The EU is accused of failing to set ambitious climate targets in sectors that account for more than half of the bloc's total greenhouse gas emissions.
The European Climate Action Network (CAN) and the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) argue that climate targets set for agriculture, waste, transport and small and medium-sized enterprises by the end of the decade in the 27 EU member states are not based on the best science and are therefore “grossly inadequate”.
The case was formally filed with the Court of Justice of the European Union earlier this year and has been dealt with quickly, with the NGOs submitting their final written submissions in August ahead of oral hearings scheduled for 2025.
The case concerns annual emissions limits for member states set by the European Commission under effort-sharing rules, a key pillar of EU climate policy, which are scaled back each year. These sectors are not included in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and account for 57% of the EU's total greenhouse gas emissions.
The goal has become tougher Last year, the EU raised its emissions reduction target by 2030 to 55% below 1990 levels. NGOs believe this revision is not ambitious enough to comply with EU treaties, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Paris Agreement.
They say the EU should have assessed whether its targets were consistent with the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels — exceeding that target would see the worst long-term impacts of climate change — and whether the EU was doing its fair share against global standards and whether it was feasible to go further.
They also challenged the impact assessment of the regulation, arguing that it should have investigated how the regulation would affect fundamental rights such as the right to life and the right to environmental protection.
Last year, NGOs asked the committee to reassess the target, which called for a 40% reduction in emissions by the end of the decade. The committee rejected the request, calling the claims unfounded. The committee said it had analysed the impact of the regulation on relevant fundamental rights and argued that there was no need for a scientific assessment.
Gerry Liston, senior lawyer at GLAN, said: “Countries are obliged to adopt science-based emissions targets that are consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees. We have made clear that the EU's 2030 target is not derived from the best available climate science, but the European Commission has not disputed this in its defence of our case. Instead, the Commission has sought to dismiss the case on a purely technical basis.”
CAN Europe has coordinated previous lawsuits against the EU's climate targets but they were unsuccessful. Recent legal changes have made it possible to bring such lawsuits more directly, but there is no legal avenue to challenge the EU's broader 55 percent target, which the group also considers insufficient.
Sven Harmeling, CAN Europe's head of climate, said: “We must do everything we can to encourage the European Commission to keep the EU's climate goals on track, making its proportionate contribution to the 1.5°C target of the Paris Agreement. If the EU wants to be a credible actor, it needs to accelerate emissions reductions and achieve at least a 65% reduction by 2030. The accelerating expansion of renewable energies in many countries and the associated reduction in costs are giving new impetus to this.”
NGOs hope their case will be strengthened by a landmark ruling in April from the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled that Switzerland's failure to do enough to reduce the country's greenhouse gas emissions is a clear violation of the human rights of a group of more than 2,000 elderly Swiss women.
The Commission has been permitted to submit one further written response and is invited to comment.