The Omnibus I Negotiations in light of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change

The briefing argues that proposed 'Omnibus I' amendments to weaken or delete Article 22 of the CS3D—which requires companies to adopt and implement 1.5°C-compatible climate transition plans (CTPs)—would contradict the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) July 2025 Advisory Opinion. The ICJ confirmed that States have a binding legal duty to regulate private sector emissions using 'stringent' due diligence. The authors warn that diluting these requirements would increase the liability risks for EU Member States, heighten the legal exposure of companies to climate litigation, and leave the final Omnibus I Directive vulnerable to legal challenges for failing to meet international and EU climate obligations.

• The ICJ Advisory Opinion (AO) of 23 July 2025 establishes that climate change prevention is a binding legal obligation for States, not a discretionary policy matter, and specifically mandates the regulation of private actors' greenhouse gas emissions.
• The ICJ AO requires States to apply 'stringent' due diligence in regulating private actors, emphasizing that national policies must be effectively implemented and enforced rather than just formally adopted.
• The 1.5°C temperature goal is identified as the primary, legally binding, and non-negotiable target under the Paris Agreement, regardless of current emissions trajectories.
• Proposed 'Omnibus I' amendments by the European Commission, Council, and Parliament seek to significantly weaken Article 22 of the CS3D by removing the duty to 'put into effect' transition plans, lowering the effort standard from 'best efforts' to 'reasonable efforts', and changing the requirement from 'compatibility' with the Paris Agreement to mere 'contribution'.
• The European Parliament's current position in the Omnibus I process is to completely delete Article 22, which the briefing argues would be a clear failure to exercise the 'stringent due diligence' required by international law.
• Weakening corporate climate obligations in the EU would not protect companies from litigation; instead, it would likely increase their vulnerability as courts (such as the Hague Court of Appeal in Shell v. Milieudefensie) increasingly recognize an independent corporate duty to mitigate emissions across the value chain, including Scope 3.
• The final Omnibus I Directive faces a credible risk of legal challenge before the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) if it undermines the CS3D's objectives or violates the non-regression principle and the EU's duty to ensure a high level of environmental protection.

APA

Van den Berghe, A., Mougeolle, P., & van Es, C. (2025). The Omnibus I Negotiations in light of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change. ClientEarth. https://www.clientearth.org/media/oi0bed3f/20251114-clientearth-final-briefing-icj-and-omnibus.pdf

Chicago

Van den Berghe, Amandine, Paul Mougeolle, and Catherine van Es. The Omnibus I Negotiations in light of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change. ClientEarth, 2025. https://www.clientearth.org/media/oi0bed3f/20251114-clientearth-final-briefing-icj-and-omnibus.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Van den Berghe |first1=Amandine |last2=Mougeolle |first2=Paul |last3=van Es |first3=Catherine |title=The Omnibus I Negotiations in light of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change |publisher=ClientEarth |date=October 2025 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/oi0bed3f/20251114-clientearth-final-briefing-icj-and-omnibus.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{vandenberghe2025omnibus, author = {Van den Berghe, Amandine and Mougeolle, Paul and van Es, Catherine}, title = {{The Omnibus I Negotiations in light of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change}}, institution = {ClientEarth}, year = {2025}, month = oct, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/oi0bed3f/20251114-clientearth-final-briefing-icj-and-omnibus.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }