Friends of the Irish Enviroment CLG -v -The Government of Ireland & ors [2019] IEHC 747 (19 September 2019)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice MacGrath delivered on the 19th day of September, 2019.

1. This case concerns a challenge by the applicant to the National Mitigation Plan (“the

Plan”) published on the 19th July, 2017 which was approved by the Government under s.

3 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act, 2015, (hereafter referred to as

“the Act”). The long title of the Act, which came into operation on 10th December, 2015,

“to provide for the approval of plans by the Government in relation to climate change for

the purpose of pursuing the transition to a low carbon, climate resilient and

2. The threat to the earth, its inhabitants and ecosystems, posed by the effects of climate

change is well documented. The need for action is undoubted. International treaties have

been adopted. In 1988 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”), a

scientific international body, was founded. It operates under the auspices of the United

Nations and acts as an independent evaluator of published information about climate

science. Within the IPCC there are a number of working groups which publish Assessment

Reports (“AR”). These reports involve a thorough investigation and analysis of scientific

knowledge of climate change, its impacts, risks and future options. A number of relevant

reports have been referred to in these proceedings, in particular, AR4 in 2007, and AR5 in

2014. These have been described as the main sources of the undisputed scientific

information about climate change. Special Reports (“SR”) have also been produced on

topics agreed by member governments, in particular a report known as SR15, which

3. Measures have been taken within the European Union and, in this jurisdiction, the

Oireachtas has enacted the aforesaid Act of 2015. The Environmental Protection Agency

(“EPA”) has produced reports in September, 2017, on the state of knowledge on climate

change impacts for Ireland and in December, 2018, dealing with emissions and emission

projections in this country. The Climate Change Advisory Council, established under s. 8

4. The scientific community agrees that global warming can be prevented, mitigated or

reduced by ensuring the reduction of the emission of greenhouse gases into the

atmosphere but significant effort is required. Adaptation measures may be also taken to

counter the consequences of climate change. Further, the scientific community is

attempting to develop measures to reduce existing levels of carbon dioxide in the

atmosphere. This case concerns the former i.e. the plan for mitigation measures.

5. It is self-evident that climate change is a problem of and for the global community. No

one country, particularly that of the size of this State, can tackle the problem on its own.

That however, does not lessen the requirement to do what is necessary to achieve

scientifically advised targets. This was recognised in The State of the Netherlands v.

Urgenda Foundation (C/09/456689/ZA), where the court observed that, although a global

“this does not release the State from its obligations to take measures in its territory

within its capabilities which in concert with the efforts of other states provide

Indeed, in the introduction to the Plan, it is acknowledged that climate change is already having

diverse and wide-ranging impacts on Ireland’s environment, society and on economic and

natural resources. Future impacts are predicted to include sea-level rise; more intense

storms and rainfall; increased likelihood and magnitude of river and coastal flooding;

water shortages in summer; increased risk of new pests and diseases; adverse impacts

on water quality; and changes in the distribution and time of lifecycle events of plant and

animal species on land and in the oceans. The plan also recognises the limited window for

real action to ensure that current and future generations can live sustainably in a low

carbon climate resilient world. Acknowledging that impacts will be felt unevenly, and the

responsibility to support less developed countries in achieving objectives, nevertheless, it

also states that the climate challenge cuts across all sectors of society.

The information and studies opened to this court indicate that there is a relationship

between cumulative emissions, temperature rises and global risks to the environment,

risk of death, of injury and health particularly in low-lying coastal zones and small island

developing states due to storm surges, coastal flooding and sea level rises. There are also

reported risks of mortality and morbidity during periods of extreme heat. Food systems

may be at risk and there is a risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income. The more one

proceeds to global warming of 2°C higher relative to the beginning of the Industrial

Revolution the greater are such risks. AR5 indicates that there is evidence of a strong,

consistent, almost linear relationship between cumulative carbon dioxide emissions and

projected global temperature change to 2100. Representative Concentration Pathways

(“RCPs”) which are greenhouse gas concentration (not emission) pathways, were adopted

in AR5. Risks have been identified in all such pathways. That report contains the following

“Multi-model results show that limiting total human-induced warming to less than two

degrees relative to the period 1861 to 1880 with a probability of >66% would

require cumulative CO2 emissions from all anthropogenic sources since 1870 to

remain below about 2,900 Gt of CO2 (with a range of 2,550 to 3,150 GtCO2

depending on non – CO2 drivers). About 1,900 GtCO2 has already been emitted by

7. The applicant maintains that crucial to understanding the risks of climate change and to

appreciate warming levels are historical cumulative emissions. Every unit emitted

contributes equally to warming, regardless of when or where it is emitted. Thus, the more

emissions that have taken place over past years, then the less emissions can be afforded

in the future if we wish to stay within particular concentrations in the atmosphere and

therefore below particular temperatures. There are “budgets” of the maximum amount

that can be afforded to carbon dioxide emissions, to keep the temperature increases

below 2°C above preindustrial levels. This court has been informed that the world cannot

afford to emit more than a further 1000 gigatons of carbon in order to stay below the 2°C

limit. In order to achieve, or stay under 1.5°C, this amount will need to be reduced

8. The applicant contends that last minute reductions will not achieve the desired targets

and what matters for the purposes of assessing the effect on concentrations and thus

temperature is what occurs during the entire period over which one is attempting to

reduce emissions. Therefore, to prevent harm, emissions must be reduced in a feasible

but sharply downwards trajectory. The applicant maintains that for the State to argue

that measures will be put in place to achieve a reduction by 2050 does not meet the case,

as it does not avoid the serious risk of damage that follows from the failure to reduce or

take steps to reduce emissions in the short term. Even if all emissions ceased today, it is

contended that the current concentration levels will continue to change the climate for

9. The evidence suggests that net negative carbon dioxide emissions are required at some

point during the century to stay within the 2°C limit. Such scenarios assume that carbon

dioxide removal technologies such as bioenergy, extensive reforestation and forest

growth will be required. Negative emissions are likely to be expensive and technology

remains untested. It is therefore submitted that any mitigation plan has to be one that is

calculated to achieve substantial emission reductions in the short term and that the State

is failing to do that is not controverted. Thus, it is argued that focusing on long-term

reduction targets, will lead to early depletion of carbon budgets.

10. Thus, the problem is clear. No party before this court disputes this. What is in dispute is

whether the respondent and its Minister, in making and approving the plan, is doing

enough to tackle the problem and, if not, whether this gives rise to a breach of the Act

and of the applicant’s rights which the courts can entertain and enforce.

11. The applicant is a company limited by guarantee with an address at Beara, Co. Cork. It is

an environmental non-governmental organisation which has been active in the protection

and the promotion of the Irish environment for approximately 20 years. An issue of

defence raised in these proceedings is whether the applicant, an incorporeal body, enjoys

sufficient locus standi to maintain this challenge particularly in the context of the personal

and human rights under the Constitution and the Convention on Fundamental Rights and

12. The applicant alleges that the Plan is unconstitutional, is in breach of the European

Convention on Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and is ultra vires the powers of the

Minister under the Act. The applicant seeks to quash the decision of the respondent to

approve the Plan and, if appropriate, an order remitting the Plan for revision in

accordance with the requirements of the Act. It also seeks, inter alia, declarations that

the Plan as approved is not consistent with the requirements of the Act and, in particular,

is contrary to those requirements identified in s. 4 of the Act. It is contended, inter alia,

that the Plan does not specify any or any adequate measures to achieve the management

of a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in order to attain emission levels appropriate

for furthering the achievement of the National Transition Objective as provided for and

defined in s. 3 of the Act. (emphasis added) The applicant maintains that the Plan, in a

number of respects, is in breach of the provisions of s. 4 of the Act and seeks declarations

that the Plan did not take any or any adequate account of existing obligations of the State

as identified in s. 2 of the Act. It further seeks a declaration that the approval is

unconstitutional and breaches the Charter on Fundamental Rights and Freedoms in

circumstances where the failure to adopt any or any adequate means to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions as required to contribute to meeting the objectives of the

UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement will endanger the applicants rights,

the rights of the applicant’s members and the population at large. A declaration is sought

that the respondent has failed to perform its functions in a manner compatible with the

State’s obligations under the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights,

contrary to s. 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act, 2003. It also seeks a

declaration that it is unreasonable for the respondent to approve the Plan and that the

13. At the heart of this case is the applicant’s claim that the respondent, in measures which it

has adopted in the Plan, has failed to take action to ensure a reduction in such emissions

particularly in the short and medium-term and thereby to attempt to achieve the targets

which the international community has deemed to be not only desirable but necessary in

order to protect the world’s climate and environment for not only the current but

14. The Act makes provision for the establishment of the Climate Change Advisory Council

(hereafter referred to as “the Advisory Council”). The applicant relies, inter alia, on the

Council’s criticism in its first report published in 2016, in correspondence and in its

periodic review in 2017, of the State’s response to the challenges of climate change and

the contents of the Plan. In particular its observation that Ireland is unlikely to meet its

2020 targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by a substantial margin is criticised

and that this will have implications not only for 2020, but for compliance with 2030

targets. The Advisory Council considered it urgent that additional and enhanced policies

and measures be identified in the Plan, which will assist in addressing the gap in

emissions reductions required to meet the 2020 targets and ensure that the anticipated

2030 EU targets will be achieved as part of the low-carbon transition to 2050.

The main provisions of the Act – the National Transition Objective and the National

15. Section 2 of the Act provides, inter alia, that nothing in the Act and the National

Mitigation Plan shall operate to affect existing or future obligations of the State under EU

law or existing or future obligations of the State under any international agreement or

16. Section 3 addresses the National Transition Objective and provides as follows:-

“(1) For the purpose of enabling the State to pursue, and achieve, the transition to a low

carbon, climate resilient and environmentally sustainable economy by the end of

the year 2050 (in this Act referred to as the “National Transition Objective”) the

(2) When considering a plan or framework, referred to in subsection (1), for approval, the

Government shall endeavour to achieve the National Transition Objective within the

period to which the objective relates and shall, in endeavouring to achieve that

objective, ensure that such objective is achieved by the implementation of

measures that are cost effective and shall, for that purpose, have regard to—

(a) the ultimate objective specified in Article 2 of the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change done at New York on 9 May 1992 and any mitigation

commitment entered into by the European Union in response or otherwise in

(d) any existing obligation of the State under the law of the European Union or any

(e) the most recent national greenhouse gas emissions inventory and projection of future

Section 4 imposes an obligation on the Minister, not later than 18 months after the passing of

the Act, and not less than once in every five-year period, to make and submit to the

Government, for approval, a national low carbon transition and mitigation plan. Section

(a) specify the manner in which it is proposed to achieve the National Transition

(b) specify the policy measures that, in the opinion of the Government, would be required

in order to manage greenhouse gas emissions and the removal of greenhouse gas

at a level that is appropriate for furthering the achievement of the National

Union or any international agreement referred to in section 2, and

(d) specify the mitigation policy measures (in this Act referred to as the “sectoral

mitigation measures”) to be adopted by the Ministers of the Government, referred

to in subsection (3)(a), in relation to the matters for which each such Minister of

(ii) enabling the achievement of the National Transition Objective.”

Section 4(3) makes provision for the Government to request Ministers to submit, within a

specified period, the sectoral mitigation measures that each such Minister of the

Government proposes to adopt in relation to matters for which they have responsibility.

There is an obligation on the Minister for the Environment, Local Government and the

Community (“the Minister”) to include those measures in the plan. Section 4(4) provides

(b) approve, subject to such modifications as they consider appropriate,

a National Mitigation Plan submitted to them under this section.”

If and when a periodic review report is submitted to Government, the Minister may make and

submit to the government, for approval, a plan varying, revising or replacing an improved

National Mitigation Plan. The Government has the power to vary or revise the plan.

