On the 31st of July 2020, the Irish Supreme found the Irish Government’s ‘National Mitigation Plan’ on Climate Change inconsistent with Irish Climate legislation. The judgment makes an important contribution to a growing body of national climate justice jurisprudence and to greater accountability in the field.
In Friends of the Environment CLG v. The Government of Ireland & The Attorney General, the Supreme Court first rejected government arguments that the case was not justiciable as carbon reductions plans were matters of policy. It then went on to find in favour of the applicants on the merits. The government’s Plan, which “envisages an increase, rather than a decrease, in emissions over the initial period of the Plan while, at the same time, committing to achieving the objective of zero net carbon emissions by 2050”, was found to lacked the necessary specificity to allow a reasonable and interested observer to know in sufficient detail how the government planned to meet those goals. As a result “the Plan should be quashed on the grounds of having failed to comply with its statutory mandate” (§.6.48).
While the decision is based on Irish legislation, and not readily transferable, the principles enshrined in the judgment requiring transparency, clarity and specificity as to concrete steps governments are taking to meet their carbon reduction goals, will resonate beyond Ireland. A number of important human rights arguments (under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights) were advanced in the case, though ultimately not fully addressed in this case. In part this was as a result of findings concerning lack of standing under Irish law for the NGO applicants to bring certain types of human rights claims. It was also unnecessary to determine the substantive of human rights issues in this case given the Court’s findings on the inadequacy of the climate mitigation Plan and the lack of access to information, as noted above. The human rights arguments developed here may well be crucial in other contexts and cases. As Justice Clark concluded: “I would reserve the position of whether, and if in what form, constitutional rights and state obligations may be relevant in environmental litigation to a case in which those issues would prove crucial” (§.9.5).
HRiP was honoured to support this ground breaking case as part of its climate justice portfolio.