Whether the defendant’s argument is true—i.e., that there is no causal relationship between CO2 emissions and the increase in the water level in the lake—can be determined only on the basis of the evidence already taken. It is the Senate’s opinion that the case is not ready for judgment without taking evidence as ordered, and therefore the defendant has not been subject to a violation of its constitutionally protected right to be heard in court or its right to effective legal protection. The Senate has modified the deadline given in the Indicative Court Order and Order for the Hearing of Evidence of 30 November 2017: it has set a new deadline of 2 March 2018 for the plaintiff to submit the advance payment, in the amount specified in the Court Order, to the central court cashier’s office. This corresponds to the deadline, extended in the Court Order of 21 December 2017, for the parties to reach an agreement and designate suitable experts. If it is already apparent beforehand that the parties cannot agree on suitable experts, the Senate requests a notice to this effect.
FAMILY FARMERS AND GREENPEACE GERMANY 33. In Family Farmers and Greenpeace Germany v Germany, the Administrative Court of Berlin dismissed a case seeking to compel the German government to comply with the government’s cabinet decisions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by the year 2020. The court ruled that climate policy generally is subject to judicial review and must not so be inadequate as to not fully protect fundamental rights such as the right to life and the right to property, but declared that the 40% target set by the government was not legally enforceable. Those bringing the suit put forth a view that the failure by the government to adhere to its own targets of 40% reductions in within the Climate Protection Plan would directly violate their legally recognised rights under the German Constitution. However, in late 2019 the Court decided to the contrary holding that the plaintiffs had not convincingly shown that their rights had been violated by the failure of the government to comply with its targets, but it did assert that the same government must undertake measures to provide for the protection of fundamental rights potentially threatened by climate change, most notably the rights to life and property. A summary of the key elements of the decision follow: A German court has held that the German government’s climate policy is judicially reviewable and must not be so inadequate as to fail to protect fundamental rights such as the rights to life and property. However, the court dismissed an action by German families to challenge the government’s failure to adhere to a cabinet decision to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2020, concluding that the target was not legally enforceable. In December 2014, the German cabinet set a goal of reducing national greenhouse gas emissions by 40% compared to 1990 levels by the end of 2020 (the Climate Protection Plan). According to the government’s 2018 official climate protection report, however, the government will likely only achieve a reduction of 32% from 1990 levels by the end of 2020. In October 2018, three German families and Greenpeace Germany filed suit in the Administrative Court of Berlin seeking to compel the German government to adhere to the 40% reduction goal. The German families are comprised of organic farmers who claim they are already experiencing the impacts of climate change. Plaintiffs argued that the
189
