2023-07-07 10:03:00
The constitutional judges have now determined that not all parts of the climate protection law – which experts have criticized as toothless – have been challenged, but that they are inextricably linked, according to a broadcast on Friday. The request was too narrow.
The Constitutional Court announced that such an annulment would not eliminate the unconstitutionality alleged by the applicants. The Constitutional Court is also not allowed to give a norm a completely different content by repealing mere parts, it said in the explanation. Repeal of the Climate Protection Act in the contested, too narrow scope would result, among other things, in the federal government not only being responsible for conducting negotiations on climate protection measures, but for these measures as a whole. The Constitutional Court cannot impose such content on the legislature.
more on the subject
domestic policy
“Ineffective climate protection”: Children complain to the Constitutional Court
VIENNA. Twelve children and young people filed a climate lawsuit before the Austrian Constitutional Court on Tuesday because the …
“Ineffective climate protection”: Children complain to the Constitutional Court
The children and young people on whose behalf the application was submitted were born between 2006 and 2015. According to the Constitutional Court, they had criticized the fact that the Climate Protection Act only contained an obligation to negotiate measures to reduce greenhouse gases, but no obligation to achieve results. As a result, the legislature violated its duty to ensure the protection of the constitutionally enshrined rights of the child. There is no protection for children from serious impairments caused by climate change, and climate protection does not take into account a fair distribution of burdens over time and across generations, the application said.
The old regulation of the Climate Protection Act expired on December 31, 2020, and since then there have been no statutory greenhouse gas reduction targets in this country. The aim was to make the republic climate-neutral by 2040, with binding maximum emissions for the federal and state governments for each year. Net emissions were to be halved by 2030, and net zero was to be reached ten years later. It is regarding sectors such as transport, agriculture, buildings and waste, but also parts of energy production that are not covered by the EU emissions trading system.
“Avoid the threat of fines”
Environment Minister Leonore Gewessler (Greens) has repeatedly argued that the regulations are intended to avoid impending fines, and have spoken of up to nine billion euros by 2030. Since then, the minister has regularly seen her law as “on the right track”, but has still not been able to submit a draft assessment that has been agreed with the government partner. The ÖVP emphasizes that the law does not have top priority and that climate neutrality can also be achieved in other ways.
If the current climate protection measures are continued, Austria would clearly miss the EU climate targets for 2030, Greenpeace criticized the latest Federal Environment Agency report.
For completely different reasons, a lawyer wanted Paragraph 3 of the Climate Protection Act repealed by the Constitutional Court. In his application, which has now also been rejected as inadmissible, he stated that dramatic measures would have to be taken in the coming years to achieve the specified climate protection goals, which would restrict his freedom to work and his right to property and respect for private life.
The lawyer had not explained which of the measures he had mentioned would affect which position protected by fundamental rights, the Constitutional Court also stated in the broadcast. The constitutional judges emphasized that an application for a review of the law can only be dealt with in substance if the objections to the constitutionality of the law are set out in detail. Since this mandatory requirement was not met, the application, like that of the twelve children, was not evaluated in terms of content, but formally rejected.
Meanwhile, there were other “climate lawsuits” to be dealt with by the Constitutional Court, including the application of a woman who suffers from multiple sclerosis and who opposes several tax breaks for aviation. A complaint from, among others, a Styrian municipality and Global 2000 is also being discussed, according to which Art. 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) not only derives a state duty to protect once morest natural disasters and hazards, but also a right for everyone Affected persons for the adoption of suitable measures.
ePaper
Read the e-paper now!
Read the daily updated ePaper edition of the OÖNachrichten – now flip through it digitally!
to the epaper
info By clicking on the icon you add the keyword to your topics.
info Click on the icon to open your “my topics” page. You have saved from 15 tags and need to remove tags.
info Click on the icon to remove the keyword from your topics.
Add the theme to your themes.
1688727093
#narrow #climate #lawsuit #rejected #formal #reasons