Neubauer v. Germany

Last updated
Neubauer v. Germany
Court Federal Constitutional Court
StartedFebruary 6, 2020
DecidedApril 29, 2021 (2021-04-29)

Neubauer v. Germany was a 2020 court case in which a group of activists sued over the vagueness present in 2019's Climate Protection Act.

Contents

Background

Activists backed by Fridays For Future, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and other NGOs brought claim that the lack of a comprehensive legal framework to reduce carbon emissions by 2030 violated their fundamental rights as enshrined in German basic law. [1] The complaint specifically called out that the state had to protect the right to life, personal freedom, right to property, and human dignity. [2]

Decision

The Constitutional Court declared part of the Federal Climate Protection Act unconstitutional, as it did not "sufficiently protect people against future infringements and limitations of freedom rights in the wake of gradually intensifying climate change". [3] It ruled against some of their claims, saying the plaintiffs could not prove the government violated its constitutional duty.

The finance minister responded to the ruling by saying that he would work with the environment ministry to amend the act. [4] The environmental minister wrote that she would present new climate proposals over the summer. [1]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Convention on Human Rights</span> International treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe

The European Convention on Human Rights is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity.

Civil liberties are guarantees and freedoms that governments commit not to abridge, either by constitution, legislation, or judicial interpretation, without due process. Though the scope of the term differs between countries, civil liberties may include the freedom of conscience, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the right to security and liberty, freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the right to equal treatment under the law and due process, the right to a fair trial, and the right to life. Other civil liberties include the right to own property, the right to defend oneself, and the right to bodily integrity. Within the distinctions between civil liberties and other types of liberty, distinctions exist between positive liberty/positive rights and negative liberty/negative rights.

Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution of Canada. It is commonly known as the notwithstanding clause, sometimes referred to as the override power, and it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to temporarily override sections 2 and 7–15 of the Charter.

<i>Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms</i> 1982 Canadian constitutional legislation

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, often simply referred to as the Charter in Canada, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada, forming the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all governments in Canada. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The Charter was proclaimed in force by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17, 1982, as part of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Strategic lawsuits against public participation, or strategic litigation against public participation, are lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

The right to privacy is an element of various legal traditions that intends to restrain governmental and private actions that threaten the privacy of individuals. Over 150 national constitutions mention the right to privacy. On 10 December 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), originally written to guarantee individual rights of everyone everywhere; while right to privacy does not appear in the document, many interpret this through Article 12, which states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the First Amendment's provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press to apply to the governments of U.S. states. Along with Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago (1897), it was one of the first major cases involving the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. It was also one of a series of Supreme Court cases that defined the scope of the First Amendment's protection of free speech and established the standard to which a state or the federal government would be held when it criminalized speech or writing.

City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the scope of Congress's power of enforcement under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case also had a significant impact on historic preservation.

The Fundamental Rights in India enshrined in part III of the Constitution of India guarantee civil liberties such that all Indians can lead their lives in peace and harmony as citizens of India. These rights are known as "fundamental" as they are the most essential for all-round development i.e., material, intellectual, moral and spiritual and protected by fundamental law of the land i.e. constitution. If the rights provided by Constitution especially the Fundamental rights are violated the Supreme Court and the High Courts can issue writs under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, respectively, directing the State Machinery for enforcement of the fundamental rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Georgia (country)</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in Georgia face significant challenges that non-LGBT people do not experience. Georgia is one of only a few countries in the former Soviet space that directly prohibits discrimination against all LGBT people in legislation, labor-related or otherwise. Since 2012, Georgian law has considered crimes committed on the grounds of one's sexual orientation or gender identity an aggravating factor in prosecution. The legislative ban on discrimination has been enacted as a part of the Government efforts to bring the country closer to the European Union and make the country's human rights record in line with the demands of Georgia's European and Euro-Atlantic integration. Despite this, homosexuality is still considered a major deviation from the highly traditional Orthodox Christian values prevalent in the country, where public discussions of sexuality in general tend to be viewed in a highly negative light. Consequently, homosexuals are often targets of abuse and physical violence, often actively encouraged by religious leaders. The LGBT events regularly face significant opposition and are often cancelled in the face of violence. The LGBT rights activists were unable to hold their events due to violent opposition in 2012, 2013, 2021 and 2023. According to the 2021 International Social Survey Programme (ISSIP) study, 84% of the Georgian public thinks that sexual relations between two adults of the same sex are always wrong, which is the highest score in Europe.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal aspects of ritual slaughter</span>

