{"title":"气候诉讼中的欧盟法律原则","authors":"Esmeralda Colombo","doi":"10.1007/s12689-024-00108-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The present contribution questions the role of principles of EU law in climate litigation. Notwithstanding their importance within the EU general regulatory framework, their operationalisation in climate litigation is underexplored. To appreciate EU principles in the context of climate change litigation, this paper positions them within the scope and dynamics of climate change litigation worldwide. Secondly, with this background, the analysis develops as a case law review on the emerging role of the precautionary principle, intergenerational equity, and the minimum harmonisation principle in the climate litigation. To date, five relevant climate lawsuits have unfolded before the courts of EU Member States, which allows for canvassing the content, status, and significance of the principles under examination with concrete examples of the climate lawsuits where these principles have been applied. In this regard, the paper finds that courts in Member States have steadily provided protection of the climate and future generations through rights-based arguments supported by principles. In this context, domestic courts seem to be filling the normative gap left by the CJEU by interpreting fundamental rights in relation to EU environmental principles in what I conceptualise as “the rights turn through principles.” As a final point, the paper concludes with the prospective development of EU principles in the EU legal order and beyond, possibly enabling comparisons with other jurisdictions.</p>","PeriodicalId":29853,"journal":{"name":"China-EU Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Principles of EU law in climate litigation\",\"authors\":\"Esmeralda Colombo\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12689-024-00108-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The present contribution questions the role of principles of EU law in climate litigation. Notwithstanding their importance within the EU general regulatory framework, their operationalisation in climate litigation is underexplored. To appreciate EU principles in the context of climate change litigation, this paper positions them within the scope and dynamics of climate change litigation worldwide. Secondly, with this background, the analysis develops as a case law review on the emerging role of the precautionary principle, intergenerational equity, and the minimum harmonisation principle in the climate litigation. To date, five relevant climate lawsuits have unfolded before the courts of EU Member States, which allows for canvassing the content, status, and significance of the principles under examination with concrete examples of the climate lawsuits where these principles have been applied. In this regard, the paper finds that courts in Member States have steadily provided protection of the climate and future generations through rights-based arguments supported by principles. In this context, domestic courts seem to be filling the normative gap left by the CJEU by interpreting fundamental rights in relation to EU environmental principles in what I conceptualise as “the rights turn through principles.” As a final point, the paper concludes with the prospective development of EU principles in the EU legal order and beyond, possibly enabling comparisons with other jurisdictions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":29853,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"China-EU Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"China-EU Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12689-024-00108-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"China-EU Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12689-024-00108-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
The present contribution questions the role of principles of EU law in climate litigation. Notwithstanding their importance within the EU general regulatory framework, their operationalisation in climate litigation is underexplored. To appreciate EU principles in the context of climate change litigation, this paper positions them within the scope and dynamics of climate change litigation worldwide. Secondly, with this background, the analysis develops as a case law review on the emerging role of the precautionary principle, intergenerational equity, and the minimum harmonisation principle in the climate litigation. To date, five relevant climate lawsuits have unfolded before the courts of EU Member States, which allows for canvassing the content, status, and significance of the principles under examination with concrete examples of the climate lawsuits where these principles have been applied. In this regard, the paper finds that courts in Member States have steadily provided protection of the climate and future generations through rights-based arguments supported by principles. In this context, domestic courts seem to be filling the normative gap left by the CJEU by interpreting fundamental rights in relation to EU environmental principles in what I conceptualise as “the rights turn through principles.” As a final point, the paper concludes with the prospective development of EU principles in the EU legal order and beyond, possibly enabling comparisons with other jurisdictions.