The Czech climate case: An unfortunate tale of questionable strategies and unanswered questions

Abstract On 5 November 2025, the Czech Constitutional Court rejected the complaint in the landmark climate case (Pl. US 6/25). This concluded a 4‐year strategic litigation process, which challenged governmental inaction on climate change. Brought by individuals, an NGO and a municipality, the action alleged that insufficient greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation measures by key ministries infringed fundamental rights under the Czech constitutional acts, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and obligations from international law. This case note chronicles the full trajectory, from an initial victory at the Prague Municipal Court, which held the EU's 55% reduction target directly applicable, to subsequent reversals by the Supreme Administrative Court, which stressed the collective nature of EU climate obligations and the critical absence of a national climate act. The analysis centres on the Constitutional Court's final judgment, which dismissed the complaint on the narrow procedural ground that the defendant ministries lacked competence without a specific, empowering climate law. This note critiques this reductionist reasoning, arguing that the Court overlooked existing ministerial duties under sectoral and EU law and failed to properly engage with the positive obligations established in the case Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland before the ECHR. It further examines the plaintiffs' strategic choices and identifies significant judicial omissions, particularly the failure to seek a preliminary ruling from the CJEU on the binding nature of EU climate targets for individual Member States. Ultimately, the judgment illustrates a judicial deference to the legislature that, while leaving the door technically open, creates substantial barriers for future climate litigation in Czechia and underscores the critical need for parliamentary action to create a binding national climate framework.