Section 4(7) imposes an obligation on the Minister and the Government to take into account:-

“(i) any existing obligation of the State under the law of the European Union or any

(ii) likely future mitigation commitments of the State and the economic imperative for

(iii) the requirement to be able to act quickly in response to economic and environmental

(d) the need to achieve the objectives of a National Mitigation Plan at the least cost to the

national economy and adopt measures that are cost-effective and do not impose an

(f) the findings of any research on the effectiveness of mitigation measures and

(g) the sectoral mitigation measures included in the National Mitigation Plan pursuant to

subsection (2)(d) that are to be adopted by each Minister of the Government in

relation to the matters for which each such Minister of the Government has

(h) where a National Mitigation Plan has been approved by the Government, the most

(j) mitigation measures, specified in a notification to the Minister or the Government

17. Before making the Plan, the Minister is obliged to have regard to submissions made

pursuant to and in accordance with a notice which must be published by him on the

internet and in more than one newspaper circulating in the State, inviting members of the

public and any interested parties to make submissions in writing in relation to proposed

National Mitigation Plans. The court was informed that following the publication of the

draft Plan, 124 submissions were made and in consequence an additional 43 new actions

were added, with certain amendments being made to the actions proposed contained in

18. The applicant pleads that, pursuant to the United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change (UNFCCC)(hereinafter referred to as the “Framework Convention”) the

respondent is committed to the stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the

atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the

climate system to achieve such stabilisation within a timeframe sufficient to allow

ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not

threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner. To

enhance the implementation of the Framework Convention, including the central objective

of international climate law and policy, the respondent is further committed under the

Paris Agreement, 2015, to arrest the increase in the global average temperature to well

below 2°C above pre-industrial levels; and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature

increase to 1.5°C, recognising that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of

19. It is pleaded that prior to the adoption of these more ambitious temperature goals under

the Paris Agreement the aim of the Framework Convention and related instruments had

been to keep the increase and the global average temperature to below 2°C above pre-

industrial levels. With what has been described as this less ambitious goal, Ireland and

the EU recognised via the Framework Convention process that a reduction in emissions of

25% to 40% on 1990 levels was required from the parties described in Annex 1 of the

agreement, which includes Ireland, in order to contribute to fulfilling the Framework

Conventions’ objectives. The applicant further pleads that notwithstanding this, the EU

committed to reduce its emissions by a lower figure, being 20% by the year 2020,

compared with those of 1990. It is pleaded that it is recognised that greenhouse gas

emissions reductions by Annex 1 parties of 80 to 95% by 2050 (in comparison with 1990

levels) are required in order to contribute to keeping the increase in global average

20. The applicant places considerable emphasis on the path of reduction and the necessity to

reach interim emission reduction targets (emphasis added). Several reduction paths with

the same starting point and the same end point can vary dramatically in the amount of

21. Insofar as Ireland’s contributions to EU commitments pursuant to the Framework

Convention process, it is submitted that this includes a binding 20% reduction in emission

from non-energy transmission system (“ETS”) sectors by 2020 (compared to the baseline

adopted by the EU in 2005) and a binding commitment to ensure that by 2020, renewable

energy has a 16% share in the gross final consumption of energy in Ireland. It is pleaded

that in the context of long term goals, the EU aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by

80% compared to 1990 levels through domestic reductions alone (i.e. rather than relying

on international credits) and it is the applicant’s case that the plan does not adequately

take into account the State’s EU obligations or commitments and that it provides no

mechanism by which the respondent’s obligations or commitments to EU law will be

complied with. It should be noted that in submissions to the court, counsel for the

applicant accepted that the reduction of emissions figures of 25% - 40% by 2020 and

80% - 90% by 2050, determined in AR4, which trajectory was acknowledged by the EU

and Ireland, were subject to political endorsement but did not create legally binding

targets as such. The Paris Agreement recognised the need to reduce the safe temperature

22. The Plan is further criticised in that the respondent, in approving the Plan, failed generally

to ensure the achievement of the National Transition Objective by the implementation of

measures that are cost effective and that it failed further to take into account matters

specified in s. 3(2) of the Act. It is pleaded that the ultimate objective of the Framework

Convention is to achieve stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere

at a level that will prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system

and to achieve that level within a specified time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to

adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to

enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner. The applicant

describes the plan as wholly inadequate and one which fails to take seriously the urgent

23. The applicant also relies on a failure by the respondent to comply with its policy on

climate change which includes a National Climate Policy position from 2014, containing as

it did, a policy directed at an aggregate reduction of carbon dioxide emissions of at least

80% by 2050, in comparison to 1990 levels, across the electricity generation, build

environment and transport sectors and, in parallel, an approach to carbon neutrality in

the agricultural and land use sector including forestry. With regard to the provisions of s.

3(2)(c), the applicant contends that climate justice requires that Ireland has recognised

via the Framework Convention process that Annex 1 countries, which include this State,

ought to be delivering a reduction in emissions of 25 to 40% by 2020 when compared

with 1990 levels to contribute to achieve a below 2°C goal of the Framework Convention,

and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C. By failing to provide in

the Plan for emission reductions in accordance with the required standard, the applicant

maintains that the respondent has had no, or no adequate, regard to climate justice.

24. It is also contended by the applicant that the State has failed to take adequate account of

the obligations and requirements of ss. 3(2)(d) and 3(2)(e), the latter being the most

recent national greenhouse gas inventory and projection for future greenhouse gas

emissions prepared by the EPA. The most recent projections from the EPA reveal that

Ireland is projected to miss its binding EU law target if 20% reduction in non – ETS

emissions by 14% to 16%. It is also projected that Ireland will miss its binding EU law

renewable energy target for 2020 by 2.7% and that without additional and enhanced

policies and measures it will miss its indicative 2030 target of a 30% reduction in

emissions by 27% to 29%. It is pleaded that Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions are

projected to increase between 1990 and 2020 by between 7.5% and 10% at least and

that these will further increase by 2030 and that this is recognised in the Advisory Council

report that Ireland is “way off target” to achieve the required reductions. Thus, in

approving what is described as the wholly inadequate Plan which fails to take seriously

the urgent need to reduce emissions as required, it is pleaded that the respondent has

failed to have any or any adequate regard to the EPA’s most recent inventory and

25. While it was initially alleged that the Advisory Council was not given an adequate

opportunity to comment on the Plan, or that the respondent failed to take into account

the comments of the Advisory Council in respect of the Plan, this was not pursued at

26. By failing to take any or any adequate measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as

required, or to identify specific measures by which the respondent will achieve its 2020 to

2050 targets, the objectives of the Framework Convention and the Paris Agreement, it is

pleaded that the plan will impinge on and threaten the right to life, the right to liberty and

security, the right to the integrity of the person, the right to respect for family and private

life and home, the right to property, the rights of the child, the rights of the elderly,

equality between men and women, environmental protection and/or the unenumerated

constitutional right to a reasonable environment. It is also pleaded that this will breach

the unenumerated constitutional commitment to intergenerational solidarity and/or

unenumerated constitutional obligation to vigilantly and effectively protect the

environment. It is the applicant’s case that when a Plan will have such an effect, its

approval is repugnant to the Constitution and is in breach of the respondent’s obligations,

including the protection of human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights

27. The application is grounded on the affidavit of Mr. Tony Lowes sworn on 13th October,

2007. He is a director of the applicant company. He has also sworn a further affidavit

on 16th April, 2018. Mr. Lowes avers that the science presented in the IPCC’s assessment

reports is regarded as representing the overwhelming scientific consensus shared by the

parties thereto, including the respondent. These reports contain summaries for policy

makers which have been thoroughly discussed by scientists as well as Government

representatives. All Governments have committed themselves to the findings,

conclusions and implications thereof. He makes particular reference to passages from the

summary for policy makers in the synthesis report of AR5 of 2014. This synthesis report

states that changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed

since 1950. Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a

decrease in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an

increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation

events in a number of regions. It is recorded that impacts from recent climate related

extremes such as heatwaves, floods, cyclones and wildfires, reveal the serious

vulnerability of certain ecosystems and many human systems to current climate

variability. The Summary for Policy Makers of the Synthesis Report of the IPCC’s Fifth

Assessment Report (2014) reflects the current situation which is discussed at para. 76 et

28. This report outlines in stark terms, the challenges and risks of climate change. The report

also states that substantial emission reductions over the next few decades can reduce

“…Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with

adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st Century will lead to high to a very high

risk of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence –

being a reference to the degree of assuredness with which this opinion is expressed

by the authors). Mitigation involves some level of co – benefits and of risks due to

adverse side effects, but these risks do not involve the same possibility of severe,

widespread and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change, increasing the

There are multiple mitigation pathways that are likely to limit warming to below 2°C

relative to pre-industrial levels. These pathways would require substantial

emissions reductions over the next few decades and near zero emissions of CO2

and other long-lived greenhouse gases by the end of the century. Implementing

such reductions poses substantial technological, economic, social and institutional

challenges, which increase with delays in additional mitigation and if key

technologies are not available. Limiting warming to lower or higher levels involves

similar challenges but on different timescales.” (emphasis added)

The applicant places significant emphasis on this last paragraph. This assessment report has led

policy makers to the conclusion that an increase of 2°C may not in fact be a safe limit,

and Mr. Lowes avers that that is why the Paris Agreement provides for an even lower

limit. In AR5 the view is expressed that without additional efforts to reduce greenhouse

gas emissions beyond those in place today, emission growth is expected to persist driven

by growth in global population and economic activities. It continues:-

“baseline scenarios—those without additional mitigation— result in global mean surface

temperature increases in 2100 from 3.7 degrees Centigrade to 4.8 degrees

With increased warming, some physical systems or ecosystems may be at the risk of abrupt and

irreversible changes, known as tipping points, and that such risks will increase

29. Mr. Lowes also refers to a number of international peer – reviewed research documents,

including a World Bank report entitled “Turn down the heat: Why a 4˚C World Must be

30. He also calls in aid a report of the International Energy Agency (hereafter “the IEA”)

entitled “Redrawing the Energy-Climate Map” (June, 2013) which warns that the World is

not on track to meet the target agreed by governments to limit the long term rise in the

average global temperature to 2°C. In that report, the IEA highlights the delay in climate

action in the energy sector will come at a high cost and that because emissions are still

growing, the remaining carbon budget for energy may be used up within 20 years.

31. Mr. Lowe avers that Ireland’s contribution to climate change in this regard is

disproportionate as evidenced by the per capita emissions which are the third highest in

the EU and thus Ireland must meet appropriate targets in 2020 and 2030 and not just

long term emission targets. By failing to meet its 2020 and/or 2030 targets, Ireland’s

total cumulative emissions will be larger than is permissible given the carbon budget

available to Ireland on the basis of a fair and equitable distribution of the global carbon

budget. Missing either or both of these targets will have consequences for the 2050

target. He avers that the concept of the carbon budget illustrates why Ireland must meet

appropriate targets in 2020 and 2030, and not just a long-term emissions target, to avoid

32. Reference is also made to the UN Environmental Programme (“UNEP”) Emissions Gap

Report, 2016, published in November, 2016, which emphasises that urgent action is

required if the goals of the Paris Agreement are to be met and notes that current

emission reduction pledges, that is the nationally determined contributions, are

insufficient to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. Emphasis is placed on the

requirement for urgent enhancing of early mitigation measures and that enhanced early

action is critical for pursuing the 1.5°C target. It is stated in that report that:-

“The urgency of enhancing pre – 2020 mitigation acts are, thus, indisputable:

(i) It supports the transition towards a least cost emissions reduction trajectory

after 2020 that is consistent with the well – below 2 degrees’ Centigrade

(ii) It is likely the last chance to keep the option of limiting global warming to 1.5

degrees Centigrade in 2100 open, as all available scenarios consistent with

the 1.5-degree target imply that global greenhouse gas emissions peak

33. In short, this report warns and advises that delaying action is associated with greater

risks of failing to meet the temperature target, increase the costs of mitigation in the

medium and long term, implies greater risks of economic disruption and will result in

greater lock-in of carbon and energy-intensive infrastructure in the energy system and

34. Mr. Lowes refers at some length to EU legislation and what is described as the climate

and energy package which consists of four main legislative provisions adopted in 2009,

dealing with reforms of the emissions trading scheme, reform of goals relating to

renewable energy, covering sectors falling outside the ETS and the environmentally safe

sequestration of carbon dioxide underground. Pending other developed countries

committing themselves to comparable reductions, the EU committed itself in March, 2007

to what Mr. Lowe has described as a less ambitious target, and one that it would later

effectively accept via the UNFCCC and Kyoto, is insufficient to contribute to preventing

“the EU makes a further independent commitment to achieve at least a 20% reduction of

35. Mr. Lowes states that the EU reaffirmed its commitment to increasing the 20% target to a

30% reduction by 2020 in December, 2008 and Annex I parties to the UNFCCC should

deliver emission reductions of between 25% and 40% by 2020. The further goals of the

EU over the period 2013 and 2050 are discussed in detail by Mr. Lowes. He references

the Effort Sharing Decision, Decision 406/2009/EC, under which Ireland must reduce its

non-ETS emissions by 20% by 2020 compared to 2005 greenhouse gas emissions levels,

36. In addition to the Advisory Council’s Report and Review, Mr. Lowes also refers to the

EPA’s greenhouse gas emissions projections report and states that Ireland is projected to

miss its binding EU target of 20% reduction in non-ETS emissions by 14% to 16%, miss

its binding EU law renewable energy target by 2.7% and without additional and it has

policies and measures, miss its 2030 target by between 27% to 29%.

37. The respondent opposes this application and raises a number of preliminary objections. It

pleads that the relief sought is inadmissible by reason of delay, the proceedings not

having been commenced within three months from the date of the approval of the Plan by

the government which was on the 27th June, 2017. The Plan was in fact published on the

38. Importantly, the respondent contends that neither the decision to approve the Plan nor

the Plan are amenable to judicial review, as they do not grant rights or impose obligations

and the Plan is therefore a non – justiciable statement of government policy which is not

subject to the remedy of judicial review. The respondent also pleads that the applicant

lacks locus standi and that it is not entitled to advance those aspects of its claim in

respect of the alleged breaches of the Constitution and/or alleged breaches of the

European Convention of Human Rights on the basis of actio popularis.

