There’s been a noticeable shift in how we approach environmental and climate issues through the lens of human rights, especially in the last few years. The European Union (EU) has stepped up its game, introducing new climate laws and regulations to combat climate change. This change is highlighted in notable cases like the Shell/Milieudefensie judgment from The Hague, which sets a precedent for future litigation.
This raises an interesting question: has there been a similar shift in human rights consideration in the European Court of Justice (CJEU)? In a recent analysis, I explored the CJEU’s case law up to December 2022 and found that, unlike environmental legislation, human rights are not yet at the forefront in Luxembourg, aside from select cases like the Ilva ruling. This is striking, given that Article 37 of the EU Charter emphasizes environmental protection.
Article 37: A Unique Provision
Article 37 of the EU Charter stands out by expressing a commitment to high environmental standards. It states that environmental protection must be part of EU policies, aligning with sustainable development goals. This self-standing provision is absent in many international human rights treaties. However, it poses a limitation since it is classified as a "principle" rather than a "right," meaning it’s treated differently in legal contexts.
The Balance of Rights in Court
Despite the presence of Article 37, it’s rarely invoked in court decisions regarding environmental issues. Instead, the CJEU tends to prioritize other rights that can hinder environmental protections. For instance, the right to property (Article 17) and the freedom to conduct business (Article 16) are often used in ways that may protect economic interests over ecological ones.
Interestingly, courts have more frequently used provisions like Article 2 (right to life) and Article 7 (respect for family and home life), but even these have seen limited application when it comes to environmental claims. A recent example is the dismissal of the “People’s Climate Case” due to insufficient standing, which raised eyebrows about the barriers individuals face in asserting their rights in environmental matters.
A Potential Shift in Ilva?
The CJEU’s June 2024 ruling in the Ilva case marked a significant moment. It related to pollution from a large steelworks in Italy and its impact on health. Not only did the court acknowledge the link between environmental health and human rights, but it also drew connections with findings from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). This might hint at a broader recognition of environmental rights in future cases.
Understanding the Barriers
Several factors contribute to the slow integration of rights in environmental cases at the CJEU. There are many “silent rights” in existing EU laws that provide clear obligations regarding environmental standards, which can diminish the reliance on broader Charter rights. Additionally, strict requirements for legal standing (locus standi) create significant obstacles for individuals and organizations attempting to bring environmental cases to court.
The ECtHR has raised concerns about these stringent standing requirements, suggesting that they restrict access to justice in cases involving climate change and environmental degradation. Future EU regulations could address these issues as it seeks to align more closely with human rights standards.
Moving Forward
In my earlier work, there’s a call for the CJEU to embrace a stronger rights-based approach, similar to practices seen in the ECtHR. This could involve deriving obligations from the charter’s articles that protect life and health. The potential for a greater role for Article 37 in shaping EU laws is becoming clearer. For example, new legislation like the European Climate Law explicitly references Article 37, indicating a shift towards incorporating environmental rights more comprehensively.
While establishing a specific right to a healthy environment may not be the ultimate solution, recent developments, particularly the Ilva decision, could pave the way for significant changes in how human rights and environmental protections intersect in the future.
Sources:
