germany

Inspired by the Juliana v. United States plaintiffs, a group of young Germans challenged Germany’s Federal Climate Protection Act in the German Federal Constitutional Court on February 6, 2020. They alleged that this law set insufficient greenhouse (GHG) emissions reduction targets that failed to protect their human rights to human dignity, life, physical integrity, freedom of occupation and guarantee of property as protected by the German Constitution. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief that the law’s inadequate targets were unconstitutional and that the legislature must both set new targets that are compatible with their constitutional rights and establish regulatory reforms prohibiting emissions allocation trading.

This case is similar to Juliana in that it challenges the government’s failure to uphold the plaintiffs’ fundamental rights but it is unlike Juliana in that it challenges statutory GHG emissions reduction targets rather than systemic government actions and inactions that perpetuate climate change. In addition, the plaintiffs in this case tied the protection of their fundamental rights to politically derived targets under the Paris Agreement rather than emission reductions the best available science tells us are necessary to avoid catastrophic impacts on young people.

On March 24, 2021, the court ruled that courts have a duty to decide constitutional climate change cases, regardless of how many people are harmed by the government’s conduct in causing climate change. The court also found that the high levels of GHG emissions Germany authorized through 2030 violate the fundamental rights of future generations. The lack of specificity as to how GHG emissions will be reduced from 2031 onwards denied future generations their fundamental rights and freedoms. Importantly, the court affirmed the principle that climate protection is a human right that can be enforced and protected by the courts.