39. It is to be observed that the applicant in its statement of grounds contended for a

different and higher level of scrutiny in the present case, than that which applies to

standard judicial review proceedings and the respondent objects to this. The respondent

pleads that the standard of scrutiny applicable to the within proceedings under Irish law is

wholly compatible with the requirements of EU law. Further objections are taken in

relation to the inadequacy of the matters pleaded, and as particularised. Significantly, it

is the respondent’s case that the applicant fails to engage with the substance of the Plan

itself and that despite alleging widespread deficiencies, it fails to particularise the manner

40. The respondents also argue that certain of the pleas are vague, thus the plea of

unconstitutionality does not identify the articles of the Constitution alleged to have been

41. On a substantive basis, the respondent pleads that the applicant’s case relies upon a

fundamental misconception of the scheme and purpose of the Act and the role of National

Mitigation Plans. Even if the Plan is justiciable, a very wide measure of discretion and

considerable deference must be shown to the decision maker in respect of the approach

to be adopted. Such decisions are made having regard to a variety of factors including

that the Plan will have to be revised at least six times over a 33 – year period. The Plan is

required to specify each of its objectives in a variety of subject matters including the

national economy, society, environment, climate, science, technology, legal context, all of

which are complex, difficult to quantify and are constantly evolving and interacting with

each other in unpredictable ways. It is also contended that a wide measure of discretion

ought to be allowed to the plan maker. While the applicant repeatedly alleges that the

Plan ought to set out sufficient mitigation measures as to meet the national transitional

objective, the first mitigation plan is an initial step to set Ireland on a pathway to achieve

a transition to a low carbon economy. The respondent contends that each individual

mitigation plan does not and could not provide a complete road map to the achievement

of the National Transition Objective to be a low carbon economy by 2050.

42. It is the respondent’s contention that the applicant is effectively calling upon the court to

substitute either the applicant’s view, or the court’s view, for the view of government as

to which measures are cost effective and will achieve adequate mitigation. That is not

the function of the court in judicial review proceedings. It is a matter for the executive

branch of government and for the Oireachtas. The respondent contends that the Act

requires the Government to endeavour to achieve policy objectives and it does not

impose binding obligations susceptible to being breached, or create mandatory

obligations, the breach of which can be sanctioned. The respondents deny that there has

been any breach of the applicant’s Constitutional rights, of any statutory provision, or

provision of EU law or that there has been a breach of Convention rights.

43. In a replying affidavit sworn on the 15th February, 2018, Mr. Frank Maughan, Principal

Officer in the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Energy accepts that the

veracity or accuracy of the science referred to in the applicant’s affidavit is generally not

in dispute. He contends, however, that the proceedings raise relatively net points of law.

44. Mr. Maughan makes a number of points in relation to the international legal framework in

which Ireland’s national climate policy operates and these may be summarised as

(i) The Framework Convention was designed explicitly so that the commitments contained

therein were not considered to be immediately sufficient to resolve the problems

(ii) The Kyoto Protocol was adopted on the 11th December, 1997 and came into force on the

16th February, 2005. The major distinction between the Kyoto Protocol and the

Framework Convention is that while the Convention encouraged developed countries to

stabilise greenhouse gas emissions, the protocol commits them to do so. Parties listed in

Annex 1 to the Protocol took on qualified emission reduction targets for the commitment

(iii) The Doha amendment to the Kyoto Protocol was adopted on the 8th December, 2012,

which included new commitments for the Annex 1 parties, which include Ireland. Those

parties and countries agreed to take on a second commitment period from 2013 to the

end of 2020. Ireland was not assigned a specific emission reduction target for the second

commitment for that period. Ireland in fact submitted its instrument of acceptance of the

Doha amendment to the Kyoto Protocol on the 21st December, 2017. Ireland was not

assigned a specific emission reduction target for this period. For this reason the EU and its

Member States undertook to jointly fulfil its commitment in accordance with Article 4 of

the Protocol; that commitment being to reduce EU emissions by 20% on 1990 levels by

2020. These targets have now been incorporated into EU law and given effect in the

Effort Sharing Decision, which imposes binding legal obligations on Member States to

reduce emissions from certain of their economies in that period, 2013 – 2020;

(iv) The Paris Agreement was adopted on the 12th December, 2015. The parties specifically

agreed to the objective of reaching a global peak of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as

possible and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter. The parties further agreed to

undertake and communicate ambitious efforts with a view to holding the increase in

global average temperatures to well below 2°C above pre – industrial levels and pursuing

efforts to limiting the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre – industrial levels. The

Agreement was ratified by the European Union on the 5th October, 2016 and came into

force on the 4th November, 2016, when Ireland also ratified it. Mr. Maughan describes

the Agreement as representing a milestone in international efforts to strengthen the

global response to the threat of climate change. The international effort is now

represented by 188 nationally determined contributions (“NDC’s”) which the Paris

Agreement anticipates will increase in ambition over time. The Paris Agreement will

measure the effectiveness of NDC’s in achieving the goals of the agreement via a series of

global stocktakes to be held in five year cycles, beginning in 2023. Mr. Maughan states

that it is anticipated in line with the principle of the Paris Agreement that the ambition

reflected in each of the parties’ NDC’s will increase over time. Ireland’s contribution to

the Paris Agreement is by way of an NDC tabled by the EU on behalf of its Member States

which commits the EU as a whole to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by

2030 compared with 1990 levels. Member States do not have specific targets assigned to

it under the Paris Agreement. Instead the State is to meet its obligations through the

NDC of the EU. Mr. Maughan places significance on the fact that Ireland’s contribution

and obligations with respect to the Paris Agreement shall be determined and articulated

through EU legislation and that this legislation has yet to be enacted.

(v) Within the EU framework, the overall EU objective for 2020 is to reduce its greenhouse

gas emissions by 20% by 2020 compared with 1990 levels and this reduction is to be

achieved in all sectors of the economy. Reductions to the EU’s ETS are complemented by

the individual targets set by the EU for each Member State. Mr. Maughan goes into some

detail in relation to the legislative framework and observes that the European Union’s

greenhouse gas emissions reduction objective for 2020 is approached by a twofold

legislative framework being the ETS and a series of individual targets for each Member

State (Non – ETS). He observes that the target set for Ireland is that by 2020 emissions

should be 20% lower than their level in 2005 and that this target is jointly the most

demanding reduction target allocated to an EU Member State, with the average reduction

applying to Member States being 10%. Mr. Maughan notes that the ETS affords Member

States flexibility to achieve their annual emission limits through measures to bank or to

borrow allowances between individual years or to purchase additional allowances from

other Member States or from international carbon markets. In October, 2014, the EU

Council reached political agreement on headline greenhouse gas emission reduction

targets, being an overall EU reduction of at least 40% by 2030 (compared to 1990

levels). These targets which form the basis for the EU’s first NDC under the Paris

Agreement. Negotiations have taken place on the proposal to revise the EU’s emissions

trading directive for the 2021 – 2030 period and at the time of the drafting of his

45. Mr. Maughan describes the Plan as being an output of a national policy and a statutory

framework “that places the National Transition Objective (as defined at s. 3 of the 2015

Act) at the heart of Government policy.” The key national policy position on climate

action and low carbon development was adopted by the Government and published in

2014; the objective being the transition to a competitive low carbon, climate resilient and

environmentally sustainable economy by 2050. He describes how Ireland has introduced

a carbon tax on a phased basis beginning in 2009 in sectors of the economy not covered

by the ETS and that Ireland is one of a minority of countries internationally to have

46. In 2015, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources published a

White Paper on “Ireland’s transition to a low carbon energy future 2015 – 2030”. Mr.

Maughan states that the Act provides a statutory basis for the achievement of the

national policy position on climate action and low carbon development. The making of

National Mitigation Plans pursuant to this is described as a key process by which the Act

will frame and drive Ireland’s climate policy towards the National Transition Objective for

2050. Prior to its approval, a draft plan was prepared and this together with an

associated strategic environmental assessment report and appropriate assessment

natural impact statement were published for statutory public consultation in March, 2017.

These reports provided information on the decision making process. The Plan took into

account the cost effectiveness of measures which he describes as a policy decision for the

Government and was considered in the context of the duration of the lifetime of the Plan

as well as in the context of the long term objectives of the Framework Convention,

existing EU and international obligations. He describes how the lists of measures adopted

for inclusion in the final plan represented the outcome of a lengthy consultation and

analytical process. This plan covers the period 2017 to 2022 and further mitigation plans

will set out Ireland’s approach to achieving mitigation commitments for the period 2021

to 2030 arising from legislation currently being finalised at EU level. He describes how

the current plan nevertheless addresses the nature of the challenge Ireland will face in

reducing its emissions over the period to 2030. The plan is a living document which

anticipates that it will be continually updated as ongoing analysis, dialogue and

technological innovation generate more cost effective sectoral mitigation options. It

should be observed in passing that Mr. McCullough S.C., representing the applicant, in

his submissions to the court stated that this is part of what the applicant relies upon and

that the State is able to and should adapt new measures so as to bring the plan into

47. Mr. Maughan avers that the plan recognises that it is not feasible to prescribe precisely in

2017 which measures will be put in place by government to achieve the National

Transition Objective for 2050. The plan signalled the intention of government to take a

number of further significant steps in the months following its publication including a new

National Planning Framework and a 10 year capital investment plan. The Act provides for

a formal update to the Plan at least once every five years and in this context, he avers

that the Government has recognised the high likelihood that technology and innovation

will continue to evolve over the coming decades. Mr. Maughan also refers to the

requirement to recognise the need to achieve the objectives of the Plan at the least cost

to the national economy and to adopt measures that are cost effective which do not

48. In a further affidavit sworn on the 16th January, 2019, Mr. Maughan outlines legal

developments that have occurred and measures which have come into force since the

publication of the plan for the purpose of drawing attention to developments in national

climate change policy since the adoption of that plan. He refers to the 2018 Annual

Transition Statement (“ATS”) and to developments in EU law. He points out that phase

III of the EU ETS runs from 2013 to 2020 and that agreement was reached on Phase IV

on the 8th December, 2017. A revised ETS directive (Directive No. 2018/410) was

published on the 19th March, 2018. Under this phase, which runs for the period 2021 –

2030, Mr. Maughan says that the sectors covered by the ETS must reduce their emissions

by 43% by 2030, compared to 2005 levels. Further changes in the design of the system

are therefore required to be implemented from 2021 to stabilise and to further increase

the price of carbon and incentivise emissions reductions. With regard to non – ETS

emissions, he refers to the introduction in July, 2016 by the European Commission of a

proposal for a regulation to limit post - 2020 national emissions in sectors which were not

covered by the ETS, including transport, buildings and agriculture. This proposed

regulation is part of the EU’s efforts to reduce its greenhouse gas emission by at least

40% below 1990 levels by 2030. This Effort Sharing Regulation (Regulation No.

2018/842) on binding and greenhouse gas emission reductions by member states from

2021 to 2030 contributing to climate action to meet commitments under the Paris

Agreement, came into force on the 9th July, 2018. Ireland’s national contribution is set at

a 30% reduction in non – ETS emissions compared to 2005 levels by 2030 and Mr.

Maughan states that a new approach has been employed by the Commission when

calculating national contributions. He continues at para. 11 of his affidavit:-

“This approach is not simply based on gross domestic product per capita, but also

includes a “cost effectiveness” analysis. This takes into account the relative cost to

each Member State to reduce emissions, having regard to the manner in which

emissions are generated in each Member State. Ireland’s national target for the

period 2030 will therefore be lower than it would have been on the basis of GDP per

capita only. On a purely GDP per capita (which was the sole basis for the previous

efforts sharing decision) Ireland’s contribution would have amounted to a 39%

49. Mr. Maughan outlines what he describes as the updating and implementation of the

national public policy response to climate change, since the Plan came into force. The

government published the National Adaptation Framework on 18th January, 2018. In

February, 2018, the State published the National Planning Framework which coordinates

key areas such as housing, jobs, health, transport, environment, energy and

communications into an overall coherent strategy. The development and publication of

this National Planning Framework provided a timely and key opportunity to ensure that

the climate implications of spatial choices are fully considered and addressed. He states

that climate considerations were considered extensively during the drafting of the

framework and he outlines a number of commitments which will, he says, support the

achievement of Ireland’s climate policy objectives. These include for example, the

integration of climate considerations in statutory plans and guidelines, more energy

efficient development with the location of housing and employment, the promotion and

protection and enhancement of carbon pools, matters such as the construction of sea

walls in response to sea level rises and green adaptation which seeks to use ecological

properties to enhance the resilience of human and natural systems to include green

spaces and parks. In addition, the National Development Plan for 2018 – 2027 was

published in February, 2018 and sets out the investment priorities that will underpin the

implementation of the National Planning Framework. It will guide national, regional and

local planning and investment decisions in Ireland over the next two decades, to cater for

an expected population increase of over one million people. Mr. Maughan says that this

Plan will build on the National Mitigation Plan. The Plan has also identified areas of

propriety for public investment. At para. 20 of his affidavit Mr. Maughan states that

almost €22BN will be directed, between exchequer and non – exchequer resources to

address the transition to a low carbon and climate resilient society. Further, the National

Development Plan has allocated €8.6BN for investment in sustainable mobility and he

“This means that well over one Euro in every five Euro spent under the National

Development Plan will be on climate mitigation and this capital investment will

enable Ireland to deliver a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the

50. Mr. Maughan also outlines what he describes as new ambitious commitments on climate

action which are outlined in the National Development Plan and that these will go beyond

the measures adopted for the Plan in 2017. These matters include:-

(a) Energy efficient upgrades for a considerable number of homes;

(d) The roll-out of support schemes for renewable heat and national smart

(e) The transitioning of the Moneypoint plant away from coal by the middle of the

(f) Having at least 500,000 electric vehicles on the road by 2030 with additional

(g) Providing that no new non – zero emission cars will be sold in Ireland post

2030 and no NCT certificates will be issued for non – zero emission cars post

51. On the 19th December, 2018, the Department published the draft National Energy and

Climate Plan 2021 – 2030 which was required to be submitted to the European

Commission and this represents an updated set of greenhouse gas emission projections to

2020 and 2030 taking into account the range of new commitments set out in the National

“These projections indicate that, in relation to 2030, emissions from sectors covered by

the EU Effort Sharing Regulation are projected to reduce by 6.3% below 2005 levels

in 2030. This contrasts with the position as set out in the EPA’s 2018 emissions

projections, published in May 2018, which indicates that emissions in 2030 could

remain at 2005 levels. Therefore, the projected impact on relevant emissions of

the commitments included in the National Development Plan will make a significant

contribution to Ireland’s ability to meet its non – ETS targets for the 2021 – 2030

period, though it is acknowledged that further efforts will be required.”

