Climate litigation, judicial control, administrative judge, climate commitments, state's climate obligations, climate law, judicial review, coercive devices, deterrent financial penalties, judicial follow-up, jurisdictional injunction, binding force, climate policies, normative opposability, separation of powers, Council of State, Energy Code, Regulation EU 20182042, greenhouse gas emissions, climate obligations, justiciability, judicialization of public action, institutional balances, climate imperatives, judicial decision, legality control, State Council ruling, climate inaction, executive, prescriptive character, reduction trajectory, international commitments, Annex I Regulation EU 2018842, Article L1004 Energy Code, judicial substitution power, manifest lack of action, State's climate commitments, strengthened litigation, administrative judge competence, climate policies evaluation, judicial injunctions, non-execution sanctions
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 6
Abstract
The emergence of substantial judicial control by the administrative judge over the state's climate commitments marks a decisive turning point in climate litigation, raising questions about its effectiveness without coercive devices.
Extract
[...] On the one hand, the State Council relies on a legal architecture combining international, European, and internal sources to consecrate the imperative character of climate commitments. Internationally, the Paris Agreement (2015) sets an imperative trajectory for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by imposing on signatory states a strengthened obligation of diligence in implementing policies compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C. At the European level, Regulation 2018/842 assigns binding reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions to EU member states, accompanied by monitoring and sanction mechanisms. Finally, domestic law confers a legally unassailable basis on these commitments, particularly through Article L. [...]
[...] However, this procedural approach, centered on the regularity of the adopted measures, showed its limits. The state could rely on texts conforming to higher standards, without thereby guaranteeing the real impact of its policies on the climate trajectory. The judgment of 1he July 2021 breaks with this restrictive approach and inaugurates a control based on the tangible effectiveness of climate policies. From now on, the assessment of the state's action no longer relies solely on the existence of legislative and regulatory measures, but on their real ability to concretely influence the emissions trajectory. [...]
[...] A jurisdictional injunction devoid of any binding force The assertion of judicial control over the state's climate commitments implies, in all logic, the existence of a binding mechanism ensuring the effective execution of the judge's decisions. However, this is not the case in the current state of the law. The injunction addressed to the Government in the judgment of 1he July 2021 is based on Articles L. 911-1 and L. 911-3 of the Code of Administrative Justice, which allow the judge to order the Administration to take measures within a specified deadline. However, this obligation remains purely formal. [...]
[...] On the one hand, the Council of State orders the Government to adopt corrective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and respect its international commitments. On the other hand, it has no prerogative to sanction any potential executive inaction. The absence of any coercive device thus deprives this injunction of its substance and leaves the compliance solely to the good intentions of the executive. However, recent history has shown that political commitment on climate issues suffers from a decision-making fragmentation, often dictated by economic considerations and, above all, a chronic lack of effective implementation. [...]
[...] The analysis of this decision will thus highlight the affirmation of a strengthened judicial control over the state's inaction on climate.), while revealing the structural limits linked to the absence of coercive devices guaranteeing the effectiveness of jurisdictional injunctions in environmental matters). The emergence of a substantial judicial control by the administrative judge over the state's climate commitments, a decisive turning point in climate litigation The climate litigation, long confined to the sphere of public policies and of the soft law, has now emerged as a structured jurisdictional field, where the administrative judge positions itself as a guarantor of the effectiveness of the state's commitments. The judgment rendered by the Council of State on 1 July 2021 fits into this evolution. [...]
