Hodonín

Vyškov

Znojmo

Olomoucký kraj

Jeseník

Olomouc

Prostějov

Přerov

Šumperk

Zlínský kraj

Kroměříž

Uherské Hradiště

Vsetín

Zlín

Moravskoslezský kraj

Bruntál

Praha, Hlavní město

Frýdek-Místek

Středočeský kraj

Karviná

Benešov

Nový Jičín

Beroun

Opava

Kladno

Ostrava-město

Kolín

Kutná Hora

Mělník

Mladá Boleslav

Nymburk

Praha-východ

Praha-západ

Příbram

Rakovník

Jihočeský kraj

České Budějovice

Český Krumlov

Jindřichův Hradec

Písek

Prachatice

Strakonice

Tábor

Plzeňský kraj

Domažlice

Klatovy

Plzeň-město

Plzeň-jih

Plzeň-sever

Rokycany

Tachov

Karlovarský kraj

Cheb

Karlovy Vary

Sokolov

Ústecký kraj

Děčín

Chomutov

Litoměřice

Louny

Most

Teplice

Ústí nad Labem

Liberecký kraj

Česká Lípa

Jablonec nad Nisou

Liberec

Semily

Královéhradecký kraj

Hradec Králové

Jičín

Náchod

Rychnov nad Kněžnou

Trutnov

Pardubický kraj

Chrudim

Pardubice

Svitavy

Ústí nad Orlicí

Kraj Vysočina

Havlíčkův Brod

Jihlava

Pelhřimov

Třebíč

Žďár nad Sázavou

Jihomoravský kraj

Blansko

Brno-město

Brno-venkov

Břeclav

Czechia

The average year-on-year growth of RES share in heating and cooling is proposed at 1 %.&nbsp;

To reduce the total greenhouse gas emissions by 30 % by 2030 compared to 2005.

Reduce national emissions by 2020 by at least 32 Mt CO2-eq in comparison with 2005  by 2020

Reduce national emissions by 2030 by at least 44 Mt CO2-eq in by 2030 against a 2005 baseline

Pursue the indicative level of 39 Mt CO2-eq of emissions in 2050

Pursue the indicative level of 70 Mt CO2-eq of emissions in 2040 against 2005 levels

47.94 PJ final energy savings (6.85 PJ new savings per year) by 2020 against a 2013 baseline

35% cut in biodegradable landfill waste by 2020 against a 1995 baseline

4.1% of total blended petrol from biofuels, 6.0% of total diesel by 2013

20% transport energy from renewables by 2020

2% reduction of GHG emissions per unit of energy in fuel by 2014, then 3.5% by 2017, then 6% by 2020 compared with a business as usual scenario

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 May 2025, the NGO Poslední generace (Last Generation), the Czech branch of the international climate movement, filed a lawsuit before the Prague Municipal Court against the City of Prague. The organization seeks protection against what it characterizes as the city’s unlawful inaction in the field of strategic and spatial planning for sustainable development. According to the claim, Prague has failed to update its strategic plan with concrete action plans to meet the objectives of the Czech Republic’s Strategic Framework 2030, the Regional Development Strategy, and the EU Climate Law (Regulation (EU) 2021/1119). The plaintiffs further argue that the city has not ensured the incorporation of such measures into binding spatial planning documentation, nor adopted the necessary organizational reforms to allow proper oversight and implementation of sustainability goals. They maintain that this inaction violates their right to a favorable environment and to private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The lawsuit therefore requests that the court order the City of Prague to align its strategic and spatial planning documents with national and EU climate obligations, including revising urban development principles and integrating sustainability objectives into binding plans. 

On April 21, 2021, a group of Czech citizens filed a lawsuit against the Czech government for its failure to act on climate change and associated human rights violations. The plaintiffs include the climate action NGO Klimatická žaloba ČR, a municipality (Svatý Jan pod Skalou), and four individuals. The defendants are the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Industry and Trade, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Transport, and the Government of the Czech Republic. The plaintiffs alleged that the government, by failing to adequately address climate change, is violating the rights to life, health, and a sustainable environment of Czech citizens, as guaranteed by the Czech constitution, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights. The plaintiffs plan to present evidence that the country has a limited carbon budget necessary to meet its constitutional and Paris Agreement obligations and that the government's Climate Protection Policy permits emissions 2.5 times higher than what the carbon budget allows. The plaintiffs seek a court order requiring the government to implement necessary measures to maintain a carbon budget of 800 Mt CO2 from January 2021 until the end of the century and to take essential actions to adapt to climate change. 

On June 15, 2022, the Prague Municipal Court upheld the lawsuit and ordered the state to urgently take necessary measures to mitigate climate change. The Court ruled that the state’s failure to implement sufficient GHG mitigation measures is unlawful and that the state should refrain from further infringing on the plaintiffs’ rights due to this failure. The court derived the obligation to combat climate change from the Paris Agreement and the EU Climate Law, which sets a target to reduce GHG emissions by 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels, as the Czech Republic currently lacks a dedicated climate act. State authorities are required to develop a plan with precise and complete measures to reach this goal, which has yet to be established. While the Court concluded that the objectives of the Paris Agreement, regarding keeping the increase in global temperatures below 2°C, are not legally binding, the Czech Republic's national contribution cannot be overlooked. Neglecting these climate goals would jeopardize the plaintiffs' constitutionally guaranteed rights. The court further noted that the government cannot absolve itself of its climate responsibilities simply by pointing out its minor contribution to climate change.