52. Mr. Maughan also refers to a further EPA report published in December, 2018 “Ireland’s

provisional greenhouse gas emissions 1990 – 2017”. For 2017, the national greenhouse

gas emissions are estimated to be 0.9% lower in 2017 than 2016, although he does

acknowledge that the decrease is mainly due to mild weather conditions. In November,

2018, the government agreed to the development of a new “All of Government Climate

Plan”. This will prioritise cross – government action from 2019 onwards to ensure that

Ireland can become a leader in response to climate change. This plan has strong focus on

implementation, including actions with specific timelines and steps needed to achieve

each action, assigning clear lines of responsibility for delivery and will build on previous

actions of Government outlined above. Mr. Maughan’s evidence is that this all of

government climate plan will prioritise cross government actions from 2019 onwards to

ensure that Ireland can become a leader in responding to climate change. The new Plan

53. Mr. Maughan also outlines in detail the contents of the Annual National Transition

Statement (“ANTS”) which accompanied the publication of three associated documents

detailing and recording the implementation of existing mitigation measures and actions

contained in the plan and National Adaptation Framework and also detailing and recording

the development and implementation of new mitigation measures and actions which were

not contained in the Plan. Mr. Maughan states that these documents together with ANTS,

54. In particular, he refers to a number of updated reports on the implementation of the plan

and the National Adaptation Framework. These include the following:-

(i) The update report on the National Mitigation Plan measures – this includes an

up to date list of policies and measures in place to reduce emissions in the

four main sectors covered by the plan. These are electricity generation, the

built environment, transport and agriculture, forestry and land use.

(ii) The update report on the National Mitigation Plan actions. This contains

details on the implementation of actions committed to by government

departments under the 2017 National Mitigation Plan. Twenty-two of the

committed 106 actions covering the five – year period for the plan, have now

been completed. A further 14 new actions are being committed to for

(iii) The update report on sectoral adaptation plans. This is a report updating the

sectoral adaptation plans essentially outlining progress in the development of

sectoral plans in advance of the statutory deadline of September, 2019.

55. These reports detail a variety of new measures adopted by the Government since the

publication of the Plan relating to the approval of a renewable electricity support scheme,

offshore renewable energy developments, national policy statement of interconnection

and increased funding for energy efficiency programmes. It includes details in respect of

the issuing of a first sovereign green bond. Mr. Maughan states that Ireland is one of the

first countries in the World to do so. The objective of the bond is to broaden the funding

base for Ireland’s debt and in future, may allow for the financing of climate related

expenditure at a lower rate of interest than other expenditures. Reference is also made

to regulations made by the Minister to increase the rate of biofuels in the transport fuel

mix, a Teagasc report on the opportunities for cost effective emissions reduction in the

Irish agricultural sector, the proposal to amend building regulations to ensure that all new

houses will meet the net-zero energy building standard. The government has also

established four climate action regional offices to support local authorities in meeting their

climate obligations. All of this, Mr. Maughan states, demonstrates the living document

56. Further, Mr. Maughan states that the IPCC special report on Global Warming of 1.5°C was

presented in December, 2018. It represents a scientific process. It is not part of

international law. He states that this report will likely inform discussion between

Framework Convention members in future international negotiations. It does not form

57. Mr. Maughan also states that Ireland has made contributions to the Framework

Convention. Developed country parties under the UNFCCC provide financial support to

assist developing countries to undertake ambitious climate action and Ireland has made a

financial contribution to this effort. He observes that Ireland is in fact on track to deliver

on a commitment to provide public climate finance support of €175 million from 2016 to

58. As for the future, Mr. Maughan avers that in 2019 Ireland will launch a new policy on

international development which will take a whole of government approach to delivering

internationally sustainable development goals, within which climate change will be a

policy priority. Ireland in fact assisted in the drafting of key texts on gender and human

59. Regarding the 25% to 40% reduction in non-ETS sectors by 2020, Mr. Maughan points

out the importance of distinguishing and comparing the level of emission reductions with

Ireland’s legally binding targets within the EU framework of the EU Effort Sharing

Decision, which is a 20% reduction by 2020 relative to 2005 levels for relevant sectors of

the economy. He states that the difference in these base year points between 1990 and

2005 is of importance to the understanding of the level of effort implied by the IPCC

recommendations. Thus, Ireland’s total national emissions have increased by the order of

25% between 1990 and 2005. In order to reduce national emissions by 40% relative to

1990 levels by 2020, this would require national emissions to be reduced to

approximately 55% of their levels in 2017 by 2020. To take such measures would have

significant economic impacts both for specific sectors and for the economy as a whole.

Indeed, Ms. Hyland S.C. in presenting this aspect of the case on behalf of the

respondents, and by reference to a chart detailing the contribution of the emissions by

various sectors of the economy, points out that almost the entire agricultural sector would

have to go to zero contribution in order to achieve this type of target. She submitted that

this would have to be done in a short period, if the applicant is correct in its analysis of

60. Mr. Maughan also refers to the Climate Change Advisory Council 2018 report which was

published in July, 2018. The most recent emissions inventories published by the EPA

related to 2016 whereas the most recent emissions projections were those published in

61. First, a fundamental plank of the respondent’s objection to the applicant’s case is that it is

contented that what the applicant in reality seek is an order from this Court requiring the

respondent to introduce a plan which would result in a particular level of lowering of

emissions and therefore, essentially the case is about the request of the applicant to this

Court to prescribe the manner in which that should be done. The applicant rejects this.

It is submitted that the respondent is wrong to characterise the proceedings as non –

justiciable or to say that the claim is based on a misconception as to the purposes of the

Plan or to suggest that the applicant is asking the court to substitute the applicant’s or

62. Second, and perhaps in addition to the uneasy interaction between law and science, is the

interaction which necessarily raises its head whenever an action of the Executive is

challenged before the courts, namely the separation of powers. This uneasy interaction is

at its most potent when it is claimed by the Executive that what is under challenge is a

matter of policy of government, and that under the Constitution, this court, not being

democratically elected, has no role in the formulation of policy or the direction in which

policy should or should not proceed. Significant emphasis in this regard is placed on the

decision of T.D. v. Minister for Education [2001] 4 IR 259 to which I will return later in

this judgment. In essence, this is part of a more general argument that the making of

this plan is an activity of government which is non – justiciable.

63. Third, reference has been made to the decision in Urgenda. There, the Court of Appeal in

the Netherlands, having considered the evidence and arguments, concluded that the

State had done too little to prevent a dangerous climate change, and was doing too little

to catch up, or at least in the short term (up to the end of 2020). The court stated:-

“Targets for 2030 and beyond do not take away from the fact that a dangerous situation

is imminent, which requires interventions being taken now. In addition to the risks

in that context, the social costs also come into play. The later actions are taken to

reduce, the quicker the available carbon budget will diminish, which in turn would

require taking considerably more ambitious measures at a later stage, as is

acknowledged by the State (Statement of Appeal 5.28), to eventually achieve the

desired level of 95% reduction by 2050. In this context, the following excerpt from

AR5 (cited in legal ground 2.19 of the judgment) is also worth noting: “(…)

Delaying mitigation efforts beyond those in place today through 2030 is estimated

to substantially increase the difficulty of transition to low-longer-term emissions

levels and narrow the range of options consistent with maintaining temperature

The court found that the State had failed to fulfil its duty of care pursuant to Article 2 and

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights by not wanting to reduce

64. The applicant claims that the Plan is ultra vires the Act. A fundamental aspect of the

applicant’s claim is that it is not sufficient to achieve reductions over the short to

medium-term and the State will not reach a 25% to 40% reduction from 1990 levels by

2020. While these are not being put forward as legal standards to be met, nor is the

applicant proposing any particular set of measures, it seeks to demonstrate that the plan

is not calculated to achieve substantial emission reductions in the short term and this

creates an unacceptable risk of contributing to warming in excess of 2°C over

preindustrial levels. Mr. McCullough S.C. submits that that is what lies at the heart of the

case. Under the Constitution and the Convention, it is a breach of the applicant’s rights to

have in place a Plan, the characteristics of which are not calculated to achieve substantial

emission reductions in the short term or even in the medium-term.

65. The applicant rejects the respondent’s contention that the claim is not a justiciable

controversy. While there may be judicial reluctance to review decisions involving

utilitarian calculations of social and economic preference, involving policy choices; the

applicant maintains that it is not requesting the court to accept a particular policy and

while it may be that the court shows deference to the other arms of government when it

comes to expenditure of public funds or where the decision is polycentric, this is a matter

upon which the court has jurisdiction to intervene. It points to the non-mandatory

negative nature of the relief sought and to the fact that it does not require the production

of a particular policy. It is submitted that it is simply requesting the court to quash an

unlawful policy. That the striking down of a piece of legislation may have knock on

financial implications, does not necessarily involve an infringement of the separation of

powers. The third leg of the applicant’s argument relates to unreasonableness. The

applicant maintains that it is not asking to measure the States calculations of policy in

this area against other similar policy calculations, particularly in relation to expenditure.

The issue is whether proper account was taken of a particular value that is required to

avoid a serious risk following from an increase in temperatures globally. The court is

entitled to review State actions and in this regard the applicant relies on the decision of

the Supreme Court in T.D., in particular dicta of Murray C.J. at p. 284:-

“If it was established in any proceedings that the Government had acted in a manner

which was in contravention of the Constitution, then the exclusive role afforded to

them in the exercise of the executive power of the state would not prevent the

court from intervening with a view to securing compliance by the Government with

It is suggested that the applicant’s case does not involve the court being required to

engage in distributive justice as described by Costello J. in O’Reilly v. Limerick

Corporation [1998] I.L.R.M. 181. In summary, it is submitted that there is no court free

area where it is established that constitutional rights have been impacted by the actions

of the Executive and that the authorities establish a different proposition namely that the

separation of powers prohibits the court from directing particular policies to be

implemented at particular public expense; and if the court is satisfied that the applicant’s

constitutional rights have been breached, it is a matter for the Government to produce a

66. With regard to the Act of 2015, it is the applicant’s contention that the respondent has

failed to discharge a number of specific statutory obligations in the making and adoption

of the Plan. It is contended that the Plan does not fulfil the requirements of s. 4 (2)(a) of

the Act because the respondent has not specified the manner by which the National

Transition Objective will be achieved. It is argued that that the provisions of s. 4(2)(b)

have been breached because the respondent has failed to identify mitigation measures

that would further the achievement of the National Transition Objective. In this regard,

the applicant relies, inter alia, on the report and review of the Advisory Council that such

measures are absent from the Plan. It is argued that no mitigation measures have been

identified for the purposes of s. 4 (2)(b), as opposed to mitigation measures generally.

67. It is contended that s. 4(2)(d) has also been breached in that the respondent has failed to

specify sector mitigation measures for the purposes of reducing greenhouse gas

emissions and enabling the achievement of the National Transition Objective. The

criticism of the Plan in this regard is that it does not contain any or any adequate sector

mitigation measures but instead designates responsibility for those measures to various

respondent Ministers. It is suggested that the Act requires that the measures are included

68. It is argued that the Plan does not take into account adequately or at all, the factors

which are identified in s. 3 and s. 4(7) of the Act. Thus, the respondent has failed to have

regard to the achievement of a National Transition Objective by the implementation of

cost-effective measures, the objective of the UNFCCC, the national climate policy position

of 2014 or the concept of climate justice which requires that countries act in accordance

with a common but differentiated responsibility. Further, it is submitted that in failing to

specify within the plan any or any adequate measures to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions urgently, the respondent has failed to take adequate account of the matters

referred to as identified in s. 4(7) of the Act with particular reference to the requirement

to have regard to relevant scientific or technical advice, and the protection of public

health. It is submitted that the respondent could not have had regard to the identified

factors because all of these counsel the requirement to take immediate and dramatic

steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, rather than permitting emissions to rise over

69. Finally, it is submitted that the respondent was not entitled to approve a Plan that will do

little or nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in circumstances where the State’s

emissions are projected to have increased between 1990 and 2020. It is argued that it

was unlawful for the respondent to approve a Plan which was equivocal and aspirational

and devoid of adequate measures to achieve the National Transition Objective and that

therefore, as the State’s contribution to climate changes is disproportionate, the states

per capita emissions which are the third highest in the EU, it was manifestly unreasonable

and disproportionate for the respondent to approve such a plan. This is particularly so in

70. This, it is submitted, involves the identification of the standard of review and in this

regard, it is submitted that the standard of proportionality outlined in Meadows v. Minister

for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2010] 2 IR 701 is applicable, because we are here

concerned with constitutional and fundamental rights. It is acknowledged in this regard

that the Supreme Court in AAA v Minister for Justice [2017] IESC 80, observed that the

concept of proportionality should operate within the confines of the irrationality test.

