Firstly, the court finds that the German Constitution also "compels the state to engage in internationally oriented activities to tackle climate change at the global level and requires it – the Federal Government in particular – to promote climate action within the international framework".
Secondly the court expressly confirms that it would "appear conceivable in principle [that] duties of protection arising from fundamental rights also place the German state under an obligation vis-à-vis [individuals] living [abroad] to take action against impairments caused by global climate change".
Although the court's decision is of course not directly transferable to other jurisdictions, it may serve as a significant building block in other climate lawsuits. In the future, plaintiffs around the world might refer to the court's decision to lend more weight to their arguments.
The Climate Protection Act as of 2019
The Climate Protection Act is intended to ensure that international, European and national targets for protection against the effects of global climate change are met, in particular those of the Paris Climate Agreement. In its original form the act provided that Germany would have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels, and target (net) zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. However, the law did not specify in any detail how the emissions reductions from 2031 onwards should be achieved, but merely provided for the government to stipulate reduction levels by way of an executive order in the year 2025.
The Constitutional Court decision
Four separate constitutional complaints had been filed in relation to the Climate Protection Act by individuals from Germany and abroad, as well as climate protection organisations, including Fridays For Future. The court admitted all the complaints brought by individuals. In relation to the individuals living abroad this in itself is a remarkable decision, even though the court in the end found that the Climate Protection Act did not violate their rights.
The provisions under the Climate Protection Act found to be unconstitutional by the court are setting out the greenhouse gas emissions reduction target to be achieved by 2030 as well as the annual emissions allowed until then. In its decision the court points out that these provisions "are unconstitutional insofar as they lack provisions that satisfy the requirements of fundamental rights on the updating of [greenhouse gas emission] reduction targets from 2031 until the point when climate neutrality is reached as required by Article 20a [of the German Constitution]".
Article 20a of the German Constitution is a so-called "state aim regulation", rather than a fundamental right provision in itself. It says: "Mindful also of its responsibility towards future generations, the state shall protect the natural foundations of life and animals by legislation and, in accordance with law and justice, by executive and judicial action, all within the framework of the constitutional order." State aim regulations compel the state to protect fundamental rights and to take measures to achieve the state’s aims. However, they grant no specific rights to the individual that could be the grounds of a court case. Although there have been repeated discussions in the past on proposals to include a subjective constitutional environmental right in the German Constitution, the legislature has opted for the solution as a "state aim regulation". Thus, Article 20a of the German Constitution is still outside the fundamental rights section of the German Constitution, and therefore cannot be challenged as a subjective violation of rights.
In this respect, the court had to take an indirect route to establish that there had been violations of people’s rights where it then relied primarily on the violation of the fundamental right of freedom as stipulated in Article 2 (1) of the German Constitution. Measures put in place in pursuance of the state aim regulation in Article 20a of the German Constitution would have to be balanced against this freedom right, and, as the court points out, "within the balancing process, the obligation to take climate action [under Article 20a of the German Constitution] is accorded increasing weight as climate change intensifies".
On the basis of the greenhouse gas emissions permitted under the Climate Protection Act over the period until 2030 and detailed analysis in relation to the total remaining national CO2 budget the court concluded that "to stay within the limits of the budget, climate neutrality would […] have to be reached soon after 2030".
Whilst adding that this was "unlikely to happen", the key point then taken by the court from this conclusion is that the particularly drastic greenhouse gas reduction burdens required from 2031 onwards would impose disproportionately high losses of freedom on future generations. Allowing “one generation […] to consume large portions of the CO2 budget while bearing a relatively minor share of the reduction effort, if this would involve leaving subsequent generations with a drastic reduction burden and expose their lives to serious losses of freedom”, however, is against the principle of proportionality – a well established key criterion of fairness and justice required to be observed by the legislator. It is necessary, the court ruled, to preserve the natural foundations of life in such a way that they are still sufficient for future generations, without "subsequent generations being able to preserve them only at the price of their own radical abstinence".