Armando Carvalho and Others v. European Parliament and Council of the European Union [2021]

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) dismissed an appeal by 37 youth claimants who argued that the EU's climate regime violated fundamental rights and international obligations. The court rejected the claims on standing grounds, ruling that the applicants did not meet the 'individual concern' requirement under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The court maintained that the general effects of climate change do not grant individual standing to challenge measures of general application.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • The claimants challenged a legislative package aimed at a 40% emissions reduction, specifically the 'Emissions Trading Directive', the 'Effort Sharing Regulation', and the 'Land-Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry Regulation', arguing they were not ambitious enough to protect the right to life, health, and other fundamental rights.
  • The General Court of the European Union dismissed the initial claims because the applicants lacked standing, ruling that the legislative acts were not 'of direct and individual concern' to them under Article 263 TFEU.
  • The court rejected the argument that the varied impacts of climate change on different individuals create legal standing, stating that such an interpretation would effectively allow 'standing for all'.
  • The European Court of Justice (ECJ) dismissed the appeal on all grounds, affirming that invoking a breach of fundamental rights does not automatically satisfy the 'Plaumann' test for individual concern.
  • The ECJ ruled that widening the interpretation of Article 263 TFEU to allow standing in these cases would overstep the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

Cite the original document

APA
admin (2022). Armando Carvalho and Others v. European Parliament and Council of the European Union [2021]. ClimaTalk. https://climatalk.org/2022/05/31/armando-carvalho-and-others-v-european-parliament-and-council-of-the-european-union-2021/
Chicago
admin. Armando Carvalho and Others v. European Parliament and Council of the European Union [2021]. ClimaTalk, 2022. https://climatalk.org/2022/05/31/armando-carvalho-and-others-v-european-parliament-and-council-of-the-european-union-2021/.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |last1=admin |title=Armando Carvalho and Others v. European Parliament and Council of the European Union [2021] |publisher=ClimaTalk |date=31 May 2022 |url=https://climatalk.org/2022/05/31/armando-carvalho-and-others-v-european-parliament-and-council-of-the-european-union-2021/ |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{admin2022armando, author = {admin}, title = {{Armando Carvalho and Others v. European Parliament and Council of the European Union [2021]}}, institution = {ClimaTalk}, year = {2022}, month = may, url = {https://climatalk.org/2022/05/31/armando-carvalho-and-others-v-european-parliament-and-council-of-the-european-union-2021/}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated