Kärnten

Vorarlberg

Niederösterreich

Wien

Oberösterreich

Salzburg

Steiermark

Burgenland

Tirol

Austria

Increase the share of renewable energy in gross final energy consumption of energy to 46-50% and source 100% of electricity consumption from renewables (nationally/balanced)



Improve primary energy intensity by 25-30% compared to 2015.



Transport GHG sector contribution: -7.2 million t CO2 equivalent compared to 2016 (total contribution). 



Reduction of GHG emissions (non-ETS) by 36% compared to 2005.



16% GHG emissions reductions in non-ETS sectors by 2020 compared with a 2005 baselie

13% cut in GHG emissions by 2012 compared with a 1990 baseline

No more than 1,050 petajoules consumed annually by 2020

1.5% efficiency increase of final energy consumption annually by 2020 against a 2014 baseline

Energy suppliers undertake at least 40% energy efficiency measures in customer households by 2020 against a 2015 baseline

48.2 GWh (3% annual) energy efficiency refurbishment by 2020 against a 2014 baseline

310 petajoules saved by energy efficiency (159 from suppliers, 151 from strategic measures); 80.4 petajoules by 2017 by 2014-2020 compared with a business as usual scenario

5vH energy intensity improvement, then 20vH by 2010, 2020

34% renewables of final gross energy consumption by 2020

80% renewable of total electricity production by 2010, then 85% by 2020

1000MW Hydro, 2000MW Wind, 200MW Biomass and biogas, 1200MW Solar energy productions increased by 2020 against a 2010 baseline

25% renewable of total energy by 2010, then 45% by 2020

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

In June 2023, the Association for Consumer Protection (VKI) filed a civil lawsuit against Brau Union Österreich for misleading advertising. The company advertised its Gösser beer brand as 100% CO2 neutral. After the investigation, VKI found that only the beer brewing process did not require fossil fuels. However, Brau Union omitted the energy-intensive malting process from its advertising campaign. Brau Union contested that malting was not part of the brewing process.

The Linz Regional Court confirmed VKI’s opinion, noting that Brau Union failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that malting was not part of the brewing process. Moreover, the court noted that Brau Union’s website stated malting as a stage of brewing. Brau Union has filed an appeal. 


In September 2023, the Association for Consumer Protection (VKI) filed a civil lawsuit against Austrian Airlines regarding misinformation in their advertising campaign. Austrian Airlines made a Twitter post advertising a carbon-neutral flight to Venice made possible by sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). The court findings found that the percentage of SAF used on the flight was significantly lower than the amount necessary to reduce emissions by 80%. Moreover, the SAF was added only if ticket holders paid an overcharge on their fees, which was not mentioned in the advertisement.

The regional Court of Korneuburg sided with VKI and determined that Austrian Airlines’ advertisements were misleading. 


On February 21, 2023, a group of Austrian children filed a complaint with the Austrian Constitutional Court. The applicants alleged that the Federal Climate Protection Act (Klimaschutzgesetz 2011) is, in part, unconstitutional for violating the constitutionally guaranteed rights of children and the fundamental right to equality before the law. The Austrian Constitutional Court rejected the application as inadmissible by decision of 27 June 2023. According to the Court, the scope of the application was too narrow, and repealing the contested provisions would not have eliminated the underlying unconstitutionality. Relying on its earlier case law, the court, therefore, considered the application as inadmissible. Further, the court held that repealing the contested phrases would have given the contested provision of the Federal Climate Protection Act a different content. Repeal would thus amount to an act of legislation by the court, which is prohibited due to the separation of powers principle. 

Background
The Federal Climate Protection Act was adopted in 2011 to implement emission reduction obligations under European law. The Annexes to the Act set out the maximum levels of greenhouse gas emissions by sector for 2008-2012 and 2013-2020. However, the Act does not stipulate any emissions reduction targets after 2020. The lack of binding greenhouse gas emission reduction targets leads to persistently high emission levels on Austrian territory. In light of this, the applicants alleged the unconstitutionality of Art 3 para 2 of the Federal Climate Protection Act for (a) establishing commitment periods that only extend to 2020, (b) stipulating a pure negotiation obligation regarding the development of effective GHG reduction targets (instead of a mandate to take action) and (c) providing retrospective (instead of preventive) emergency measures in case of an exceedance of GHG ceilings established under international or EU law. In concrete terms, the applicants brought forward that Art 3 para 2 of the Federal Climate Protection Act violated children’s rights and their right to equality before the law. In eventu, the applicants further demanded the repeal of parts of Art 3 para 1 of the Federal Climate Protection Act. 

