Täisteksti saab lugeda siit.

Täisteksti saab lugeda siit.

Täisteksti saab lugeda siit.

Täisteksti saab lugeda siit.

Täisteksti saab lugeda siit.

Täisteksti saab lugeda siit.

Täisteksti saab lugeda siit.

Täisteksti saab lugeda siit.

Täisteksti saab lugeda siit.

Täisteksti saab lugeda siit.

Täisteksti saab lugeda siit.

Täisteksti saab lugeda siit.

Täisteksti saab lugeda siit.

Täisteksti saab lugeda siit.

Täisteksti saab lugeda siit.

[---] The concept, and intentionally unfamiliar terminology, of ‘contagious lawmaking’ creates a space for both fleshing out, and problematizing, the phenomenon of the dynamic and multi-directional transfer of environmental law ideas. This article sets the stage for further study of the global diffusion of environmental law. It does so by identifying the phenomenon of contagious lawmaking and by making explicit some of the terminological and methodological challenges implicated in its study. The article draws on narratives of the ‘global’ diffusion of environmental impact assessment, cited as ‘the most widely adopted environmental management tool in the world’.

Artikkelissa pohditaan, minkälaisia seurauksia ympäristövaikutuksiin pohjautuvalla sääntelystrategialla on ympäristöoikeuteen ja mitkä ovat sen mahdollisuudet Euroopan vihreän kehityksen ohjelmassa kuvatun kestävyysmurroksen edistämiseen. Väite artikkelissa on, että resipienttiperiaate on nousemassa uudelleen ympäristöoikeuden keskeiseksi periaatteeksi Suomessa. Ympäristön tilan sääntely on vallannut alaa Suomen ympäristölainsäädännössä ja tullut aikaisempaa sitovammaksi erityisesti EU-oikeuden vaikutuksesta. Kirjoittajat katsovat, että tilatavoitteisiin pohjautuva sääntelystrategia edellyttää oikeuden ja luonnontieteiden välisen tiiviin yhteyden tunnistamista, huomion kiinnittämistä toimintojen yhteisvaikutuksiin, ympäristösääntelyn eri skaalojen ymmärrystä ja monipuolisten ohjauskeinojen hyödyntämistä. Jotta kestävyysmurros voitaisiin saavuttaa, tulee ympäristöoikeuden yleisten oppien muuttua ympäristön tilaa painottavaan suuntaan. Resipienttiperiaatteen uudelleenymmärtäminen tarjoaa tähän muutokseen avaimen.

Litigation relating to climate change is on the rise, yet outside the United States few efforts have been made to bring private actions in public nuisance seeking injunctive relief to require a defendant to reduce its emissions. This article examines three key doctrinal challenges facing a plaintiff in a public nuisance action connected to climate change: qualifying as a plaintiff; delineating a defendant class; and dealing with multiple sources of emissions. It argues that the tort of public nuisance has well-developed mechanisms able to solve these challenges in the context of other collective action problems, which can also be deployed in the context of climate change. These challenges facing a plaintiff in a climate changed-based public nuisance case can be overcome without creating new law, enhancing the prospects of a successful claim being brought in a common law jurisdiction.

Die aktuelle Entscheidung des BVerfG zur naturschutzrechtlichen Einschätzungsprärogative ist bereits vieler Orten auf ein mitunter geteiltes Echo gestoßen. Der Verfasser weist im folgenden Beitrag nach, dass das Judikat einen erheblichen Änderungsbedarf auslöst.

This review of significant international environmental law cases covers the period from May 2018 to May 2019. During this period, there were no significant inter-state environmental law cases. Rather, developments in the past year have been driven by claims brought by non-state actors before specialist courts or tribunals, be it individuals bringing human rights claims or companies bringing investment claims. We also see a continuing contribution of national courts to discussions about the international obligations of states to combat climate change.

This review of significant international environmental law cases covers the period from June 2019 to May 2020. In line with the general trend in recent years, the case law during this period has largely been driven by specialist courts and tribunals operating within a particular field of international law, such as international human rights law or international investment law. However, the past year has seen some contributions to the jurisprudence from domestic courts applying international rules and principles, as well as from ad hoc arbitral tribunals constituted for the purpose of settling inter-state disputes.

