Headnotes:
I. If the plaintiff challenges an alleged unlawful interference by an administrative authority consisting of the lack of action by that authority, an administrative interference action under the Administrative Procedure Code (Act No. 150/2002 Coll.) can only be successful if the legal system imposes on the administrative authority an obligation corresponding to the “performance” sought by the plaintiff.
II. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly and achieve climate neutrality in the Czech Republic within approximately three decades, it is necessary to impose obligations on individuals. However, obligations may only be imposed on the basis of law (Article 4(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms).
III. If the interference with a fundamental right consists in the failure to adopt legislation, this is an “interference” that cannot be attributed to ministries, as they do not have the power to adopt laws.
IV. If the interference with the fundamental right consisted in the failure to establish specific mitigation measures leading to a reduction of emissions, the constitutional order, a law, or an EU regulation would have to impose an obligation on ministries to establish such measures. However, if the ministries do not have such an obligation, the dismissal of the administrative interference action does not constitute a violation of constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights, regardless of the obligations of the state as a whole.
Summary:
I. The complainants filed a climate lawsuit in 2021. In addition to the ministries of the environment, industry and trade, agriculture, and transport, they also sued the government. To protect their rights, they chose to file an administrative interference action under the Administrative Procedure Code. In short, the complainants did not succeed in the proceedings before the administrative courts, so they lodged a constitutional complaint.
The complainants challenged decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court and the Municipal Court in relation to the obligations of ministries in the area of adopting mitigation measures. In their constitutional complaint, they argued that the administrative courts had failed to examine the separate normative content of the positive obligations of the state arising from the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Czech Republic and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. According to the complainants, the obligation of the ministries to take specific action stems directly from the constitutional order, in particular from the fundamental right to a favorable environment.
II. The Constitutional Court emphasized that it considers climate change to be a serious issue for society as a whole. However, the preparation and implementation of adequate measures is primarily the task of the legislative and executive branches. Although the judicial branch is not excluded from the issue, its role is limited. The issue of climate change has been raised before many foreign courts. However, because they have dealt with the issue in different types of proceedings and in different procedural contexts, their conclusions cannot be mechanically adopted, and it cannot be inferred that proceedings in the Czech Republic should end in the same way as in another country.
Given the type of proceedings and the procedural approach taken by the complainants, the Constitutional Court did not address whether the Czech Republic was taking sufficient measures to combat climate change and its consequences. It only dealt with 1) whether the ministries violated the complainants' fundamental rights in the manner they defined in their administrative interference action, and 2) whether the administrative courts violated the complainants' fundamental rights when deciding on their interference action.
The complainants wanted the administrative courts to rule that the actions of the ministries were unlawful. They considered that the ministries had failed to establish specific mitigation measures that would lead to a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, the complainants proposed that the Court prohibits the ministries from continuing to violate their rights. The key question, therefore, was whether it was specifically the ministries that had an obligation arising from the complainants' rights to a favorable environment or not.
In this regard, the Constitutional Court concluded that the ministries could not be the source of the alleged unlawful interference. If they did not cause the alleged interference themselves, they could not refrain from it and grant the complainants what they sought in their action. The administrative courts therefore did not err in rejecting the complainants' claims.
In the case Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, the European Court of Human Rights decided that climate measures should be part of the regulatory framework at the national level. Positive and negative obligations for public authorities in the Czech Republic generally stem from the constitutional right to a favorable environment. However, there is currently no legislation implementing this right and imposing an obligation on ministries to establish specific mitigation measures. The ministries themselves do not have the power to adopt legislation and are therefore unable to comply with the complainants' demands. If the administrative courts were to uphold the lawsuit, the ministries would have to establish the obligation themselves. However, such a procedure would completely miss the point of an interference action, which is a tool against the violation of an obligation that already exists.
For these reasons, the Constitutional Court did not find that the ministries had violated the complainants' fundamental right to a favorable environment. The human rights obligation that the complainants sought to enforce can only be fulfilled by the state through the imposition of new obligations on natural and legal persons, i.e., through the legislation. The ministries do not have the power to do so.
The Constitutional Court therefore rejected the constitutional complaint.
The Justice Rapporteur was Veronika Křesťanová. None of the Justices dissented.