Rights of Children 
The Federal Constitutional Act on the Rights of Children implements the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child on the national level; it grants subjective rights (“constitutionally guaranteed rights”) to children, i.e., persons under the age of 18 years. Under Art 1, every child has the right to have his or her best interests protected. This includes protection and care, the best possible development and the safeguarding of child interests; in addition, Art 1 requires consideration of intergenerational equity. This commitment to intergenerational equity can also be found in the Federal Constitutional Act on Sustainability, Animal Protection, Comprehensive Environmental Protection, Water and Food Security as well as Research. This state objective that does not grant subjective rights but shall guide the interpretation of other legal sources. 
The plaintiffs alleged that climate change triggers positive obligations under Art 1 of the Federal Constitutional Act on the Rights of Children as it poses an imminent danger to the well-being of present and future generations. Thus, Austria is obligated to take adequate measures to protect child well-being against the disastrous impacts of climate change and restrictions of freedom related to drastic emission reduction measures needed in the future. Such need for drastic emission reduction is evident as – according to the plaintiffs – the scope of state obligations under Art 1 of the Federal Constitutional Act on the Rights of Children is to be interpreted through the latest scientific findings as well as EU and international legal requirements. These sources allow calculating of a national CO2 budget based on the internationally agreed 1.5°C target. Said CO2 budget, in turn, constitutes a “finite resource” in the sense of the Federal Constitutional Act on Sustainability. Thus, it is to be managed sustainably, and its consumption should respect the interests of future generations. 
In a nutshell, the applicants argued that constitutional law requires (a) the non-exceedance of the national CO2 budget and (b) equitable distribution of the remaining budget between generations in order to prevent a violation of the plaintiffs’ constitutionally guaranteed rights to (child) well-being. The plaintiffs asserted that Art 3 para 2 of the Federal Climate Protection Act does not meet these requirements and therefore violates Art 1 of the Federal Constitutional Act on the Rights of Children, which is to be interpreted in light of the Federal Constitutional Act on Sustainability. 
The applicants reached a similar conclusion based on the Charta of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR). According to Art 51 CFR, the Charta’s scope is principally opened as adopting the Federal Climate Protection Act constitutes an implementation of GHG reduction targets determined under EU law. Art 24 CFR stipulates that children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being. Under EU law, children thus have a right to protection of their well-being, similar to the national right. The European rights of the child under Art 24 CFR are to be interpreted in light of Art 37 CFR, which, in turn, refers to the principle of sustainable development. In a manner comparable to the Federal Constitutional Act on Sustainability, Art 37 CFR imposes an obligation to manage resources in an equitable and fundamental rights-respecting manner. This includes Austria’s remaining CO2 budget, which is to be distributed equitably between generations to protect the rights of the child under Art 24 CFR.

Right to Equality before the Law 
The application also relied on the right to equality before the law for asserting the unconstitutionality of Art 3 para 2 of the Federal Climate Protection Act. This fundamental right entails a principle of fair burden sharing; in particular, it prohibits the realisation of the welfare of all (or the majority) at the expense of the few. The applicants alleged that Art 3 para 2 of the Federal Climate Protection Act violated the right to equality before the law for two reasons. First, the provision infringes the general principle of objectivity (“allgemeines Sachlichkeitsgebot”), inherent to the right to equality before the law. Second, they alleged that Art 3 para 2 of the Federal Climate Protection Act entails unequal treatment of children compared to adults, which cannot be justified. 
The general principle of objectivity requires that legal norms serve the public interest and seek to realise it with appropriate, necessary and proportionate means. If this is not the case, the legal norm is not objective and thus unconstitutional. According to the applicants, the Federal Climate Protection Act must thus meet two requirements: First, individual norms must be suitable (“appropriate”) to achieve the Act’s general objective, enabling the coordinated implementation of effective climate protection measures and ensure a rapid reduction of GHG emissions. Second, burdens associated with reducing GHG emissions must be distributed evenly between members of society. The Federal Climate Protection Act does not meet these requirements: Art 3 para 2 of the Act violates the principle of fair burden sharing as the lack of binding reduction pathways causes a rapid consumption of the remaining CO2 budget, which could be used up entirely already in 2025. Consequently, the GHG reduction burden is transferred to younger generations and not equitably distributed between all members of society. In addition, the applicants noted that it is impossible to achieve the Act’s objective (to comply with international and EU mitigation obligations) without legally binding GHG reduction pathway. Art 3 of the Federal Climate Protection Act hinders the adoption of a legally binding pathway in providing a pure negotiation obligation paired with references to past commitment periods only. Overall, Art 3 thus undermines the objective of the Federal Climate Protection Act.  
The applicants further alleged that Art 3 para 2 of the Federal Climate Protection Act provides for unequal treatment of children compared to adults. This is because the current formulation and design of the Federal Climate Protection Act (especially the lack of legally binding reduction pathways) allow for rapid consumption of the remaining CO2 budget (probably until 2025). Consequently, the burdens associated with emission reduction are largely transferred to the future and, thus, to younger generations. Younger generations are treated unequally compared to older generations as they bear the brunt of restrictions of freedom associated with emission reduction, especially as restrictions of freedom will be more severe the more time passes without action. According to the plaintiffs, such unequal treatment is not justified and thus violates their right to equality before the law.   

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. 

Geography

Austria

Recent cases