The world’s attention during 2020 and early 2021 was understandably focused on the global Covid-19 pandemic and finding ways in which to mitigate the terrible toll on human life being wreaked by the disease. As a result, many other international initiatives were put on hold. It is therefore not surprising that there have been relatively few significant developments in international environmental law during this period. [---]

The seriousness of the environmental crises we face are becoming increasingly clear as each year passes. Temperatures are rising, with predictions that the global average temperature is likely to exceed 1.5°C in the next five years. Climate change also compounds existing pressures that we place on the natural environment, leading to additional threats to biodiversity. The situation will only get worse unless transformational change takes place. In this context, a critical question is whether international law is sufficiently nimble to affect such change in time. [---]

This article comments on significant UK environmental law cases for the period 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022. It begins with an overarching introduction focussing on the standard of review in environmental claims in the public law context and drawing attention to tension on the domestic bench on matters of approach. It then addresses a selection of significant cases in the fields of climate change (both inside and outside the environmental impact assessment regime), strategic environmental assessment, habitats, species, discretion under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, representative actions under CPR Rule 19.6, waste, licensing and human rights.

This case law overview comments on significant UK environmental law cases for the period 1 April 2022–31 March 2023. It begins with an overarching introduction, which draws some general themes from our selection of cases, focussing on the scope of environmental law, connections between private and public law disputes, and the standard of review in the public law context. It then addresses 12 significant cases concerning statutory trusts over land under section 164 of the Public Health Act 1875 and section 10 of the Open Spaces Act 1906, public rights on Dartmoor Commons, private nuisance, climate change, insurance, environmental impact assessment, delay in judicial review, forestry, contaminated land, and habitats. It ends with some final thoughts on this year’s cases and the year ahead.

Domestic courts in various countries have begun to scrutinize the political branches’ responses to climate change. A central argument against court interventions pushing an individual state’s climate actions is that the individual state cannot effectively promote climate protection, and, instead, will suffer economic disadvantages in global competition. The article counters this criticism with the thesis that judicial interventions contribute to an effective realization of climate protection if they strengthen international cooperation. To substantiate the thesis, the article draws on the economic analysis of law to examine states’ decision-making rationalities for entering international agreements. It then analyzes how judicial interventions may influence these parameters, with a particular focus on the recent climate decision of the German Constitutional Court, and embeds the domestic court decisions in an emerging public relations law that closely interlinks constitutional and international climate law.

Das internationale Klimaschutzregime setzt den Kooperationswillen der Staaten voraus, den es selbst nicht garantieren kann. Weltweit ist eine Diskrepanz zwischen der ökologischen Handlungsnotwendigkeit und dem politischen Handlungswillen, die nötigen Transformationen der nationalen und internationalen Wirtschaft vorzunehmen, zu beobachten. Infolgedessen haben in jüngerer Zeit Klimaklagen vor innerstaatlichen Gerichten zugenommen, die die Politik zu größeren Klimaschutzbemühungen bewegen sollen. Nach dem niederländischen Hoge Raad und dem irischen Supreme Court interpretiert nun auch das Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG) mit seinem Klimabeschluss die Funktion nationaler Verfassungsgerichte für den globalen Klimaschutz. Diese besteht vornehmlich darin, die internationale Zusammenarbeit im Bereich des Klimaschutzes zu stärken. Dafür verleiht das Gericht Art. 20 a Grundgesetz (GG) eine internationale Dimension, mit der das BVerfG der internationalen Zusammenarbeit eine vorrangige Funktion für den Klimaschutz einräumt und das Verfassungsrecht mit dem Pariser Klimaschutzabkommen eng verzahnt. Sich selbst stellt das BVerfG in den Dienst der Durchsetzung des international vereinbarten Regimes. Dabei legt es seinem Beschluss das Verständnis zugrunde, dass der demokratische Souverän Klimaschutz nur im Wege internationaler Zusammenarbeit wirksam verfolgen kann.

Combating climate change and biodiversity loss, the European Commission (EC) has come up with the biodiversity strategy for 2030 – a crux of European Green Deal. This strategy sets a target to increase protected areas in the European Union (EU) to 30% both of land and sea and aims to launch a EU’s nature restoration plan to restore degraded ecosystems at land and sea. At the same time and despite the strict interpretation of the Habitats Directive by the EC and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), Member States still struggle to enforce proper implementation of the Habitats Directive. As a result, the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directives are not achieved, and biodiversity loss is not stopped while biodiversity protection still faces strong opposition among different interest groups. Also, Estonia seems to be failing in protecting biodiversity as the EC initiated an infringement procedure against Estonia on 9th of June 2021 regarding logging activities in Natura 2000 (N2000) sites and the implementation of the Habitats Directive and the SEA Directive. [---]

Recht und Rechtswissenschaft können systembedingt jedoch recht eigene Vorstellungen davon entwickeln, welche individuellen und kollektiven Faktoren für eine breite öffentliche Akzeptanz wohl relevant sein mögen und durch welche institutionellen, prozeduralen und materiellen Regelung Akzeptanz generiert werden kann. Für eine erfolgversprechende Ausgestaltung des Klimarechts ist es daher ratsam, diese Vorstellungen einmal mit den Erkenntnissen der sozialwissenschaftlichen und umweltpsychologischen Akzeptanzforschung zu konfrontieren und kritisch zu prüfen, was sich hieraus für die rechtliche Ausgestaltung akzeptanzfördernder Klimaschutzregulierung lernen lässt. Zu diesem Zwecke richtet der vorliegende Beitrag in einem ersten Schritt seinen Blick zunächst auf die Erkenntnisse der Umweltpsychologie und Sozialwissenschaften und befragt sie nach den wesentlichen Faktoren, die für die Akzeptanz klima-politischer Maßnahmen relevant sind und wie diesen Faktoren bei der verwaltungs-rechtlichen Ausgestaltung des Klimarechts Rechnung getragen werden kann (II.). Vor diesem Hintergrund wird in einem zweiten Schritt sodann auf ausgewählte Regelungselemente eingegangen, die das Klimarecht auf der abstrakten Koordinationsebene der Klimaschutzgesetze und Rahmeninstrumente bereits heute bereithält, um Akzeptanz für den Transformationsprozess in seiner Gesamtheit zu fördern (III.).

Die Anzahl der Entscheidungen von Höchstgerichten zum Klimawandel nimmt zu. Dabei beantworten die Gerichte Fragen des Zugangs zum Gericht verschieden, rezipieren das internationale Klimaschutzrecht auf unterschiedliche Weise und weichen in ihren Ergebnissen hinsichtlich deliktischer Ansprüche voneinander ab. Ziel des Beitrags ist es, ausgewählte Klimaentscheidungen zu systematisieren und insbesondere aus der Perspektive des Demokratieprinzips differenziert zu bewerten.

On the 25^th anniversary of the signature of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, this article explores the neglect and suspicion of its values in the new foundations of English environmental law, the otherwise sometimes admirable Environment Act 2021. Examining the journey into the Environment Act, its provisions on consultation, and processes around its implementation, the author concludes that the arrangements for participation are flawed along at least four parameters: general quality and orderliness; information and evidence; inclusion; and impact. An exploration of the Act highlights the importance and the limitations of legally protecting rights to participate in environmental decision-making. The neglect of or hostility towards participation that is apparent from this analysis is, sometimes explicitly, part of a broader suspicion of legally constrained decision-making processes, and presents concerns to scholars and practitioners beyond environmental law.

Der folgende Beitrag untersucht die Bedeutung der Rechtsvergleichung für die Entwicklung des nationalen und internationalen Umweltrechts. Hierzu bestimmt er den Charakter der Umweltrechtsvergleichung als eine Vergleichung vornehmlich öffentlichen Rechts, analysiert ihren status quo, systematisiert ihre verschiedenen Ziele und Funktionen, eruiert vertiefend und anhand von Beispielen ihren möglichen Beitrag zur Entwicklung des internationalen Umweltrechts und identifiziert abschließend zentrale Elemente eines methodischen Vorgehens der Umweltrechtsvergleichung. [---]

Environmental models are ubiquitous in assessing the environmental impacts of planned projects. Modelling is an inferential process and includes various mechanisms to address the uncertainty of the outcome. In this article, we acknowledge the continuum of uncertainty assessments and identify the legal mechanisms with which Finnish judicial review – characterised by broad scope of review and in-house expert judges – has encountered model uncertainty. Closely examining 10 waters-related cases heard by the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland, we explain the porous yet substantial boundary between science and law revealed by the cases. The cases demonstrate the elegance with which courts can strike a balance between the contingent precautionary principle, gradually decreasing scientific uncertainty, and the procedural constraints under which they operate. We conclude by analysing the traces towards reciprocality and adaptivity the cases reveal, encouraged by the iterative modelling mechanism and challenged by the constitutional restrictions on the scope of review.

The Paris Agreement is the first universal climate change agreement requiring all parties to communicate ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets to achieve a long-term global temperature goal. The Paris Agreement is a game-changer at the international level, but has it been at the national (and sub-national) level? What has been the influence of the Paris Agreement on litigation to improve mitigation of and adaptation to climate change? This question is addressed in two articles. Both articles seek to look at a familiar topic – the Paris Agreement and climate litigation – in new and fresh ways. This second article examines how the Paris Agreement is influencing fact-finding in administrative and judicial decision-making, transforming corporate governance to be better attuned to climate risk and contributing to a ripple effect in climate litigation. The article first considers how the Paris Agreement has altered the factual considerations of climate change by demonstrating global agreement on the causal link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and the catastrophic consequences of climate change. Secondly, it illustrates how the Paris Agreement is affecting legal responsibilities by focusing on the influence of the Paris Agreement on corporate directors’ duties. Thirdly, it notes the ripple effect of climate litigation, contributing to the continued development of climate law.

The Paris Agreement is the first universal climate change agreement requiring all parties to communicate ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets to achieve a long-term global temperature goal. The Paris Agreement is a game-changer at the international level, but has it been at the national (and sub-national) level? What has been the influence of the Paris Agreement on litigation to improve mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change? This question is addressed in two articles. Both articles seek to look at a familiar topic – the Paris Agreement and climate litigation – in new and fresh ways. This first article examines how the Paris Agreement is directly implemented through incorporation into the domestic laws of the signatories as well as indirectly implemented through judicial decision-making in accordance with norms under the Paris Agreement. First, the article examines the international obligations created by the Paris Agreement, noting the flexible nature of the agreement and wide margin of discretion left to parties. Secondly, it explores how the Paris Agreement is incorporated in domestic laws and policies. The potential for litigation based on these international and domestic obligations will be considered. Thirdly, it discusses the courts’ application of norms under the Paris Agreement.

This article considers the use of Landscape Enterprise Networks (LENs) as an innovative model for developing collaborative landscape-scale environmental management. It does so by relying on case studies to present LENs as a model that can be successfully used to create, and then manage, the market for ecosystem services provided by multi-functional landscapes. LENs can, for example, be used to address diffuse water pollution and to establish landscape-scale biodiversity and pollution ‘offsets’ through the creation of new wetlands or large-scale rewilding initiatives. The analysis presented here concludes that LENs offers an imaginative and valuable tool for landscape-level environmental management but that changes will be needed in the legal framework for property rights and development planning if it is to fulfill its considerable potential. The governance arrangements for functioning LENs will also need refinement to introduce greater transparency, strategic direction and accountability to their future development.

Die artenschutzrechtliche Prüfung ist einer der Knackpunkte bei der Genehmigung von Windenergieanlagen und deren gerichtlicher Überprüfung hinsichtlich der Zugriffsverbote des § 44 I BNatSchG. Bedauerlicherweise fehlt bis heute eine gesetzliche Regelung, wann ein Verstoß vorliegt und wie bei der Prüfung vorzugehen ist. Behörden und Gerichte legen die Vorschrift uneinheitlich aus. Dieser Beitrag versucht, Leitlinien zu geben, wie die Qualität der artenschutzrechtlichen Prüfung verbessert und Vorhabenträgern die Steuerung und frühzeitige Erkennung von Projektrisiken ermöglicht werden kann.