Nevertheless, reliance is placed on dicta of Charleton J. that each case remains fact

specific and it is submitted that the court did not consider the impact of international

environmental norms, such as the Aarhus Convention and pursuant to s. 8 of the

Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2011, judicial notice must be taken of the

Convention. In this regard, the applicant relies on the decision of the Aarhus Convention

Compliance Committee in case ACCC/C/2008/33. The Committee expressed the opinion

that it was not convinced that the United Kingdom met the standards for review required

by the Convention as regards substantial legality in the light of the very high threshold for

review imposed by the Wednesbury test. It is submitted that in the context of

environmental cases, a proportionality test must be applied. The decision to adopt the

Plan was so unreasonable as to require it to be quashed. It is therefore suggested that

the court should apply a standalone, structured form of proportionality as suggested by

Murray C.J. in Meadows that “the effects on or prejudice to an individual’s right by an

administrative decision [must] be proportional to the legitimate objective or purpose of

71. In this regard, it is contended that the constitutional rights at issue include the right to

life, the right to bodily integrity and the rights to the environment. Rights also arise under

the Convention being the right to life under Article 2, the right to respect for private and

family life and home under Article 8. It is submitted that the nature of the right to life

imposes a strong presumption in favour of taking all steps capable of preserving it; and

that the right to life has a wider meaning including a right to maintain a life at a proper

human standard in matters of food, clothing and habitation. Greenhouse gas emissions

have a profound consequence for human life. It is submitted that the respondent has not

demonstrated that it has taken all steps capable of preserving the right to life. The

applicant refers to a number of decisions of the ECtHR which it is submitted creates

positive obligations to protect the lives of citizens within its jurisdiction, particularly where

it is established that the State knew or ought to have known of the existence of threat to

life, and where the State fails to take measures within the scope of their powers which

judged reasonably might have been expected to avoid that risk (see Mikayil Mammodov.

Azerbaijan (App no. 4762/05)). Reliance is also placed on Osman v. UK (App No.

87/1997/871/1083) that the authorities should do all that could be reasonably expected

of them to avoid a real and immediate risk of life to which they have or ought to have

acknowledged. The court was also referred to the decision in Budayeva and Others v.

Russia (App Nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02). However,

the respondent suggests that this is not directly relevant because its facts were

considerably different because there had been proven impacts. The respondent also relies

on Kyrtatos v. Greece (App No 4166/98) and contends that Article 8 is not engaged every

72. Reliance is placed in this regard in In re a Ward of Court (withholding medical

treatment)(No.2) [1996] 2 I.R. 123. It is therefore submitted that if the present plan is

not adequate to address the risk, being a real threat to life, there has been a breach of

that right on its face. It is argued that the right to bodily integrity has been infringed.

Reliance is placed on dicta of Finlay P. in State (C) v. Frawley [1976] 1 I.R. 365, and this

applies not only the context of the constitutionality of a statute but also in the context of

73. It is also submitted that there is a constitutional right to an environment consistent with

human dignity and reliance is placed in this regard on the decision of Barrett J. in

Merriman v. Fingal County Council & Ors. [2017] IEHC 695. The existence of this right is

74. With regard to those aspects of the claim which might be interpreted as standalone

claims, divorced from the Plan, counsel for the respondent, Ms. Hyland S.C. suggests that

the Plan is essentially being employed as a vehicle within which to maintain the challenge.

She submits that that the applicant has “stitched the Plan into its case” that the

prescribed reduction should be done via the Plan and that there is an obligation to have

the prescribed policy in the Plan. Therefore, she submits, that the applicants claim is that

because the Plan does not contain the policy objective or obligation, that the State has

acted unlawfully. She maintains that there was no statutory basis for such claim.

75. In an exchange with the court, counsel for the applicant observed that the Plan provides

the applicant with a clear framework. There is a statutory obligation under s. 4 to

formulate a plan which encapsulate how the State will meet the challenge of greenhouse

gas emissions and to specify the manner in which it should do so. He accepts that if there

was no statutory framework, the case would be more complex. The court has taken both

76. This has been a complex case involving very difficult issues of law and science. The

threats posed by climate change and the international and national response thereto have

been outlined in detail in the affidavits sworn in these proceedings by Mr. Lowes, director

of the applicant and Mr. Frank Maughan, principal officer in the Department of

Communications, Climate Action and Environment, on behalf of the respondent. In the

course of the hearing the court was referred to a ruling of 9th October, 2018 in Urgenda

a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Netherlands, in which the development and

response to the challenge of climate change was summarised. The court adopts that

summary in which it was observed that since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution,

mankind has consumed energy on a large scale. Such energy was predominantly

generated by the combustion of fossil fuels which process produces carbon dioxide, some

of which is released into the atmosphere where it remains for hundreds of years or

perhaps longer. Some of the carbon dioxide is absorbed by the oceanic and forest

ecosystems. The capacity for absorption has declined due to deforestation and rising sea

water temperatures. While carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas, there are other

contributory greenhouse gases, such as methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases,

which produce a different warming effect and degrade at a different rate. The greenhouse

effect occurs when carbon dioxide, together with the other gases, traps the heat emitted

by the earth in the atmosphere. The more carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere,

the more global warming becomes exacerbated. The climate system shows a delayed

response to the emissions of greenhouse gases. Thus, the full warming effect of gases

which are emitted today will only become apparent 30 to 40 years from now. At the time

of the decision in Urgenda, in October 2018, the level of global warming was at

approximately 1.1°C higher relative to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The

concentration of greenhouse gases, which is measured in parts per million (“ppm”), was

approximately 401ppm. Global carbon dioxide emissions have increased by 2% annually.

Thus, global warming has continued. It was noted that for some time there had been a

general consensus in the climate science and world communities that the rise in global

temperature should not exceed 2°C. This is referred to as a safe temperature rise target.

However, since the Paris Agreement, current scientific thinking is heading in the direction

of a lower figure, perhaps somewhere in the region of 1.5°C. As was noted in Urgenda, if

the concentration of greenhouse gases has not exceeded 450ppm in the year 2100, there

is a reasonable chance that the 2°C target will be achieved. A safe temperature rise

target, not exceeding 1.5°C comes with the lower part per million level, 440ppm. Thus,

with such a starting point in mind there is now limited room, or budget, known as a

carbon budget, for greenhouse gas emissions. While the court in Urgenda observed the

acknowledgement by the worldwide community that action is required to reduce the

emission of such greenhouse gases, it also noted that urgency is differently assessed

77. It is not disputed that the applicant has locus standi to pursue a claim that the decision to

approve the Plan, or to argue that the Plan itself, is ultra vires the Act. It is disputed,

however, that the Plan is justiciable. Insofar as it is alleged that the Plan breaches

Constitutional and Convention rights, on the other hand, it is maintained by the

respondent that the applicant does not enjoy locus standi, primarily because of its

incorporeal nature. A dispute also arises in relation to the standard of review which is

78. This is an application for judicial review of the National Mitigation Plan. Therefore, on

previously established principles the court cannot involve itself in a merit-based review of

the actions of the respondent in the creation and approval of the Plan. Nevertheless, it is

contended that this court should apply a test of proportionality, given the nature of the

rights alleged to have been infringed, and that involves fundamental rights and

79. Developed jurisprudence suggests that the test of irrationality or unreasonableness set

out in O'Keeffe v. an Bord Pleanála [1993] 1 I.R. 39 remains largely unaltered. Where

fundamental rights are at stake, it may be that it is legitimate to consider the nature of

the rights alleged to be affected and the nature of the duties and obligations being

performed or discharged by the decision-making body. In Donegan v. Dublin City Council

[2012] IESC 18, having referred to dicta of Murray C.J. in Meadows, McKechnie J.

“It is clear from this statement, that although some extension of judicial review for

reasonableness is envisaged so as to take account of the proportionality of the

action, it is to be done on the basis of Keegan and O'Keeffe, rather than as an

“Thus although some consideration of fundamental rights may be entered into in judicial

review, this in no way affects the traditional position that such remedy cannot be

used as a rehearing or otherwise to determine conflicts of fact.”

“In light of the comments already made as to the adequacy of judicial review, I would not

find that Meadows has substantially altered that position in this regard.”

“although some consideration of fundamental rights may be entered into in judicial

review, this in no way affects the traditional position that such remedy cannot be

used as a rehearing or otherwise to determine conflicts of fact.”

80. In AAA, the Supreme Court expressed the view that the concept of proportionality

operates within the confines of the irrationality test. It is suggested, however, that the

court did not consider the impact of international environmental norms and argues that

Article 9(2) of the Aarhus Convention requires members of the public to have access to a

review procedure to challenge the substantive and procedural legality of any decision, act

or omission subject to public participation pursuant to Article 6 of the Convention. The

applicant contends therefore that the Plan is both so unreasonable as to require it to be

quashed and so lacking in proportion to the evidence presented, as to fail to be

81. Having considered the arguments of the parties, it seems to me on the authorities, that at

least where an issue of fundamental rights is agitated it is not inappropriate to apply the

O’Keefe test viewed through the prism of a Meadows type proportionality analysis. This is

not inconsistent with a greater level of scrutiny than enunciated in O’Keeffe which is said

to apply in planning and environmental cases. Nevertheless, the court’s review must be

accommodated within the existing judicial review regime. For all practical purposes, this

suggests that the level of scrutiny required is perhaps greater than the no evidence

standard required by O’Keeffe, but at the same time recognising that the review must be

within the tenets of those principles and cannot be a merit-based review. I approach the

82. While it is accepted that the applicant enjoys standing to challenge the vires of the plan

against the provisions of the Act, it does not, it seems to me, necessarily follow that it

enjoys locus standi to agitate claims in respect of all or any particular personal rights

83. In the circumstances, I believe that it is appropriate as a first step that I should consider

those aspects of the applicant’s challenge which are based on the allegation that the Plan

is ultra vires, or is not consistent with the requirements of the Act. The decision on this

issue may affect the approach of the court to other aspects of the applicant’s claim.

84. The National Mitigation Plan of July 2017 is the State’s first National Mitigation Plan. It is

a whole of Government plan. In the foreword to the Plan, it is stated that it reflects the

central roles of key ministers responsible for the sectors covered by the Plan which

include electricity generation, the built environment, transport and agriculture and also

draws on the perspectives and responsibilities of a range of other government

departments. It states that the choices available to achieve the decarbonisation required

are neither straightforward nor cost free, but that the measures implemented through the

Plan will lay the foundations for transitioning Ireland to a low carbon, climate resilient and

environmentally sustainable economy by 2050. The Plan includes over 100 individual

actions for various ministers and public bodies to take forward. It is described as a living

document, with progress to be reported on by Government on an annual basis in its

Annual Transition Statement, supplemented as necessary by further actions and

measures each year. In the foreword, it is recognised that the first plan does not provide

a complete roadmap to achieve the 2050 objective but begins the process of development

of medium to long-term mitigation choices for the next and future decades. This is

described as an ongoing process which will include the preparation of successive National

Mitigation Plans at least every five years as required by the Act. Nevertheless, the

applicant maintains that simply because the Plan is described as a living document does

not mean it is immune from challenge and that it could not be the case that with large-

scale conversion of plans into internal rolling plans that they would individually be

85. The applicant maintains that it is not seeking to prescribe a policy that the State must

achieve a particular level of reduction by a particular date. It does not require the court to

direct the State to achieve specific measures or proposals but seeks negative relief in the

form of the quashing of the Plan. It is submitted that it is not lawful to have in place a

plan that is not calculated to achieve substantial emission reductions or various targets in

the short to medium term. It is therefore submitted that any mitigation plan has to be

one that is calculated to achieve substantial emission reductions in the short term and

that the State is failing to do this. To a significant extent, the applicant relies in this

regard on the criticisms of the plan made by the Advisory Council and also the analysis of

86. It is the respondent’s contention that the Plan is not justiciable. Reliance is placed on the

wording of the Act and the Plan to illustrate that both are heavily orientated towards

policy considerations and the implementation of Government policy.

