������ϲʿ�������ֳ�ֱ��

L'affaire du siécle (“the case of the century”) concerns a case brought by a number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in 2019. The issued a on this matter on 3 February 2021.¹ The court bases its judgment on Article 1246 of the French Civil Code. Article 1246 concerns a provision inserted in the Code in 2016 regarding civil liability for ecological damage (described in Article 1247 of the Code).��Article 1248��determines who can bring a claim for redress, and includes environmental organizations that meet certain conditions. Pursuant to Article 1248, the��four NGOs had an interest in bringing the case.��

The judgement is comparable��to the first judgment in the , decided by the Hague District Court in the Netherlands. In contrast to the French Civil Code, the Dutch Civil Code does not contain a��special clause on liability for ecological damages,��nor are there any special clauses granting a right of action to NGOs. Accordingly, the��Urgenda Case was based on the general civil liability clause. It should be noted that on appeal and in cassation, the Urgenda Case was based on artt. 2 and 8 of the (ECHR). In France the administrative courts have jurisdiction for civil liability cases against the government, whereas in some other countries (e.g., the Netherlands, Belgium, etc.) this is a jurisdiction of the civil courts.

The Administrative Court of Paris concluded that��ecological damage is included within the meaning of art. 1247 of the Civil Code. The Court referenced��reports produced by the (IPCC). To determine the liability of the French State, the Court also refered to��the (UNFCCC), the , European climate directives and regulations, the Charte de l'environnement (French Environmental Charter with constitutional value), and the Energy Code. The Energy Code sets the 2030 and 2050 climate targets for emission reduction, provides for carbon budgets and the development of a low-carbon national strategy. It can therefore be inferred that��France recognizes the urgency of the climate crisis, has made international commitments, and has committed itself at the national level to use its regulatory powers to reduce national emissions.

The Court then examined the measures taken so far on emission reduction, energy efficiency, and renewable energy, with reference to scientific and official reports, and concluded that the targets are not being met (the 2020 energy efficiency target would only be achieved in 2026, the emission reduction target of the first carbon budget was not met). The court condemned the French State to comply with its own targets (40% emission reduction in 2030; carbon��neutrality in 2050).

In this respect, the verdict is similar to the . The demand to impose more ambitious targets, as in Urgenda, was rejected because France already has more ambitious targets than the EU. The Court granted the claim for redress in kind and in view of determining the content of the injunction, the debate was��reopened for a period of two months. Each of the NGOs would��be paid a symbolic euro as moral compensation.��

The is a case pending before the Council of State (Supreme Administrative Court). In 2019, the municipality of Grande-Synthe sued the French government for insufficient action on climate change. The suit alleges that the French government’s failure to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions violates domestic and international law, including the European Convention on Human Rights, the Paris Agreement, the French Environmental Code, and the French Environmental Charter. On 19 November 2020, the Conseil d'Etat ruled that the case was admissible and instructed the government to demonstrate, within three months, that it was taking adequate actions towards meeting its own 2030 climate goals. According to the Court, the coastal communities' claims are admissible in part because the city is particularly exposed to the effects of climate change. The Court also accepted interventions by NGOs and other interested cities. The Court noted that France committed itself to a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas��emissions by 2030, compared to 1990 levels, and instructed the government to justify its ability to meet this goal without stricter measures. Although the Court signaled the decision would be driven by French and European law, and not the Paris Agreement, that the Paris Agreement must be considered in the interpretation of national law.��The follow-up judgments in both cases are expected within 2 months.

¹��Tribunal Administratif de Paris, 3 février 2021, N° 1904967, 1904972, 1904976/4-1, Association Oxfam France, Association notre affaire à tous, Fondation pour la nature et l’homme, Association Greenpeace France.

About the Author

Luc Lavrysen

�� �� ��