In international law, new norms can emerge through the identification and development of effective practices. This article examines Swedish, Finnish and, less closely, other Nordic countries’ contributions to the slow process of norm emergence in relation to cross-border displacement in the context of disasters and climate change. It focuses on Sweden and Finland’s early adoption, and subsequent judicial application, of a legal provision establishing a right to international protection for persons unable to return home in the context of an ‘environmental disaster’. As calls are growing for European countries to take more concerted action to address this phenomenon, we examine why this pioneering approach never became an ‘effective practice’, and how this experience can nonetheless inform the emergence of new norms at the European level. Drawing on norm development theory, we argue that progressive interpretation and application of existing international protection standards, combined with the initiation of a European consultative process dedicated to identification and development of effective practices that are attuned to regional displacement dynamics, is more likely to contribute to norm emergence than the creation of new categories of international protection as attempted in Sweden and Finland.

This analysis considers and reviews the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-723/17 Lies Craeynest and Others v Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest and Brussels Instituut voor Milieubeheer [2019] ECLI:EU:C:2019:533, which followed a preliminary reference by the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Dutch-language Court of First Instance of Brussels) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe. The Craeynest judgment strengthens the right to clean air in the European Union, offering new tools for citizens to hold authorities accountable before national courts. [---]

The modern, global food system is unsustainable for both human and planetary health. The widespread consumption of highly processed foods and use of production systems that negatively affect the environment have led to a rise in nutrition-related diseases and exacerbated the effects of climate change. A comprehensive reform of global food systems and diets is needed to effectively respond to this problem, but the interference of food industry actors in health negotiations is diluting health policies at both domestic and international levels. This article establishes the concrete value of international legal responses grounded in human rights for tackling the global syndemic of climate change and malnutrition. The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) exemplifies how normative conflicts between the trade and health regimes can be overcome. Forming an effective and egalitarian response to malnutrition and climate change will require a rights-based, regime interaction approach that prioritizes human and planetary health over private interests.

In June 2020, the Danish Parliament adopted a new Climate Act that included legally binding measures. Two months earlier, in March 2020, the European Commission presented a proposal for a European Climate Law Regulation based upon the content of the Paris Agreement. Subsequently, the EU adopted the EU Climate Law Regulation in April 2021. This article presents a comparative legal analysis of the Danish 2020 Climate Act and the 2021 European Climate Law Regulation and investigates these new types of climate acts that have risen as results of the Paris Agreement and international climate law in general. Moreover, the article presents and discusses some examples of the implementation results in Denmark and the latest EU climate strategies. It is concluded that both the Danish and the EU Climate Acts can be considered umbrella legislation presenting the binding climate objectives and legal bases for future climate law however without presenting substantive legal provisions that implement the climate objectives.

Täisteksti saab lugeda siit.

A fairly clear differentiation between environmental risks and hazards, in combination with the corresponding legal principles, is characteristic of Estonian law. This differentiation is not as clear in many other jurisdictions, including that of EU law. Additionally, relevant literature presents diverging perspectives on the relationship between the precautionary principle and the prevention principle. For instance, L. Krämer does not differentiate between these two principles and considers them to be interchangeable. E. Rehbinder and N. de Sadeleer, in contrast, see distinct differences between these concepts, a stance that is characteristic of the German legal tradition. In German law, the prevention principle (Prävention) is applied to situations in which there is a known hazard (Gefahr) and the precautionary principle to situations that involve a possible hazard (Risiko). In addition to making this distinction, German law specifies the class of risks that need to be tolerated (Restrisiko) – that is, risks against which it is not justified to take measures. Estonian environmental law implements principles similar to those found in German law.

On 22 December 2020, the Norwegian Supreme Court ruled on its first climate case. It dealt with the claim that petroleum licences, issued by the Norwegian government, violate the ‘right to a healthy environment’ as contained in the Norwegian Constitution. The Court rejected the claim and found that the constitutional protection of the environment applies not as a right but as a substantive limit to governmental action, and only in very limited circumstances. Rather than taking the opportunity to give guidance on this constitutional provision, the Court provided a judgment that aligned law with the current politics in favour of continuous petroleum extraction on Norwegian territory.

Zuletzt haben mehrere spektakuläre Entscheidungen zum Klimaschutz für große öffentliche Aufmerksamkeit gesorgt, darunter hierzulande der Beschluss des BVerfG zur teilweisen Verfassungswidrigkeit des Klimaschutzgesetzes. In den Niederlanden hat jetzt ein Gericht in erster Instanz ein Unternehmen verpflichtet, CO2-Emissionen zu reduzieren. Eine genauere Betrachtung zeigt indes: Im demokratischen Rechtsstaat sind die Gerichte nicht die richtigen Instanzen, um über Zeitpunkt und Umfang der Begrenzung von Treibhausgasemissionen zur Vermeidung globaler Klimaschäden zu entscheiden. Vielmehr sind die dabei erforderlichen diffizilen Allokations- und Abwägungsentscheidungen auf der politischen Ebene zu treffen und zu verantworten – auch wenn dies bisher nicht zufriedenstellend gelungen ist.

