The Supreme Court also addressed the alleged constitutional and human rights breaches by the enactment of the Plan. In line with Helena Merriman v. Fingal County Council & Ors [2017] IEHC 695, the High Court had earlier held that the right to a healthy environment was an unwritten constitutional right. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that a right to a healthy environment could not be derived from the Constitution itself, and that this right would be superfluous, given its implied existence in the right to life or bodily integrity. The Court observed that, in most countries, constitutional provisions explicitly encode a right to a healthy environment, signalling that a referendum may be needed to enshrine this right in the Irish Constitution.
Since the Court held that the Plan did not comply with the Act, it was not necessary to address any constitutional or human rights issues. However, it did clarify the concept of “standing rules for corporate bodies,” distinguishing from previous cases in which NGOs litigated on behalf of the people. The Court found such standing rules to be flexible, but not infinitely so. The Court decided that, as FIE did not enjoy personal rights to life and bodily integrity, it did not possess the necessary legal standing. The Court raised the question as to why an individual enjoying such rights had not brought the case instead, observing that individual expenses is no reason to have an NGO bring a case.
Potential takeaways for future climate migration litigation
- The Court found that Ireland’s National Mitigation Plan should be transparent enough so that anyone with sufficient interest might determine whether it is effective in seeking to reach the country’s National Transition Objective by 2050. This suggests that the public is recognised as a party with great interest in such a plan, and indicates that future legislation should be drafted with sufficient transparency.
- The 2015 Act was heavily criticized by the public for being largely toothless, given its lack of binding targets. The Supreme Court demonstrated how the country would be better suited with a 33-year mitigation plan rather than a mere 5-year plan that was subject to flexibility in interpretation. Thus, a new plan would allow for predictions to be made on how the climate crisis would be managed by the country.