In re Federal Climate Protection Act Austria

In 2023, the applicant filed a complaint with the Austrian Constitutional Court and alleged that Art 3 of the Federal Climate Protection Act (Klimaschutzgesetz) was unconstitutional for not ensuring Austria’s compliance with international and European greenhouse gas reduction obligations, thereby violating fundamental rights. The Federal Climate Protection Act was adopted in 2011 to implement emission reduction obligations under international and European Law. According to Art 3 para 1 of the Act, the maximum permissible GHG emissions shall be defined in the annexes to the Act and distributed among sectors. The annexes accordingly provide for maximum GHG emissions for 2008-2012 and 2013-2020; the Act does not stipulate any emission reduction targets after 2020. In addition, Art 3 para 2 Federal Climate Protection Act provides a (mere) negotiation obligation regarding measures that ensure compliance with maximum GHG emissions. Also, the Act does not contain a sanction mechanism. The applicant brought forward that Art 3 Federal Climate Protection Act leads to a shifting of the GHG reduction burden to the future and hinders compliance with international and European emission reduction obligations until 2030. To comply with international and European GHG reduction obligations, Austria would have to adopt drastic measures in the near future. These measures would infringe on fundamental rights as many areas of life and personal freedom are inextricably linked to the emission of greenhouse gases. The applicant accordingly asserted a violation of the right to property, the freedom of occupation, and the right to respect for private and family life. In addition, the applicant suggested that the challenged provision was disproportionate for not ensuring compliance with international and European law and, therefore, infringed on the right to equality before the law. On June 27, 2023, the Constitutional Court rejected the application. The Court held that it was not evident from the application which of the future measures mentioned by the applicant would interfere with which fundamental rights positions. Contrary to procedural provisions, the alleged unconstitutionality was not explained in detail. Hence, the application was inadmissible.