Carvalho v. The European Parliament and the Council

Known as The People's Climate Case, ten families, including children, brought an action in the European Union General Court seeking to compel the EU to take more stringent greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions reductions. Plaintiffs allege that the EU’s existing target to reduce domestic ghg emissions by 40% by 2030, as compared to 1990 levels, is insufficient to avoid dangerous climate change and threatens plaintiffs’ fundamental rights of life, health, occupation, and property.

Background
The Carvalho case is brought by ten families, joined by an association representing other families--all of whom were in occupational fields with relatively direct exposure to climate change impacts. The families are from different countries within the EU, such as Sweden, France, and Portugal, and all have demonstrated economic and health damage as a result of climate change. The case was brought in May 2018 against the EU, asking them to create more aggressive climate policies. The plaintiffs argued that the inadequate emission targets violate the fundamental rights to health, education, occupation, and equal treatment. There are two components to the lawsuit:
 * 1) A nullification action, in which the plaintiffs ask the court to declare three EU acts as void for failing to have adequate targets: Directive 2003/87/EC regarding emissions from power plans (ETS), regulation 2018/EU on industry emissions (ESR), and regulation 2018/EU on land use/forestry emissions (LULUCF)
 * 2) Showing the EU has a non-contractual liability because 1) there is an unlawful act by EU institution(s), 2) the unlawful act is a serious breach of a law that protects individual rights, and 3) there is a sufficient causal link between the breach and the damages.

Relevant Laws and Principles

 * European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights (ChFR)
 * Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)
 * Article 263
 * Article 340
 * United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
 * Paris Agreement
 * Directive 2003/87/EC
 * Regulation 2018/EU (ESR + LULUCF)

Status
The European General Court dismissed the case because the plaintiffs did not have standing since they were not sufficiently and directly harmed by the policies. The Court has a restrictive understanding of individual concern as it relates to standing because of its Plaumann precedent. In July 2019, the families appealed the decision but the European Court of Justice upheld the General Court's ruling.

Takeaways
This case serves as a sort of precursor to cases like Youth for Climate Justice v. Austria, et al., where citizens who feel harmed by climate change are taking action through the courts. The issues present in the case, and how much responsibility can be attributed to the EU, are extremely relevant and are getting direr as the climate crisis continues. Additionally, the question of standing in climate litigation is important to consider, since this case makes it hard to see who would have standing in environmental cases where harms seem to be much more spread out. "The plaintiffs [in Carvalho] highlight the paradox that the more serious the damage, the greater the number of people affected, the less judicial protection is available."

Links

 * 2019 Appeal
 * Appeal Judgement
 * Motions in the Case
 * Carvalho Case Comment from Cambridge University Press