Eine Behörde will einem Antragsteller eine umweltbezogene Information erteilen – ein Dritter will das verhindern. Nicht nur im Kontext des beschleunigten Ausbaus der Windenergie werden derlei Fälle künftig verstärkt vorkommen. Mit Fragen von Zulässigkeit und Begründetheit verwaltungsgerichtlichen Drittschutzes im Umweltinformationsrecht befasst sich der folgende Beitrag.

The climate change crisis demands a wholesale transformation of law. In this article, we consider one potential component of that transformation: the role that rights-protective statutory interpretation might play. Specifically, we analyse the transformative potential of the principle of legality. The principle of legality is a presumption of statutory interpretation that legislation should not be read as infringing fundamental common law rights in the absence of irresistibly clear statutory language. It enables courts to give statutory words their least rights-infringing meaning. The law in international fora and domestic jurisdictions now acknowledges that climate change will adversely affect human rights. We make the linkage between climate change, fundamental rights, and statutory interpretation and argue that the principle of legality may, in appropriate cases, be used to interpret legislation regulating the range of human activity, in a climate-protective way.

The inherent structural features of environmental problems cause environmental law to be written in a particular way and have led to the creation of novel adjudicative institutions, such as specialist environment courts and tribunals. But they also force us to view core constitutional principles, such as the rule of law and separation of powers, from different perspectives. By placing greater weight on certain components of these principles and lessening the force of others, solving environmental problems through law is rebalancing legal thought. Using New Zealand as a case study, this article explores how the legal infrastructure might respond to this contextual force by ensuring decision-making institutions operate with integrity and reflect public reasoned thoughtfulness, so fostering the rule of law within this unusual legal landscape.

Der Beitrag gibt einen Überblick über den Stand der gerichtlichen Praxis und Wissenschaft in Hinblick auf zivilrechtliche Klimaklagen in ausgewählten Rechtsordnungen und identifiziert gemeinsame Rechtsfragen.

The right of access to environmental information has become a key aspect of contemporary efforts to promote environmental governance in the UK. The right is enshrined in international law through the Aarhus Convention which, alongside other legal developments, has influenced how academics analyse the right in the UK. How research into the right has been conducted is significant because it has led to gaps in how we understand the right and undermines environmental protection efforts. This article identifies and critiques the common analytical trends used to analyse the right of access to environmental information in the UK. [---]

Discussions on how the public engages with environmental information within environmental governance matters are primarily centred around the supply of environmental information to the public by the state. However, this focus downplays the importance of environmental information held by members of the public and the difficulties that individuals can experience when submitting such information to the state outside formal environmental decision-making procedures. This article examines the benefits of guaranteeing a general right to submit environmental information before considering the extent to which environmental law, specifically the Aarhus Convention, supports the creation of such a right. The article then concludes by constructing a hypothetical regime to implement the proposed right, identifying how the proposed right can be balanced against the needs of the state and points of divergence between this hypothetical regime and the current environmental information regime set out in the Aarhus Convention.

By a recent judgment, the German Federal Constitutional Court enhanced the concept of fundamental rights to climate protection in three dimensions: their number, content and temporal reach. While previously fundamental rights to health, occupation and property have been trialled in domestic climate litigation, the Court here propounds almost all fundamental rights to being inflicted insofar as their enjoyment hinges upon the availability of fossil energy and thus the emission of greenhouse gases. Developing an intertemporal dimension of those rights, the Court finds an imbalance of permissible greenhouse gas emissions in that most of the emission budget available within a temperature increase of well below 2°C will be spent by 2030, leaving only a minimum use of fossil fuels for subsequent years and generations. This analysis summarises the Court’s legal reasoning, positioning it in the broader spectrum of fundamental rights doctrine, and reflects on the contribution of the case to the growing number of transnational climate jurisprudence.