87. In passing it ought to be observed that it may be that issues of justiciability and locus

standi become conflated. In T.D. Murray J. observing that in order to maintain a

challenge, the applicant must have locus standi stated at p. 337:-

“much of what I have said in dealing with the principal issue concerning the separation of

powers has implications for the locus standi of the applicant in this case and in

particular whether they have sufficient interest and standing to seek declarations as

to national policy, rather than such orders and reliefs as they may be entitled to

To that extent it may be said that the two concepts, as they apply to particular circumstances,

88. Central to the arguments on the issue of justiciability is the doctrine of the separation of

powers. The authorities on this issue establish a number of general propositions. It is

fundamental to the separation of powers that no one of the three organs of Government

is paramount in the exercise of State power. Each must respect the powers and functions

of the other. The court’s jurisdiction can only be exercised in deciding on justiciable

matters and the courts have no general supervisory or investigatory functions. The

doctrine of separation of powers has nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the

separate question of whether it is desirable that the provision in question should be

made. The Government, and the Government, alone may exercise the executive powers

of Government. The courts have the right and duty to interfere with the activities of the

Executive in order to protect or secure the constitutional rights of individual litigants

where such rights have been, or are being, invaded by those activities; or where activities

of the executive threaten an invasion of such rights. If it is established that the Executive

has acted in a manner which is in contravention of the Constitution then the Exclusive

role afforded it in the exercise of the executive power of State will not prevent the court

from intervening with a view to securing compliance with the requirements of the

89. It has also been reiterated on many occasions that courts should not assume a

policymaking role, as to do so would offend the separation of powers required by the

Constitution and would lead the courts into taking decisions in areas for which they have

no special qualification, experience or democratic responsibility. Thus, it is not part of the

function of the Court to adjudicate as to what is the best method by which the State can

carry out one of its Constitutional duties. Adopting a policy or a program and deciding to

implement it is a core function of the Executive, and not for the courts, although the court

may determine whether such policy or actions to implement such policy are compatible

with the law or the Constitution or fulfil obligations. That is not deciding policy. (See

90. If the exercise of the power in question concerns, what Costello J. described in O’Reilly, as

matters of distributive justice, as opposed to commutative justice, the courts should not

intervene as a general principle. Although it was suggested in argument that the

distinction was more relevant to the nature of the reliefs being claimed than the courts

91. If and when a court decides that a matter is justiciable, when considering the nature of

any order to be made, respect for the separation of powers dictates that great care ought

to be exercised in the framing of any such order, whether it be a declaration, a

suspended declaration or an order quashing a measure requiring the taking of certain

action. There may be circumstances in which a court may make a mandatory order

against an organ of State, but only when there is a clear disregard by the State for its

constitutional obligations. (See Murray J. in T.D. at p. 337). Disregard means a conscious

and deliberate decision by the organ of the State to act in breach of its constitutional

92. I must accept that a consequence of the separation of powers doctrine is that the court

should avoid interfering with the exercise of discretion by the legislature or executive

when its aim is the pursuit of policy. Courts are and should be reluctant to review

decisions involving utilitarian calculations of social, economic and political preference, the

latter being identifiable by the fact that they are not capable of being impugned by

objective criteria that a court could apply. In Moore, Hogan J. observed:-

“55. All of this demonstrates that the choice of these particular political and cultural

traditions is ultimately a political and policy choice which lies outside the realm of

judicial determination and competence. On this point the system of separation of

powers provided by the Constitution is quite clear, namely, that matters involving

policy and political choices of this nature are matters for elected representatives

and must therefore by definition be either executive or legislative powers which

cannot appropriately be discharged by an unelected judiciary. There are, in

particular, no legal standards which can guide the judicial branch in any

determination of this question of what monuments should as a matter of national

93. In Garda Representative Association v. Minister for Finance [2010] IEHC 78, Charleton J.

“the Government has the power to set policy on areas of national interest and to disperse

funds in accordance with that policy. These decisions are, in my view, in a category

This is particularly so in the context of expenditure of public funds and where a range of factors

94. I also accept that, even if the court concludes that a matter or issue is justiciable,

nevertheless, because of the nature, extent and wording of a statutory obligation, it may

be the case that a wide margin of discretion ought to be afforded to the Executive in

discharging its obligations. In my view, while the court should be vigilant in ensuring that

it does not trespass upon the Executive power of State, nevertheless, consistent with its

constitutional functions, the court should also be slow to determine that an issue is not

95. In contending that the Plan is not justiciable, the respondent emphasises the wording of

the Act and the wording of the Plan to illustrate that it is heavily orientated towards policy

considerations and the implementation of Government policy. To this end it is instructive

to consider the provisions of the Act and in particular, the wording employed in imposing

96. The long title of the Act states that it is to provide for the approval of plans for the

purpose of pursuing the transition to low carbon. Section 3 employs wording such as

“enabling the State” and the “Government shall endeavour to achieve” the National

Transition Objective within the period to which the objective relates. Section 4(2) states

that the plan shall “specify the manner in which it is proposed” to achieve the National

Transition Objective. Section 4(2)(b) of the Act imposes a requirement, inter alia, that the

Plan should specify the policy measures in the opinion of the government required in

order to manage greenhouse gas emissions and the removal of greenhouse gas at a level

that is appropriate for furthering the achievement of the National Transition Objective.

Section 4(2)(d) states that the plan shall “specify the mitigation policy measures” to be

adopted by each responsible Minister of the Government for the purposes of reducing

greenhouse gas emissions and “enabling the achievement of the national transition

objective.” Section 4(4) provides that the Government “may” approve a National

Mitigation Plan submitted to them under the section. Section 4(7) states that the Minister

and the Government shall take into account numerous matters when performing functions

under the section including “the need to have regard to” existing obligations of the State

in EU law and under international agreements, and the need to do certain matters,

including the need to achieve the objectives of the Plan at the least cost to the national

economy and to adopt measures that are cost effective and do not impose an

97. It appears to me that the sections of the Act under consideration are couched in terms of

policy measures and considerations. I accept the submission of the respondent, that even

if the Act and the Plan are justiciable, given the wording of each, a considerable margin of

discretion is conferred on the Government as to how it should achieve the National

Transition Objective. I also accept that it is not part of the function of the court to

98. This was a whole of Government plan which required input from a number of different

sectors. I must accept that consistent with its obligations and duties under the Act, it is

the function of Government not simply to adopt measures in an abstract sense, but to

take into account and to balance relevant factors, particularly those which have cost

implications for the State and thus each citizen, and as to how best to manage such

implications. It seems to me that this much is acknowledged in s. 4(7) of the Act

whereby, when performing functions under the section the Minister and the Government

“the need to achieve the objectives of a National Mitigation Plan at the least cost to the

national economy and adopt measures that are cost effective and do not impose an

99. It is important to recall that the applicant does not seek to challenge the constitutionality

of the Act. It also seems to me to be correct, as counsel for the respondent has

submitted, that there is no dispute or challenge to the National Transition Objective or

indeed to the National Policy Position. Indeed, the essential theme of the challenge is that

the Plan and its approval are not consistent with the provisions of the Act.

100. The Plan is self-described as an initial step to set the country on a pathway to achieve the

level of de-carbonisation required. It is divided into six chapters, which include chapters

dealing with climate action policy framework, de-carbonising electricity generation,

decarbonising the building environment and transport. A further chapter concerns the

approach to carbon neutrality for agriculture, forest and land use sectors.

101. The introduction section contains a message from An Taoiseach that Ireland is committed

to concentrated multilateral action to tackle climate change through the Paris Agreement,

which represents the international community’s best hope for collectively ensuring the

very survival of the planet. Ireland’s commitment to the Paris Agreement requires the

State to take action at home while acknowledging the scale of the challenge overall. The

“Ireland’s first National Mitigation Plan sets out this Government’s shared approach to

reducing our own greenhouse gas emissions. It is a first step, but one which we are

committed to building on in the years ahead. As a Government and a society, we

must become fully engaged with climate change, alter our behaviours, and work

collaboratively to bring about the required transformation. We will only succeed if

“The Government does not underestimate the scale of what this entails. It will require

fundamental societal transformation and, more immediately, will require allocation

of resources and sustained policy change, as well as the ongoing engagement with

wider society. Equally, we must embrace the economic opportunities

decarbonisation presents. We will be taking a number of further steps in the coming

months, including the National Dialogue on Climate Action, the National Planning

102. In its foreword, which was signed by the Ministers with particular responsibility for the

sectors concerned, it is stated that the Plan is a very important first step by the

Government in enabling transition in a long journey with many different and complex

elements to consider. Later in the introduction the Minister states that the choices

available to achieve the decarbonisation required are neither straightforward nor cost-

“In this way the measures that we implement through this National Mitigation Plan will lay

the foundations for transitioning Ireland to a low carbon, climate resilient and

103. The plan includes over 100 individual actions for various Ministers and public bodies “to

take forward as we move to implementation of what will be a living document.” It is also

“Progress will be reported on by Government annually in its Annual Transition Statement,

and will be supplemented as necessary by further actions and measures each year.”

The next paragraph in the introduction is important, it states as follows:-

“Importantly, the Government recognises that this first Plan does not provide a complete

roadmap to achieve the 2050 objective, but begins the process of development of

medium to long term mitigation choices for the next and future decades. This will

be an ongoing process, including the preparation of successive National Mitigation

Plans at least every five years as provided for in the Climate Action and Low Carbon

104. In chapter 2 the climate action policy framework is addressed, as is the Paris agreement,

and how Ireland’s contribution to the Paris agreement will be made via the National

Determined Contributions tabled by the EU on behalf of its member states is described

committing the EU as a whole to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by

2030, compared with 1990 levels. Action at European Union level is addressed including

the EU overall targets for 2020 and 2030. Further consideration is given to the European

Commission’s publication proposals concerning the allocation of individual targets for EU

member states in the non-ETS sector. The national policy framework and national policy

position are considered and the fundamental national objective of achieving transition by

2050 is addressed. Tables are produced setting out the different scales of reduction effort

required to achieve the vision in the National Policy Position of an aggregate reduction in

the carbon dioxide emissions of at least 80%, compared to 1990 levels, by 2050 across

the electricity generation, built environment and transport sectors.

105. These effort levels are stated to be based on historic and projected emissions for these

three sectors, as compiled by the EPA and the stated importance of earlier action to

reduce Ireland’s emissions is underlined. Other domestic measures such as the Act of

2015, and the 2015 Energy White Paper are addressed. At para. 2.4 of the Plan, there is

a discussion as to how Ireland is contributing to the EU effort, including EU emissions

trading system and its breakdown in Ireland. It also discusses non-ETS effort sharing and

the parallel Effort Sharing Decision (2009) which set individual member states targets,

including those in agriculture. It is noted that for year 2020, the target set for Ireland

that emissions should be 20% below their level in 2005 is described as demanding. It is

acknowledged that the likely shortfall in terms of reaching Ireland’s target of a 20%

reduction in respect of non-ETS by 2020, reflects both the States reduced investment

capacity over the period of economic downturn, and that the target itself was, as

described in the Plan, being misinformed and not consistent with what was achievable on

an EU wide cost-effective basis. The Plan acknowledges that Ireland expects to make use

of mechanisms to trade allowances in order to meet its compliance requirements under

the Effort Sharing Decision. It also acknowledges that reliance on such flexibilities cannot

be sustainable over the longer term. Further policies and measures will be required, and

importantly, it is acknowledged that the projected increase in emissions in both the

agriculture and transport sectors gives rise to greater challenge for the State. The

proposals for non-ETS targets to 2030 are described as presenting an enormous challenge

for Ireland. Further, it is acknowledged that additional measures may have to be brought

forward, requiring very substantial investment by both the public and private sectors and

refer to a broad range of nonfinancial policy tools, including regulations, standards in

education initiatives and targeted information campaigns. The Plan also acknowledges

that work is ongoing on the analysis and cost of various suites of measures that could

meet the 2030 target as cost effectively as possible. Issues such as the national carbon

tax and fossil fuel subsidies are considered. It is stated that while early action to find the

most cost efficient and cost-effective solutions is imperative, finding the appropriate and

most equitable manner to address this issue will not be easy, particularly given the

economic circumstances of recent times and where finances are still continuing to

“Ultimately, decisions on whether or not to proceed with exchequer supported measures

can only take place in the context of government prioritisation as part of

expenditure planning including as part of the current spending review, the midterm

review of capital plan Building on Recovery…, the 10 year capital plan and the

budgetary and estimates processes. A whole of government approach, through

these processes, is essential in terms of identifying an optimal mix of public, private

societal and taxation mechanisms to enable an effective transition.”

106. It records that the Plan will require a targeted balance between exchequer supported

107. The remaining chapters address issues in specific areas of electricity generation, the built

environment and transport. The Plan addresses the important area of agriculture,

forestry and other land use which makes a significant contribution to the country’s

greenhouse gas emissions and acknowledges the challenges facing this sector while

responding to an increased need for food in a growing global population. Thirty separate

108. It is therefore made clear that the current Plan is but an initial step in achieving targets

for making the country a low-carbon and climate resilient and environmentally sustainable

economy by 2050. It is the case of the applicants that the Plan has essentially no hope of

achieving this because the trajectory taken is inadequate. In essence, therefore, the

essential difference of approach between the parties is one of immediacy – what

measures are required to be taken immediately in order to maintain a trajectory which

will result in the achievement of the objective of a low-carbon country by 2050.

109. To this extent the applicant relies significantly on the review conducted by the Advisory

Council. It also highlights the conclusions contained in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Projections Reports produced by the EPA in 2017 and 2018, the latter recording that

“Ireland is not projected to meet 2020 emissions reduction targets and is not on the right

trajectory to meet longer-term EU and national emission reduction commitments.”

110. It is important to recognise that the Advisory Council’s role, as provided for in s. 11 of the

Act, inter alia, is to advise and make recommendations to the relevant Ministers and the

Government in connection with the preparation and approval on the Plan and Government

policy on greenhouse gas emissions. It is also required, pursuant to s. 12, to conduct

annual reviews of the progress made in each preceding year in achieving greenhouse gas

reductions and furthering transition to low carbon, climate resilient and environmentally

sustainable economy and in such reports to include recommendations of the most cost

effective manner of achieving reductions in emissions in order to enable the achievement

111. The Advisory Council Periodic Review Report, 2017 was submitted to Government on 12th

July, 2017. In its executive summary it observed that while the draft Plan identified a

range of policy options, the introduction of, and commitment to new cost-effective

emission reduction policies and measures are essential. It observed that official

greenhouse gas emission projections indicate that Ireland will fail to meet its 2020 targets

by a substantial margin and additional policies and measures, even if implemented

rapidly, may not be enough to ensure that the 2020 emissions reduction target is met. It

also noted that while compliance with the 2020 targets could be achieved through the

purchase of emission units, this was not a cost-effective long-term solution and would not

generate any co-benefits. Delaying action would make the required adjustment in the

period to 2030 more costly. It considered that the Plan should provide specific details on

how the anticipated mitigation to 2020 will be addressed and outline pathways for the

achievement of the low carbon transition to 2050. It also identified gaps in the Plan.

112. On the face of it, therefore, in my view, the Act is concerned with matters which have a

significant policy content and the duties and obligations imposed upon the respondent by

the Act are couched in such terms as to confer upon relevant ministers and the

Government as a whole, considerable latitude, as to how best it should go about

achieving the objects of the Act and also in respect of the adoption of the Plan. Therefore,

it seems to me that even if the court were to conclude that the Plan is justiciable, it must

be the case that in its preparation and approval the respondent enjoys a considerable

113. I have considered the arguments and submissions of the parties and it seems to me that,

given the measure of discretion which must be afforded to the respondent in relation to

the making and adoption of the plan under the Act, I could not conclude that the

respondent has been in breach of the provisions of the Act in the manner contended. It

cannot be said that the Plan does not contain a proposal to achieve the national transition

objective, which by virtue of the provisions of s. 3(1) is to achieve transition by 2050

(emphasis added). Nor, in my view, can it be said that the Plan does not specify policy

measures which in the opinion of the Government would be required in order to manage

greenhouse gas emissions. (emphasis added) The plan refers to the State’s obligations

under existing EU law and international agreements and cannot, in my view, be said not

to have taken them into account, as that term has been interpreted in decisions such as

Tristor v. Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government [2010] IEHC 397

“As was pointed out in Glencarr Explorations Plc v. Mayo County Council (No.2) [2002] 1

I.R. 84 (by Keane C.J. at p. 142) it may be inferred that, if the Oireachtas intended

that there be an obligation to comply with a particular matter rather than simply

have regard to it, it might be expected that the Oireachtas would have said so in

114. It is clear that a sectoral analysis is contained in the Plan and that relevant Government

ministers have been allocated responsibility for certain actions. Again, bearing in mind the

wording of s. 4(2)(d) and the wide discretion which I believe must be afforded to the

respondent in the implementation of the provisions of the Act, I am unable to conclude

115. That the Advisory Council may have been critical of the Plan in my view cannot be

determinative of whether the obligations of the respondent to prepare and approve the

Plan, has been breached. The Advisory Council is obliged to review the plan and nothing

less than a full, robust and critical appraisal of this or any plan is to be expected.

However, it seems to me that its conclusions and recommendations cannot be equated

with the imposition of a legal obligation within the statutory framework.

116. Further, I am unable to conclude that there is anything in the Plan which resiles from that

national transition objective. While it acknowledges the challenges and problems facing

the State in achieving this objective, nevertheless, it is clear that the Plan does make

proposals in respect of the State’s pursuit of the national transition objective by 2050.

Section 2 provides that the Act or the Plan shall not operate to affect any existing or

future obligations under EU law or international agreement. Further, the obligation under

s. 3(2) is to have regard to such existing obligations (emphasis added). It seems to me

that this is what the Plan in fact does and it also provides an explanation for Ireland’s

likely non-compliance with its 2020 targets, primarily based on economic considerations

117. In my view, on the evidence, it would also be inappropriate to view the Plan in isolation

from what is intended by the structure of the Act, which includes the making of a Plan not

less than once in every period of five years. The Plan must be interpreted as being a living

document. The measures therein prescribed are not set in stone, nor are they intended

to be the State’s once and for all response to the need for urgent action to tackle climate

change. The further measures proposed and adopted by the State, as referred to by Mr.

Maughan, including those published since the commencement of these proceedings, such

as the National Planning Framework, are evidence of this. The intention is that prescribed

measures to achieve mitigation should respond to future developments, including

scientific and technical learning and advancement. Further National Mitigation Plans will

be required. The Plan outlines national mitigation actions to be taken by the respondent

and relevant Government departments. A range of specific emission reducing measures

is identified in the Plan. The case which the applicant makes is that essentially, not

enough is being done, quickly enough. Nevertheless, it must be borne in mind that it is

the Act, and not the Plan which provides for transition to a low carbon, climate resilient

and environmentally sustainable economy by the end of the year 2050. On the court’s

interpretation of the Act, it does not prescribe or impose on the respondent a statutory

118. In the circumstances, bearing in mind the standard of review and the considerable degree

of latitude which must be afforded to the respondent, I must conclude that the applicant

has failed to establish that the plan or the decision by the respondent to approve the plan

119. This gives rise to a secondary point as to whether, the applicant having failed in its claim

that the Plan is ultra vires the Act and where it is not alleged that the Act or National

Policy is unconstitutional, is it open to the applicant to maintain that the Plan is in breach

120. Before considering the issue of the locus standi of the applicant to maintain those parts of

the challenge based on breach of Constitutional or Convention rights, I believe that I

should consider whether if the Plan is intra vires the Act, as I have found, and the

constitutionality of the Act is not challenged, is it open to the applicant to maintain a

121. It seems to me as a matter of logic that if a measure is undertaken or adopted in

accordance with the provisions of primary legislation, the constitutionality of which is not

challenged and therefore which must be presumed to enjoy constitutionality, then it is

inconsistent to suggest that the measure undertaken or adopted, divorced from the

statutory basis of its enactment, might be open to a freestanding challenge on the basis

that it is unconstitutional. One would have thought that if the measure in its own right

operates in an unconstitutional manner then it cannot be said to have been one which has

been taken or adopted in a manner which was intra vires the enabling legislation.

122. But I am willing to accept that I may be incorrect in this analysis and that I should

therefore consider whether the plan and the decision to adopt it, are such as to breach

the constitutional and convention rights of the applicant and whether such an action is

maintainable by the applicant. This to a certain extent this entails a consideration of the

applicant’s contention that there should be a separate freestanding proportionality review.

123. The issue of the applicant’s locus standi in respect of the Constitutional and Convention

challenge must now be considered. The respondent argues that the applicant does not

have locus standi as it does not enjoy the rights contended for and while there may be

exceptions which enable a party to maintain a claim in respect of rights enjoyed by

others, because it is difficult if not impossible for individual citizens or group to establish

that the individual rights are affected, the applicant does not come within such exception.

The respondents accept that ultimately the test for locus standi ought to be determined in

accordance with the requirements of justice in each individual case, consistent with and in

accordance with the principles outlined in Cahill v Sutton. It is further submitted that

there is no reason why individual members of the applicant company could not have

brought the challenge themselves. It is submitted that there is no impossibility or

permissible difficulty such as being based on the issue of costs. On the other hand, the

applicant’s state that they enjoy such locus standi, particularly in the context of an

environmental case and that such locus standi was acknowledged in the decision of

124. Since the conclusion of the hearing in this case, the court’s attention has been drawn to

the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohan v Ireland and the Attorney General

[2019] IESC 18. The court was there concerned with locus standi in the context of a

constitutional challenge to s.17(4B) of the Electoral Act, 1997, as inserted by s. 42(c) of

the Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Act 2012, legislation which was designed to

address the historic underrepresentation of female candidates in the Dail, with particular

regard to a reduction in funding if the percentage of female candidates does not achieve a

certain threshold. The court was not concerned with the merits of the claim, rather the

appellants’ locus standi. In the High Court, Keane J. concluded that the appellant did not

have locus standi to challenge the section in that he had not demonstrated that his

interest had been adversely affected by the operation of the section because he had failed

to establish a sufficient causal nexus between the direction of the party excluding his

nomination from consideration and the operation of the section. The appeal was

dismissed by the Court of Appeal. On appeal to the Supreme Court, O’Donnell J. stated at

“Standing is not, as a general rule, established by a simple desire to challenge legislation,

no matter how strongly the putative claimant believes the provision to be

repugnant to the Constitution. It is now clear that there is no actio popularis (a

right on the part of the citizen to challenge the validity of legislation without

showing any effect upon him or her, or any greater interest than that of being a

citizen) in Irish constitutional law, although, of course, some jurisdictions do permit

such claims. Rather, in Irish law, it is necessary to show some adverse effect on the

125. Observing that part of the rationale for this rule is that public general legislation exists

because a majority of the members of the Oireachtas considered, at some stage, that the

legislation was in the public interest, O’Donnell J. noted that a declaration of invalidity is a

very significant disruption of the legal order which operates in a blunt, and essentially

negative way. It removes a law or an aspect of a law but can put nothing in its place.

Therefore, the step of permitting a challenge to the constitutional validity of a piece of

legislation should not be taken lightly, simply because someone wishes, however

genuinely, to have the question determined, rather should only be taken when a person

can show that he or she is adversely affected in reality. He continued at para 12:-

“Courts do not exist to operate as a committee of wise citizens providing a generalised

review of the validity of legislation as it is enacted, nor should courts become a

forum for those who have simply lost a political argument in the legislature to seek

a replay of the arguments in the courts, re-packaged in constitutional terms. On the

contrary, the question of the validity of legislation is treated by Article 34.3.2 as

part of the jurisdiction of the Superior Courts only, under article 34.1, whose

function it is to administer justice between the parties. This normally requires a real

case or controversy which the parties require (rather than simply desire) to be

resolved, in order to establish and justify the court’s exercise of jurisdiction, and

the possibility of the invalidation of legislation. Accordingly, it is necessary to show

adverse effect, or imminent adverse effect, upon the interests of a real plaintiff.

This has the further benefit, as Henchy J observed in Cahill v Sutton [1980] I.R.

“normally the controversy will rest on facts which are referable primarily and specifically

to the challenger, thus giving concreteness and first-hand reality to what must

126. Thus, what he described as the primary rule established that it was sufficient to show that

a plaintiff’s interest had been adversely affected or is in imminent danger of being

adversely affected by the operation of the statute. What remained for consideration was

what was precisely meant by a person’s interests being “adversely affected.” He noted

that in Cahill v. Sutton, Henchy J. spoke of a person’s interests, rather than his or her

rights. Describing this as a deliberate broad term, extending beyond constitutional or

even legal rights, he accepted that it was sufficient if a person is affected in a real way in

his or her life. If so, they normally have standing, at least, to contend that the operation

of the Act upon them breaches of some constitutionally protected right.

127. O’Donnell J. accepted that if, on hearing evidence, the court was satisfied that the

impugned provisions had no effect upon a person, let alone on their interests or rights,

that would be fatal to the claim proper and also to his standing to bring the claim, unless

one of the exceptions to the primary rule of standing could be established.

128. He further concluded that as the appellant had standing under the primary rule in Cahill v.

Sutton and it was not necessary to go further and consider whether, if such standing

could not be established, the appellant might be able to bring himself within one of the

exceptions contemplated in that case. Those matters only arose if it was not possible to

establish “prejudice or injury peculiar to the challenger”. The case was therefore

remitted to the High Court for the determination of the substance of the challenge.

129. It seems to me that the effect of this decision is that the court should approach the issue

of locus standi with particular reference to whether there is an affect on the plaintiff’s

interests as opposed to his or her rights. As O’Donnell J. pointed out, this is a deliberately

broad term, extending beyond constitutional or even legal rights. It is sufficient therefore

if a person is effected in a real way in his or her life. Nevertheless, it is of relevance to

consider the nature of the constitutional rights which are suggested to have been

infringed as it is perhaps in this context only that one can consider whether interests

130. I do not understand the applicant to argue that as an incorporeal body it enjoys certain of

the personal rights contended for. Mr. Mulcahy S.C. on behalf of the respondent submits

that the applicant cannot justify a relaxation of the rules ordinarily applicable which would

prevent it from asserting third party’s rights. No such difficulty is suggested in this case

131. In Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v. Minister for Communications [2010] 3 IR 251, McKechnie

J. held that in principle, a plaintiff should not be prevented from bringing proceedings to

protect the rights of others, where without otherwise being disentitled, it had a bona fide

concern and interest, taking into account the nature, extent, importance and application

of the right which it sought to protect or invoke, and where the plaintiff was not a cranky,

meddlesome or a vexatious litigant. He accepted that where it was clear that a particular

public act could adversely affect a plaintiff’s constitutional, European, or European

Convention on Human Rights rights, or society as a whole, a more relaxed approach to

standing might be called for in order for the court to uphold that duty and to vindicate

those rights. Analysing the rights which were sought to be protected he concluded that

the plaintiff company could enjoy a right to privacy in business under Article 8 of the

Charter of Fundamental Rights, but corporate persons because of the very nature may

not be capable of holding certain rights, such as the right to marital privacy. Having

referred to the decision in Lancefort Limited v. An Bord Pleanala (No 2) [1999] 2 IR 270,

which related to a planning matter where a liberal approach was applied to standing, he

stated that “it must be the case that they apply with equal, if not greater, force in

circumstances where the impugned actions involve constitutional rights and Acts of the

Oireachtas”. While counsel for the respondent, Mr. Mulcahy S.C. accepts that an interest

in the environment is clearly a public interest in the proceedings, nevertheless he submits

that case law does not suggest simply because the case is about the environment that no

standing rules apply; and in balancing the question of the interests of justice, the

applicant has not justified why the company, rather than individual members thereof, is

132. There must be a question over the applicant’s standing to maintain these proceedings, at

least insofar as the fundamental constitutional rights which can only be innate to humans

are concerned, nevertheless, bearing in mind the decision of Barrett J. in Merriman and

being satisfied that the bona fides of the applicant is not called in question, I am satisfied

to accept for the purpose of these proceedings, that the applicant has established that it

has locus standi. Adopting and adapting dicta of McKechnie J. in Digital Rights, the

applicant seeks to agitate important issues, including those of a constitutional nature,

affecting its members and indeed the public at large, it raises significant issues in relation

to environmental concerns which is a factor that ought to be taken into account by this

Court in deciding, whether in the interests of justice, that the applicant has such standing.

133. The constitutional rights which are stated to be infringed are the rights to life, the right to

bodily integrity and the right to an environment consistent with human dignity. Even if I

were to accept that these rights are in some way engaged, which I do for the purposes of

this case, the difficulty which I perceive in the applicant’s claim is that it is seeking to

have the court declare that it is the Plan which is impacting upon those constitutional

rights. I am not satisfied that it has been established that the making or approval of the

Plan by the respondent has the effect of breaching those rights. Accepting for the

purposes of this case, that there is an unenumerated right to an environment consistent

with human dignity, in my view, it cannot be concluded that it is the plan which places

these rights at risk. As I previously stated, I could not reasonably conclude that the Plan

resiles from the national transition objective as specified in the legislation nor could I

reasonably conclude that the plan runs contrary to the national policy on climate change.

The Plan is but one, albeit extremely important, piece of the jigsaw.

134. It should be recorded that a case is not made that the State is in breach of its obligations

under EU law. Counsel for the respondent suggests that the reason for this for this is that

Ireland can purchase credits from other member states to achieve compliance.

135. In Urgenda the Dutch Court of Appeal considered a claim that the State had acted

unlawfully under the Dutch Civil Code and was in breach of Article 2 and 8 of the

European Convention on Human Rights. As part of this analysis, it considered the

relationship of the State’s obligations with EU policies. The State argued that it was acting

in compliance with EU laws and policies and therefore should not be required to do more,

given that within the EU, climate laws were significantly harmonised. This was rejected by

the Court of Appeal which found that the State could not hide behind the reduction target

of 20% at EU level. It seems that the reason for its conclusion in this regard is that the

EU target lacked scientific support, the EU deemed a greater reduction in 2020 was

necessary from a climate science point of view that the EU as a whole was on track to

achieve a reduction of between 26% and 27% in 2020. Further, that the State had

argued that it planned to do more than required under EU law to the period 2030 did not

mean that it could not do the same up to the period 2020. It did not accept that the State

had substantiated its claim that stricter policies than those required by the EU would

harm “the level playing field” set for Dutch companies. The court also considered that in

the past the Netherlands as an Annex I country acknowledged the severity of the climate

situation and, mainly based on arguments from climate science, assumed a reduction of

23% to 25% by 2020, with a concrete policy objective of 20% by that year. After 2011,

this policy objective was adjusted downward to 20% by 2020 at the EU level, without any

scientific substantiation and despite the fact that more and more became known about

the serious consequences of greenhouse gas emissions from global warming. Based on

this, the court expressed the opinion that the State had failed to fulfil its ‘duty of care’

pursuant to Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights by not wanting

to reduce emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020. This was considered by the court

to be a minimum, given the recent insights about an even more ambitious reduction in

connection with the 1.5°C target which had not been taken into consideration. The Court

“... In forming this opinion, the Court has taken into consideration that based on the

current proposed policy the Netherlands will have reduced 23% by 2020. That is

not far from 25%, but a margin of uncertainty of 19-27% applies. This margin of

uncertainty means that there is real chance that the reduction will be

(substantially) lower than 25%. Such a margin of uncertainty is unacceptable.

Since moreover there are clear indications that the current measures will be

insufficient to prevent a dangerous climate change, even leaving aside the question

whether the current policy will actually be implemented, measures have to be

chosen, also based on the precautionary principle, that are safe, or at least as safe

as possible. The very serious dangers, not contested by the State, associated with a

temperature rise of 2° C or 1.5° C – let alone higher – also preclude such a margin

of uncertainty. Incidentally, the percentage of 23% has become more favourable

because of the new calculation method of the 2015 NEV, which assumes higher

greenhouse gas emissions in 1990 than those which the district court has taken

into consideration. This means that the theoretical reduction percentage can be

achieved sooner, although in reality the situation is much more serious”

136. Acknowledging that the percentage of 23% had become more favourable because of new

calculation methods which assumed higher greenhouse gas emissions in 1990 than those

which the District Court had taken into consideration, the court accepted that this meant

that the theoretical reduction percentage could be achieved sooner. On these grounds the

State’s reliance on its margin of appreciation argument also failed because in the court’s

opinion the State did have such margin in choosing the measures it takes to achieve the

137. This court knows little of the duty of care under Dutch tort law or how that is assessed

but it is noted that the Court of Appeal had regard for the importance of the

precautionary principle in response to State argument that climate change impacts were

too uncertain a basis to substantiate the applicant’s claims. In the Court of Appeals’ view

it was precisely the uncertainty, especially with regard to the existence of dangerous

tipping points that require the State to adopt proactive and effective climate policies.

Further, the court did not accept the State defence based on the lack of causal link. Part

of its reasoning for this was the proceedings concerned a claim proposing an order and

not a claim for damages, thus causality played a limited role. It sufficed that there is a

real risk of the danger for which measures have to be taken, to give the order. Further, it

expressed the view that if the States opinion were to be followed and effective legal

remedy for a complex global problem would be lacking. It was unacceptable for the State

to argue that it could not be made accountable if other States did not take measures.

138. The plaintiff had sought an order that the State achieve a level of reduction of greenhouse

gas emissions by the end of 2020 that was more ambitious than that which was

envisaged by the State in its policy (emphasis added). No particular statutory framework

was impugned and this court has heard no evidence as to the nature of the constitutional

order which pertains in that jurisdiction, particularly in relation to the separation of

powers. Nevertheless, it is instructive to note that the court acknowledged that the State

had a positive obligation to protect the lives of citizens within its jurisdiction under Article

2, while Article 8 creates the obligation to protect the right to home and private life.

These obligations apply to all activities which could endanger the rights protected in those

articles and “certainly in the face of industrial activities which by their very nature are

dangerous” and that if the Government knows that there is a real and imminent threat,

the State must take precautionary measures to prevent infringement as far as possible. It

was accepted that there was a real threat of dangerous climate change resulting in the

serious risk that the current generation of citizens would be confronted with loss of life

and/or disruption of family life. It followed from Articles 2 and 8 ECHR that the State had

a duty to protect against such real threat and it had failed to fulfil its “duty of care under

the convention” by “not wanting” to reduce emissions by at least 25% by the end of

2020. Measures had to be chosen, based on the precautionary principle, that were safe or

139. No authority has been opened to this court to suggest that European Court on Human

Rights has addressed this issue, and that being the case, this court ought to be mindful of

the decision of Fennelly J. in McD (J) v. L (P) & M (B) [2009] IESC 81 that it is not for the

domestic court to declare rights under the Convention, but that this is a matter for the

95. The form in which the matter arises on the appeal is whether, through the mechanism

of the Act of 2003, an Irish court may anticipate further developments in the

interpretation of the Convention by the European Court in a direction not yet taken

96. Section 2 of the Act of 2003 is the material provision. It reads:

2 2.-(1) In interpreting and applying any statutory provision or rule of law, a court shall,

in so far as is possible, subject to the rules of law relating to such interpretation

and application, do so in a manner compatible with the State's obligations under

(2) This section applies to any statutory provision or rule of law in force immediately

before the passing of this Act or any such provision coming into force thereafter.

97. To assist courts in that interpretative task, section 4 provides that judicial notice is to

be given to a wide range of materials, including, of course, the Convention

provisions, but, inter alia, also "any declaration, decision, advisory opinion or

judgment of the European Court of Human Rights…" and that courts shall "take due

“99. The Convention is an instrument of international law. It imposes obligations in

international law on the contracting states. It does not require domestic

incorporation of its terms into the law of the contracting states. Its judgments, as

this court has repeatedly stated, do not have direct effect in our law. The

contracting states are under an obligation in international law to secure respect for

the rights it declares within their domestic systems. The European Court has the

primary task of interpreting the Convention. The national courts do not become

100. Lord Bingham correctly outlined the respective tasks of the European Court and the

domestic courts in the following passage from his speech in R. (Ullah) v. Special

"In determining the present question, the House is required by Section 2(1)

of the Human Rights Act, 1998 to take into account any relevant Strasbourg

case law. While such case law is not strictly binding, it has been held that

Courts should, in the absence of some special circumstances, follow any clear

and constant jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court… This reflects the fact

that the Convention is an international instrument, the correct interpretation

of which can be authoritatively expounded only by the Strasbourg Court.

From this it follows that a national Court subject to a duty such as that

imposed by Section 2 should not without strong reason, dilute or weaken the

effect of the Strasbourg case law………It is of course open to Member States

Convention, but such provision should not be the product of interpretation of

the Convention by national Courts, since the meaning of the Convention

should be uniform throughout the States party to it. The duty of national

Courts is to keep pace with the Strasbourg jurisprudence as it evolves over

“104. It is vital to point out that the European Court has the prime responsibility of

interpreting the Convention. Its decisions are binding on the contracting states. It is

important that the Convention be interpreted consistently. The courts of the

individual states should not adopt interpretations of the Convention at variance with

141. If, as the applicant contends, the Plan is an inadequate response and does not propose to

do enough, quickly enough, then in my view that is not a legal deficiency or inadequacy of

the Plan, which as I have found is not inconsistent with the legislation by which it has

been adopted, but of the provisions and objectives outlined in the Act, and possibly

national policy, which are not challenged in these proceedings and upon which the court

142. The free standing reliefs which the applicant claims, and which are divorced from

reference to the Plan, are contained at paras. 12 and 13. The first relates to a declaration

that the approval of the Plan was unconstitutional and more importantly for the

consideration of the issue that there has been a breach of the Convention, a declaration

that in breach of the provision of s. 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act

2003, the respondent has failed to perform its functions in a manner compatible with the

State’s obligations under the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.

143. All of this must be seen against the backdrop of the manner in which the case comes

before the court. This is an application for judicial review. In essence it is an application

for review of executive action and the only express executive action that is expressly

called into question is the creation and adoption of the Plan. Insofar as the claim concerns

the Plan and its adoption, the sentiments which I previously expressed in relation to the

finding that the Plan is intra vires the Act and the absence of a challenge to that Act,

apply with equal force to this aspect of the plaintiff’s claim. To the extent that it is

contended that the State has a positive obligation to take positive measures, it is clear

from Budayeva that the State had the choice of means and is in principle a matter that

falls within the contracting State’s margin of appreciation, to which previous reference has

been made. Given that margin of appreciation, insofar as the challenge to the plan is

concerned, I am not satisfied that it can be said that it has exceeded the margin of

appreciation which it enjoys, in the creation and adoption of the Plan.

144. With regard to the provisions of Article 8, the decisions to which reference has previously

been made in this judgment, in my view, supports the proposition that the Plan is a

measure which falls within the scope of the respondents’ discretion pursuant to Article 8.

In this regard, it is to be noted that in Fadeyeva v. Russia (Application no. 55723/00),

one of the factors which was taken into account in determining whether there was a

violation of Article 8 rights was the domestic legality of the impugned situation.

145. In the light of the approach which the court has taken in respect of the test for review; in

the absence of any express authority relied upon by the applicant to suggest that there is

a free standing cause of action to have executive action assessed on the basis of

proportionality; and bearing in mind the factors which had to be taken into account in the

creation and adoption of the Plan, even if such a free standing cause of action or grounds

for challenge exists, once again given the wide discretion which is available to the

Executive, particularly in the context of the wording of the Act, it is difficult to conclude

that it has been established by the applicant that the State has acted in a

disproportionate manner in the creation and adoption of the Plan when the Plan, as I have

found, is not ultra vires the Act which provides the basis upon which the State should

achieve a low carbon transition without prescribing the requirement to achieve

146. In the circumstances and for the reasons expressed above, I must refuse the reliefs

sought.

Result: Reliefs sought refused

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	High Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> Friends of the Irish Enviroment CLG -v -The Government of Ireland & ors [2019] IEHC 747 (19 September 2019) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2019/2019_IEHC_747.html Cite as: [2019] IEHC 747

High Court of Ireland Decisions