Jubilee Post News & Views
Dr. Seema Javed
“By not complying with its climate objective, France is at fault, and the State should be held responsible for that.” Amélie Fort-Besnard, rapporteur public for the Paris Administrative Court, declared today during the hearing of case whereby four French NGOs in late 2018 had launched a lawsuit againt the french State for “climate inaction”.
In 18 December 2018, four NGOs (Notre Affaire à Tous, Fondation Nicolas Hulot, Oxfam France and Greenpeace France) made a preliminary claim for compensation from the French State. The preliminary claim for compensation recalls the context and risks linked to climate change weighing on the world and France, the shortcomings alleged against the French State and the specific requests to remedy them. The French State had two months to provide a response.
In the case it was said that France pledged to reduce its emissions by 40% by 2030, but the NGOs say the state is exceeding its carbon budgets and is not moving quickly enough to renovate buildings to make them energy efficient, or to develop renewable energy. They claim this is having a serious impact on the daily quality of life and health of people in France.
In a written defence, the French government rejected accusations of inaction and asked the court to throw out any claim for compensation. It argued the state could not be held uniquely responsible for climate change when it was not responsible for all global emissions.
On February 15, 2019, the Minister of State, Minister of the Ecological and Solidary Transition, rejected the request.
On Thursday, March 14, 2019, the four NGOs filed their lawsuit with the Administrative Court of Paris, tackling the State’s inaction over climate change via a “summary request” before the Administrative Court of Paris.
In June 23, 2020 the government responded, asserting that it was taking action to address greenhouse gas emissions, and that the time has not elapsed for it to meet its 2030 goal (ie, reducing GHG emissions by 40% compared to 1990), although, France stood at just -20% by end 2019, and has consistently failed to meet its carbon budgets over the last years.
More than two years after the beginning of the procedure initiated in December 2018 by Notre Affaire à Tous, the Nicolas Hulot Foundation, Greenpeace France, and Oxfam France, this unprecedented Case against the State’s climate inaction could lead to a historic victory. In two weeks, the court should issue the decision.
For the organisations party to the Case of the Century: “If the court follows its rapporteur public’s conclusions, the French State’s responsibility in climate change, due to its insufficient action, would be recognized. It would be a historic step forward in French law and a significant victory for climate and the protection of each and everyone from the consequences of climate change. Every climate change victim will then be able to rely on this case law to defend their rights and obtain reparation. Consequently, the State would be under high pressure to finally implement necessary measures to limit global warming to 1,5°C.”
The rapporteur public considers that the State is indeed at fault, thereby engaging its responsibility, by not taking all of the necessary measures to respect France’s commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. She specifies that the State itself introduced the current climate trajectory as the one that would allow it to respect its national objectives and international commitments in terms of climate. The rapporteur public advised the court to sentence the State to pay the NGO the symbolic sum of 1 euro in reparation for the moral prejudice caused, which the associations were asking.
The Case of the Century also demands that the court orders the State to take additional measures for the climate to fulfill its commitments. On this point, the rapporteur public does not yet set aside an injunction but advises the court to reserve its decision for later, in order to allow the NGOs and the State to discuss the reality of the State’s action in regards to climate change, as well as to wait for the French Council of State’s decision in the Grande Synthe case [2].
Finally, the rapporteur public suggests that the court should recognize ecological prejudice in the administrative courts, whereas only the judicial courts used ecological prejudice until now. The recognition of the ecological prejudice in the administrative courts would mark significant progress for environmental law. Such a decision would also allow better inclusion of Nature in the law. The rapporteur public made the point that a public entity, similarly to a private individual, could be held responsible for directly causing damage to the environment. Lastly, she suggests that climate change causes such damage and that the State is in part responsible.
The inadequacy of the State’s action in addressing the climate crisis has now been outlined, proven, and pointed out from all sides. The draft legislation derived from the Citizen Climate Convention, which will be debated next March in Parliament, is, even as the State admits, not enough to fulfill its climate objectives [3]. The ball is now in the government’s court to finally review its draft (?) and take ambitious and necessary measures to fight climate change.
(Author is an Independent Journalist & Consultant Global Strategic Communication Council)
