU’s NDC).

The Court highlighted that global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions adversely affects the climatic conditions necessary for human life, thereby interfering with the right to a favorable environment, as guaranteed by Article 35(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Czech Republic. The Court further ruled that the State is obliged to adopt climate change measures arising from international law and generally accepted scientific standards. The Court interpreted the Paris Agreement as imposing an obligation to implement mitigation measures to achieve the NDCs. It thus considered the EU’s NDC, which commits the EU and its Member States (including Czechia) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 percent by 2030, compared to 1990 levels. The Court viewed this obligation as also an individual obligation for each Member State, based on the need for effective monitoring of compliance with the Paris Agreement. Moreover, this obligation was deemed specific enough to be directly applicable and subject to judicial review. The Court thus examined whether the Czech Republic was complying with this obligation.

The Court noted that the 2021 Assessment of the Climate Protection Policy in the Czech Republic (POK Assessment), issued by the Ministry of Environment, indicated that existing measures would only lead to a 45.1 percent reduction by 2030. To meet the 55 percent target, additional greenhouse gas reduction measures were necessary. The POK Assessment also noted that 29 percent of the existing measures were not properly implemented. Consequently, the Court found that the defendants had been in default since December 18, 2020, when the UNFCCC Secretariat received an updated EU NDC. Both parties appealed against this judgement.

First Dismissal by the Supreme Administrative Court

In February 2023, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic overturned the Prague Municipal Court’s decision and returned the case for further proceedings. The main reason was the collective nature of the EU NDC. The Court noted that interpreting the EU climate target as an individual obligation that each Member State must meet would contradict the cooperative spirit of EU climate action, as EU Member States decided to act jointly under Article 4 of the Paris Agreement. Additionally, national targets under the Effort Sharing Regulation were still under negotiation and, according to the Court, a court intervention could limit the State’s necessary maneuvering space.

The Supreme Administrative Court clarified that the illegality of the State’s climate action could be based on four grounds: (i) obligations under international and EU law, (ii) a climate act, (iii) human rights obligations, and (iv) sectoral legislation at national and EU levels related to climate change. The Court dismissed the claim, stating there were no specific international obligations no climate act in Czechia, and no violation of core human rights obligations. However, it left open the possibility for a claim based on sectoral legislation. Since the plaintiffs had not based their lawsuit on a violation of sectoral legislation, the Court did not analyze this point. The Court instructed the Prague Municipal Court (first instance court) to determine whether the plaintiffs’ claims  were specific enough to assess possible illegality under sectoral legislation. If not, the plaintiffs should be asked to specify their claims in further proceedings. Consequently, the case was returned to the first instance court.

Second Decision of the Prague Municipal Court

The Prague Municipal Court, bound by the opinion of the Supreme Administrative Court, dismissed the case in October 2023. The primary reason for dismissal was that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently elaborated, in the Court’s view, how their fundamental rights were violated by not meeting the climate targets set in EU sectoral legislation.

Second Dismissal by the Supreme Administrative Court in November 2024

The plaintiffs appealed again to the Supreme Administrative Court, which adjourned the case until the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) climate rulings in April 2024. Subsequently, in November 2024, the Court reaffirmed its restrictive stance and dismissed the case again. The Court maintained its interpretation of Czechia’s climate obligations, confirming that the EU’s NDC to reduce emissions by 55 percent by 2030 is a collective, and not an individual, obligation (although the preliminary ruling procedure of Art. 267 TFEU was not commenced). The preliminary ruling procedure under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union allows courts of EU member states to submit certain questions regarding the interpretation and validity of EU law to the European Court of Justice. There are a few exceptions to the general obligation for national courts of last instance. The Court also endorsed that Czechia is not required to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions according to the plaintiffs’ proposed carbon budget based on the Tyndall Center estimates, concluding that unlawfulness must be based on a conflict of laws, not scientific studies.

The Court found no binding legal provision quantifying Czechia’s climate reduction obligations, except for the EU Effort Sharing Regulation, which mandates a 26 percent emission reduction by 2030 (relative to 2005 levels). However, the Court noted that nothing prevents Czechia from setting more ambitious climate goals. While referring to KlimaSeniorinnen (the first case of strategic climate litigation in which the European Court of Human Rights confirmed a violation of fundamental rights under the European Convention on Human Rights), the Court suggested that Czechia has two general obligations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights above the obligations arising from the Paris Agreement and EU law. First, the obligation to respond to national specificities regarding adaptation and mitigation (i.e., reduction of the production of electricity from coal), and second, the obligation to make every effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions beyond the obligations under EU law, depending on the objective national possibilities.

In that sense, the Ministry of the Environment mentioned a draft Updated Climate Protection Policy aiming for a 55 percent emission reduction by 2030. While the Court acknowledged its relevance, it noted it was still in draft form, and had been watered down during development (for example, the objective of climate neutrality was replaced by “aiming for climate neutrality”). The Court concluded that the EU policy framework and the government’s current activities and plans were sufficient for Czechia to meet its climate obligations, even considering the ECtHR’s interpretation of Article 8 of the ECHR in the KlimaSeniorinnen judgment (specifically its para. 550). However, it warned that delays and lowered targets in the updated Climate Protection Policy put the ministries “on the edge” of legality.

Thoughts on the Future of Climate Litigation and Climate Policy in Czechia

The plaintiffs filed a constitutional complaint alleging the infringement of their human rights on February 5, 2025. Meanwhile, the process of updating the Czech Climate Protection Policy – the main national document on climate protection whose importance was highlighted by the Supreme Administrative Court – was halted due to this year’s elections. Moreover, although the updated national energy and climate plan was finally approved (as required by the EU law), the Czech Republic still lacks a framework climate law that could, for example, set climate obligations for municipalities and regions. For example, in In re Václav Havel Airport Expansion, the Prague Regional Court ruled that a local self-governing authority is not bound to fulfill the State’s obligation under the Paris Agreement unless governed by national law. This shows that national legislation is fundamental. At the same time, the climate movement in the Czech Republic is under pressure from both political actors and private companies, including several SLAPP suits, one of which resulted in a court ordering protesters who attempted to block a coal mine to pay damages to the coal mining company.