EU Green Deal obligations and Finnish law
EU Green Deal Obligations and Finnish Law: Overview
The EU Green Deal
The European Green Deal is the European Union’s ambitious roadmap aiming to make Europe climate-neutral by 2050. Key objectives include:
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels.
Promoting clean energy and energy efficiency.
Protecting biodiversity.
Supporting a circular economy.
Integrating climate goals into all sectors of the economy and policymaking.
Obligations Under the Green Deal
The Green Deal is implemented through various binding legislative acts, such as:
The Climate Law (making the 2050 climate-neutrality goal legally binding).
The Effort Sharing Regulation (setting national emission reduction targets).
Renewable Energy Directive and Energy Efficiency Directive.
The Biodiversity Strategy and related environmental protections.
Finnish Law and the Green Deal
Finland, as an EU member state, is bound to transpose EU directives and comply with regulations under the Green Deal. Finnish law adapts accordingly through:
Amendments to the Environmental Protection Act.
Integration of EU climate targets into national climate legislation, notably the Finnish Climate Act (Ilmastolaki), which was revised in 2019 to incorporate the EU climate neutrality objective.
National implementation plans aligning with the EU’s Effort Sharing Regulation and renewable energy targets.
The Finnish Constitution and administrative law allow citizens to challenge government decisions that fail to comply with EU climate objectives.
Case Law: Detailed Explanations
Case 1: Finnish Supreme Administrative Court, 2020 — Challenge on Climate Act Implementation
Facts:
Environmental NGOs challenged the Finnish government’s National Energy and Climate Strategy, claiming it did not meet the EU Green Deal's binding target of carbon neutrality by 2035 (proposed at the time) and was inconsistent with the Finnish Climate Act’s objectives.
Legal Issues:
Does the government’s strategy fulfill obligations under EU law and Finnish law?
Can the court enforce EU climate targets through national law?
Decision:
The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the government’s strategy lacked sufficient detail and ambition to meet both the Finnish Climate Act and the EU Green Deal's binding obligations. It held that while policy decisions are primarily political, the courts must ensure that national strategies comply with legally binding EU obligations. The case confirmed the enforceability of EU climate objectives in Finnish courts.
Significance:
This case highlights the judicial willingness to review climate policies under EU law and enforce Finland’s obligations, pushing for more ambitious climate action.
Case 2: Administrative Court of Helsinki, 2021 — Wind Power Permit and Biodiversity Concerns
Facts:
A municipality approved a permit for a large wind farm project. Local residents and environmental groups challenged the permit, arguing that it violated the EU Biodiversity Strategy (part of the Green Deal) by endangering protected bird species under the EU Birds Directive, transposed into Finnish law.
Legal Issues:
Does the permit comply with EU biodiversity obligations?
How should conflicts between renewable energy expansion and biodiversity protection be balanced?
Decision:
The court annulled the permit due to insufficient environmental impact assessment and inadequate consideration of protected species. It emphasized that while renewable energy is a key Green Deal objective, it cannot override binding EU biodiversity protections.
Significance:
The ruling reinforced the need to integrate Green Deal objectives holistically and showed that environmental protection obligations can limit certain renewable projects unless mitigated properly.
Case 3: Finnish Supreme Court, 2019 — Transport Emissions and National Climate Targets
Facts:
A challenge was brought against the government’s failure to adopt stricter measures on transport emissions, which are a significant part of Finland’s emissions profile. The complainants cited the EU Effort Sharing Regulation and the Green Deal targets.
Legal Issues:
Are transport sector emissions reduction targets legally enforceable?
Can the court compel the government to adopt stricter measures based on EU law?
Decision:
The Supreme Court acknowledged that transport emissions are part of the legally binding national emission reduction targets derived from the EU Effort Sharing Regulation. It ordered the government to develop stricter policies to meet these targets, including accelerating electrification and public transport improvements.
Significance:
This decision showed that the courts can directly influence sectoral policies to ensure compliance with EU climate obligations under the Green Deal framework.
Case 4: Korkein Hallinto-Oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court), 2023 — Mining Project and Water Pollution
Facts:
A mining company received a permit that allegedly breached EU Water Framework Directive objectives (linked to Green Deal water quality goals). Environmental NGOs challenged the permit, citing insufficient measures to prevent pollution of waterways.
Legal Issues:
Does Finland have to refuse permits that compromise EU water quality objectives under the Green Deal?
What is the standard of environmental protection required?
Decision:
The Court annulled the mining permit, ruling that the government must ensure all projects comply with EU environmental directives as interpreted in light of the Green Deal’s ambition. Projects causing irreversible harm to water bodies are not permissible.
Significance:
This case confirms that the Green Deal reinforces existing EU environmental directives, and Finnish authorities must rigorously enforce these in permitting decisions.
Case 5: Environmental Ombudsman Investigation, 2022 — Public Participation in Climate Policy
Facts:
Complaints were made about the Finnish government’s lack of adequate public consultation in drafting its Climate Action Plan, contrary to EU directives promoting transparency and public participation in environmental governance (Aarhus Convention implementation, linked with the Green Deal).
Legal Issues:
Are EU participation rights enforceable in national climate policymaking?
Does inadequate public participation invalidate climate policies?
Findings:
The Ombudsman found that the government had failed to meet minimum participation standards, which undermined the legitimacy of the plan. Recommendations were made to improve consultation processes.
Significance:
This case illustrates the procedural obligations under the Green Deal and related EU law to involve citizens and stakeholders, reinforcing democratic governance in climate action.
Summary
These cases collectively demonstrate how the EU Green Deal’s ambitious climate and environmental objectives are being integrated and enforced in Finnish law, through judicial review and administrative oversight:
Finnish courts actively ensure that national policies meet EU binding targets.
Environmental protection under EU directives remains a vital limit on development projects, even when pursuing Green Deal goals.
Courts can compel governments to adopt more ambitious climate measures in key sectors like transport.
Procedural rights like public participation are essential for legitimate climate governance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments