CAN Europe and GLAN challenge European Commission in court to raise EU climate ambition

The civil society organisations, CAN Europe and GLAN, are calling on the European Commission, in court, to revise the greenhouse gas emissions it has authorised Member States to emit by 2030, as set out in their annual emissions allocations under the Effort Sharing Regulation. The General Court of the EU is holding a public hearing on 24 September 2025, in this legal case initiated by CAN Europe and the Global Legal Action Network against the European Commission. This case being heard today ultimately raises a fundamental question of whether NGOs can access EU Courts to assess the legality of European climate policies. The hearing of 24 September provides an opportunity for the NGOs and the European Commission to present their case orally. The judges will also use this opportunity to ask questions, clarify points of law or fact, and test the strength of the parties’ arguments, be it towards the NGOs or the European Commission. As the EU is currently negotiating a proposed target to cut net greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040, this case is a stark reminder that the EU’s level of ambition by 2030 remains highly inadequate to achieve its fair share for the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. The Effort Sharing Regulation sectors include buildings, agriculture, waste, small industry, and transport and cover about 57% of the total EU‑27 greenhouse gas emissions. In parallel to establishing targets for the reduction of emissions in the Member States by 2030, the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) defines annual emissions allocations (AEAs) for the years 2021 to 2030. For that purpose, the European Commission provides each Member States with an amount of emission allocations (each corresponding to a tonne of CO2 equivalent) for each of the years in the period, and the number of allowances decreases every year. In 2023, the target in the ESR was amended following the Fit for 55% legislative package and the European Commission calculated revised AEAs for each Member State. These AEAs took effect in Commission’s Implementing Decision 2023/1319, which is the decision targeted by the applicants in this case. CAN Europe and the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) allege that the AEAs decided by the European Commission are grossly inadequate to limit the greenhouse gases of the Union’s effort sharing sector and are contrary to environmental law. CAN Europe and GLAN base their case on the fact that the AEAs are the direct result of the wider 2030 target, which sets emissions targets for the EU as a whole (a 55% reduction from 1990 levels), and for the effort sharing sector (a 40% reduction in aggregate), which is set by reference to the economy-wide 55% target. The applicants point to a series of legal flaws in the 2030 target and its accompanying Impact Assessment, from which it then followed that the AEAs contravene environmental law. In particular, the applicants allege that:

The European Union was obliged to make an adequate assessment of the global emissions reductions required to hold global warming to 1.5°C, but did not make such an assessment in adopting the 2030 target, or the AEAs.
The European Union was obliged to assess what constitutes a reasonable measure of its fair share of the emissions reductions required globally, and failed to make that assessment in adopting the 2030 target, or the AEAs.
The European Union was obliged to make an adequate assessment of the domestic emissions reductions that are feasible for the EU to achieve by 2030 and to set its emissions reductions targets accordingly, and failed to make that assessment in adopting the 2030 target, or the AEAs. The EU explicitly declined to assess whether reductions beyond 55% are feasible.
The European Union was obliged to assess the impacts of climate change on relevant fundamental rights in the 2030 target impact assessment, and failed to make that assessment.

The Commission is seeking to have the case dismissed on narrow technical grounds, without engaging with the substance of our arguments that its 2030 emissions targets are hopelessly inadequate. This case ultimately raises the key question of whether the public, including civil society organisations, is able to access EU courts to ensure that climate policies are legal and align with the EU’s obligations on human rights and environmental protection. Past experiences indicate that this has not been possible so far. This was recalled by the Court of Justice of the EU in the ‘People’s Climate Case’, supported by CAN Europe, in which the plaintiffs argued that the EU’s older target to reduce domestic greenhouse gases emissions by 40% by 2030, as compared to 1990 levels, was insufficient to avoid dangerous climate change and threatened plaintiffs’ fundamental rights. The case challenged the validity of the Effort Sharing Regulation, the Emissions Trading System Directive and the LULUCF Regulation. The Court rejected this case and held the plaintiff’s claims inadmissible on standing grounds for failing to demonstrate that they were individually impacted by Europe’s climate policy.

History of the case

The current case attempts to challenge the inadequacy of EU climate ambition via a different legal avenue. CAN Europe and GLAN do not directly challenge an EU directive or regulation, but use another procedure stemming from the EU Aarhus Regulation. This procedure allows NGOs to challenge acts adopted by EU institutions, such as the Implementing Decision setting the AEAs. In order to do so, NGOs first need to complete an administrative step known as an ‘internal review request’. This first step was done in August 2023. The Commission rejected the request in December 2023. The NGOs are now challenging the Commission’s reply before the CJEU. In February 2024, GLAN and CAN Europe submitted an application to the EU Court and exchanged several rounds of written legal argumentation with the European Commission. With this case, the applicants seek the annulment of the erroneous decision from the Commission to reject their request for internal review. The applicants consequently request the Commission to revise the AEAs and take all steps necessary to rectify the contravention of environmental law. This case comes one year after the landmark ruling from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the Klimaseniorinnen case, in which the Strasbourg court held that States must adopt science-based emissions targets. It also comes just a few months after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion on climate change, which clarified states’ obligations stemming from international treaties such as the Paris Agreement – namely that they must prevent significant harm to the environment, protect human rights affected by climate impacts, and do their utmost to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with their capabilities and historical responsibilities. Both the ECHR ruling and the ICJ advisory opinion could influence how the EU courts decide the current case, as they are yet to assess the compatibility of the current EU climate policies with EU environmental law and fundamental rights. A ruling can reasonably be expected within six months of the hearing. This timeline could be accelerated as the case was given priority by the president of the Court. Read our media advisory. Written by Romain Didi, Climate Governance and Human Rights Policy Coordinator at CAN Europe, and Gerry Liston, Senior Lawyer with GLAN