Regarding remedies, the Court urged the defendants (Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Industry and Trade, Ministry of Agriculture, and Ministry of Transport) to implement additional measures aimed at achieving a 55% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030, as the measures outlined in the Climate Protection Policy of the Czech Republic are inadequate to meet the emission reduction target established by the EU. Specifically, the state must take necessary actions to decrease GHG emissions in the sectors of energy, transport, and forestry within six months. However, the adaptation claims put forth by the plaintiffs were rejected since the state is preparing a new adaptation plan and is actively executing certain measures.

The Ministry of the Environment appealed on legal grounds to the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic. On February 20, 2023, the Supreme Administrative Court overturned the decision made by the Prague Municipal Court and sent the case back to the lower court (the Prague Municipal Court). The primary reason for reversing the initial decision is the collective obligation of the EU to reduce its GHG emissions by 55% by 2030, along with the ongoing legislative and political negotiations regarding the specific distribution of these obligations among Member States. In particular, the Supreme Administrative Court found that the Municipal Court did not adequately justify its order for the 55% target by 2030. The Supreme Administrative Court also noted that the plaintiffs must further clarify the specific areas in which the defendants’ alleged inaction violated their obligations, which directly impact the applicants’ rights.

The Prague Municipal Court held a public hearing on October 25, 2023, and then dismissed the case. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, which confirmed its earlier opinion and dismissed the case in November 2024. On February 5, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Czech Constitutional Court, arguing that the continued inactivity of ministries constitutes an infringement on the fundamental human rights of the inhabitants of the Czech Republic. They ask the Constitutional Court to annul the previous judgments of the administrative courts and order them to reconsider their decisions with regard to the protection of the human rights of Czech citizens. 

The Czech Constitutional Court dismissed the constitutional complaint on November 5, 2025.

Three petitioners challenged the Principles of Territorial Development of the Central Bohemia Region (the tool for urban development of the region issued by the local self-governing authority), in relation to the approved expansion of an airport in Prague, specifically the definition of an area for a new parallel runway. On June 24, 2020, the Court granted the motion to annul the principles. The main reason for the annulment was the significant sources of noise and emissions (other than GHG).

In the supplementary submission from April 2020, the petitioners stated that the principles of territorial development also undermine the objectives of the Paris Agreement, as the expansion of the airport would create additional indirect GHG emissions. On June 24, 2020, the Prague Regional Court rejected this supplementary submission on procedural grounds (because extension to other points was not possible at this stage and the original petition mentioned only substances harmful to health such as benzo(a)pyrene) but decided to comment on it. 

On the Paris Agreement, the Court stated that the state’s commitment to a gradual reduction of GHG emissions could not be invoked in any activity related to air traffic. All the more so given that the contracting authority of the principles of territorial development is not the state itself, but a local self-governing authority that is not bound by any national law to fulfill the state’s obligation under an international treaty.


The arbitration case involved Antaris GmbH, a German commercial company, and Dr. Michael Gode ("Claimants") against the Czech Republic ("Respondent"). The Claimants filed a claim against the Czech Republic concerning alleged violations of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) and the bilateral investment treaty between Germany and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, signed on October 2, 1990. Specifically, they argued that legislative changes made by the Respondent—specifically, measures introduced by the Czech government to address the financial burden caused by the solar energy boom—negatively impacted their investments in photovoltaic power plants. These changes included the implementation of the Solar Levy, which was a tax imposed on solar installations receiving excessive feed-in tariffs (FiTs), and the removal of the 5% cap on the reduction of FiTs for solar plants connected to the grid from 2011 onward. The Respondent argued these changes were necessary due to - among other things - concernd over state aid rules under EU law.

Consequently, the Claimants requesed that the Tribunal issued a declaration stating that the Respondent's actions constitute unfair treatment in violation of the ECT and the German BIT; they also sought compensation for losses incurred due to these breaches. The Respondent, in turn, requests the dismissal of all claims on the grounds including of lack of jurisdiction over taxation measures under the ECT.

The Tribunal found that Solar Levy did not qualify as a taxation measure under Czech law or within the meaning of Article 21(7) ECT. Despite being administered like a tax and titled 'levy', substantial considerations suggest otherwise. The Tribunal found no requirement for an express stabilisation provision to establish a legitimate expectation. However, it concluded that investors should have been aware that dealing with the solar boom was a fast-moving political issue and legislative changes were possible. Finally, three-quarters of arbitration costs should be borne by Claimants while Respondent should be awarded legal costs. All claims made by Claimants were dismissed, and they were ordered to pay within 28 days a sum of US$1.75 million and GBP 178,125.50 to the Respondent.

Geography

Czechia

Recent cases