Case Law Database
Neubauer et al v Germany (Klimashutz)
| Date of Application: | Thu, 06 Feb 2020 |
|---|---|
| Date of Decision: | Wed, 24 Mar 2021 |
| Decision Making Body: | Federal Constitutional Court, Germany |
| Law Applied: | Constitution of Germany EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Federal Climate Protection Act, Germany |
| Keywords: | Right to life & physical integrity, Right to dignity, Right to freedom of occupation & guarantee of property, Duty of the state, Future generations, Intergenerational equity |
Neubauer et al v Germany
(24 March 2021) 1 BvR 96/20
At Issue: Youth argued that Germany's GHG reduction goals violated human rights.
Summary: In February 2020, a group of German youth filed a legal challenge to Germany's Federal Climate Protection Act (“Bundesklimaschutzgesetz” or “KSG”) in the Federal Constitutional Court, arguing that the KSG's target of reducing GHGs by 55% until 2030 from 1990 levels was insufficient. The complainants alleged that the KSG therefore violated their human rights as protected by the Basic Law, Germany's constitution.
The complainants alleged that the KSG's 2030 target did not take into account Germany's and the EU's obligation under the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rise to "well below 2 degrees Celsius." The complainants argued that in order to "do its part" to achieve the Paris Agreement targets, Germany would need to reduce GHGs by 70% from 1990 levels by 2030. Their claims mainly arose out of alleged violations of the fundamental right to a future consistent with human dignity enshrined in Article 1 (1), and the fundamental right to life and physical integrity enshrined in Article 2 (2) of the Basic Law, both in conjunction with Article 20a of the Basic Law, which binds the political process to protect the natural foundations of life in responsibility for future generations. Complainants argued that by requiring insufficient short and medium term GHG reductions and allowing for the transfer of emission allocations between Germany and other EU Member States, despite the inadequacy of the overall EU emissions reduction target, the KSG allowed for climate impacts that violate their fundamental rights.
The complainants asked the Federal Constitutional Court to declare that the German legislature violated the Basic Law by only requiring a 55% reduction in GHGs from 1990 levels by 2030 and to declare that the legislature was required to issue new reduction quotas to ensure that Germany's emissions are kept as low as possible, taking into account the principle of proportionality.
Three other groups of claimants filed simultaneous constitutional complaints targeting the government’s climate protection measures: (i) BUND (Friends of the Earth Germany) and the Association of Solar Supporters and Others in November 2018; (ii) Yi Yi Prue and other individuals from Bangladesh and Nepal in January 2020; (iii) Steinmetz and other individual German youths in January 2020. The Constitutional Court decided jointly on these complaints.
On April 29, 2021, the Federal Constitutional Court published its decision striking down parts of the KSG as incompatible with fundamental rights for failing to set sufficient provisions for emission cuts beyond 2030. The Court found that Article 20a of the Basic Law not only obliges the legislature to protect the climate and aim towards achieving climate neutrality, but “also concerns how environmental burdens are spread out between different generations”. For the first time in its jurisprudence, the Court stated that “the fundamental rights - as intertemporal guarantees of freedom - afford protection against the greenhouse gas reduction burdens imposed by Art. 20a of the Basic Law being unilaterally offloaded onto the future”. It further stated that the KSG’s emission provisions in question constituted an “advance interference-like effect”, which possibly violates the complainants’ fundamental rights and thus renders the complaints admissible.
Accepting arguments that the legislature must follow a carbon budget approach to limit warming to well below 2°C and, if possible, to 1.5°C, the Court found that legislature had not proportionally distributed the budget between current and future generations, writing "one generation must not be allowed to consume large portions of the CO2 budget while bearing a relatively minor share of the reduction effort, if this would involve leaving subsequent generations with a drastic reduction burden and expose their lives to serious losses of freedom”. The Court also noted that the fact that “no state can resolve the problems of climate change on its own (…) does not invalidate the national obligation to take climate action.”
The Court ordered the legislature to set clear provisions for reduction targets from 2031 onward by the end of 2022. In response to the decision, the federal lawmakers passed a bill approving an adapted KSG that requires, at a minimum, reduction of 65% in GHGs from 1990 levels by 2030. It has been in effect since August 31, 2021.
Neubauer, et al. v. Germany - Climate Change Litigation (climatecasechart.com)
Summary provided courtesy of the Sabin Centre
Court documents:
Complaint - unofficial English translation
Order - unofficial English translation
Related CRC articles
- 2. Right to non-discrimination (CRC Article 2)
- 6. Right to life, survival and development (CRC Article 6)
- 19. Right to protection from violence, abuse and neglect (CRC Article 19)
- 24. Right to health, healthcare, and a healthy environment (CRC Article 24)
- 27. Right to an adequate standard of living (CRC Article 27)
The applicants allege that the following rights have been violated:
The basic right of human dignity, life and physical integrity (Article 1, Article 2.2 sentence 1 of the Basic Law (TN: in German “Grundgesetz”), each in conjunction with Article 20a of the Basic Law), of freedom of occupation and of the guarantee of property (Article 12.1 and Article 14.1 sentence 1 of the Basic Law), as well as the violation of these basic rights in conjunction with Article 20.3 of the Basic Law with regard to Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR are submitted.
The court’s order includes:
“The state’s duty of protection arising from Art. 2(2) first sentence of the Basic Law also encompasses the duty to protect life and health against the risks posed by climate change. It can furthermore give rise to an objective duty to protect future generations.”
Involvement of children in hearings
- Written presentation
The children and youth were the complainants in the case. The complainants and their circumstances are detailed in the application but are not personal accounts.
Intergenerational rights
The applicants refer to climate damage as “intergenerational damage”.
They rely on the principle of intergenerational justice (Article 20a of the Basic Law).
The complainants say that older generations have exhausted certain climate sinks, which will no longer be available to future generations.
The court says: “Under certain conditions, the Basic Law imposes an obligation to safeguard fundamental freedom over time and to spread the opportunities associated with freedom proportionately across generations.”
Future generations
The complainants argue that the state has a duty to protect natural foundations of life in responsibility for future generations.
The court finds that the state has a duty of protection (arising from section 2), including an objective duty to protect future generations (order par 1).
The protection mandate laid down in Art. 20a of the Basic Law encompasses the necessity to treat the natural foundations of life with such care and to leave them in such condition that future generations who wish to carry on preserving these foundations are not forced to engage in radical abstinence (order par 4).
Outcome of decision for the applicants
- Relief sought by applicants PARTIALLY granted
Although some of the applicants’ constitutional complaints were rejected, the court finds that sections of the Federal Climate Change Act are incompatible with fundamental rights insofar as they lack provisions on the updating of reduction targets for periods from 2031 that satisfy the constitutional requirements.
The respondents are ordered to amend the law.
Did outcome of decision develop the law
- Yes
The court finds that the state's duty to protect rights arise before a violation takes place, laying the basis for a right to a dignified and life sustaining future.
The court makes the important point that the fact that Germany cannot prevent / mitigate climate change alone does not release it from its duty to play its part.
The court says that the obligation to protect from environmental harms can ‘give rise to an objective duty to protect future generations’.
The court recognises the states duty to ensure intergenerational equity.
Involvement of NGO/law firm in application
Legal representatives
Wollenteit Rechtsanwälte Günther in Hamburg (Germany)
Kanzlei Baumann Rechtsanälte (Germany)
Geulen & Klinger Rechtsanwälte (Germany)
NGOs involved
Friends of the Earth (BUND) (The Netherlands)
Available information on how children got involved in the litigation
Age range of litigants
- 13-17
- 18-25
Number of children or youth involved
9