The legal aspects of ritual slaughter include the regulation of slaughterhouses, butchers, and religious personnel involved with traditional shechita (Jewish) and dhabiha (Islamic). Regulations also may extend to butchery products sold in accordance with kashrut and halal religious law. Governments regulate ritual slaughter, primarily through legislation and administrative law. In addition, compliance with oversight of ritual slaughter is monitored by governmental agencies and, on occasion, contested in litigation.

Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States overturning the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's application of a Minnesota antidiscrimination law. The case established what was at the time the prevailing framework for analyzing claims of associative freedom, holding that the Minneapolis branch of the United States Jaycees could not bar women from becoming voting members.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abortion in Colombia</span>

Abortion in Colombia is freely available on request up to the 24th week of pregnancy, due to a ruling by the Constitutional Court on February 21, 2022. Later in pregnancy, it is only allowed in cases of risk of death to the mother, fetal malformation, or rape, according to a Constitutional Court ruling in 2006.

Internet censorship in South Africa is a developing topic.

This is a list of events in 2011 that affected LGBT rights.

Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in 2016 concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees. By a 6–2 margin, the Court held that a public employee's constitutional rights might be violated when an employer, believing that the employee was engaging in what would be protected speech, disciplines them because of that belief, even if the employee did not exercise such a constitutional right.

The Network Enforcement Act, also known colloquially as the Facebook Act, is a German law that was passed in the Bundestag that officially aims to combat fake news, hate speech and misinformation online.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate change litigation</span> Use of legal practice to further climate change mitigation

Climate change litigation, also known as climate litigation, is an emerging body of environmental law using legal practice to set case law precedent to further climate change mitigation efforts from public institutions, such as governments and companies. In the face of slow politics of climate change delaying climate change mitigation, activists and lawyers have increased efforts to use national and international judiciary systems to advance the effort. Climate litigation typically engages in one of five types of legal claims: Constitutional law, administrative law, private law (challenging corporations or other organizations for negligence, nuisance, etc., fraud or consumer protection, or human rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Luisa Neubauer</span> German climate activist

Luisa-Marie Neubauer is a German climate activist. She is one of the main organisers of the school strike for climate movement in Germany, where it is commonly referred to under its alternative name Fridays for Future. She advocates a climate policy that complies with and surpasses the Paris Agreement and endorses de-growth. Neubauer is a member of Alliance 90/The Greens and the Green Youth.

Bayev and Others v. Russia was a case brought to the European Court of Human Rights by three Russian activists—Nikolay Bayev, Aleksei Aleksandrovich Kiselev, and Nikolay Alekseyev—alleging that the Russian gay propaganda law infringed on their freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. On 20 June 2017, the court ruled that the applicants' freedom of expression had been compromised. The only dissent was from Dmitry Dedov, the judge elected with respect to Russia.

References

  1. 1 2 Treisman, Rachel (April 29, 2021). "German Court Orders Revisions To Climate Law, Citing 'Major Burdens' On Youth". NPR.
  2. "Rechtsanwälte Günther" (PDF). Partnerschaft.
  3. Kotzé, Louis J. (December 2021). "Neubauer et al. versus Germany: Planetary Climate Litigation for the Anthropocene?". German Law Journal. 22 (8): 1423–1444. doi: 10.1017/glj.2021.87 . ISSN   2071-8322.
  4. Connolly, Kate (2021-04-29). "'Historic' German ruling says climate goals not tough enough". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 2023-02-10.