The High Court has refused Friends of the Irish Environment CLG’s judicial review challenge to the Government’s approval of Ireland’s first National Mitigation Plan, finding that the applicant had not established that the plan breached the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015.
The plan, approved by the Government on 27 June 2017 and published on 19 July, set out measures intended to begin Ireland’s transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient and environmentally sustainable economy by 2050. The environmental group argued that it lacked adequate measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the short and medium term and did not meet the Act’s requirements. It sought, among other relief, to have the plan’s approval quashed.
The court said judicial review could not be used to assess the merits of the Government’s policy choices. It applied the established irrationality test, considered through a proportionality analysis where fundamental rights were raised, while making clear that its review could not become a merits-based assessment. The Act’s language, the judge said, gave the Government considerable discretion in deciding how to pursue the 2050 objective.
The judge found that the plan proposed a route towards the national transition objective, identified policy measures for managing emissions and addressed the State’s existing EU and international obligations. It also contained sectoral analysis and assigned actions to relevant ministers. Although the Climate Change Advisory Council had criticised the plan and called for more detail, those criticisms did not themselves establish a breach of a legal obligation.
The court noted that the plan described itself as an initial step and a “living document”, with further plans and measures expected. It held that the Act did not impose a statutory obligation to meet particular interim targets. The applicant’s contention that the plan was not doing enough, quickly enough, therefore did not establish that the plan was unlawful under the Act.
The court also considered the applicant’s constitutional and European Convention claims. It accepted, for the purposes of the case, that the group had standing to pursue them. However, it was not satisfied that making or approving the plan had been shown to breach the asserted rights. The judge said the plan was one part of the State’s response and that the case did not challenge the constitutionality of the Act itself.
The court refused the reliefs sought. It did not set emissions targets, order the Government to adopt particular measures, or make a finding that the plan would achieve the 2050 objective.