ECLI:FI:KHO:2025:2

Environmental protection – Climate change – Climate Act planning system – Annual Climate Report – Additional measures – Appealability of the decision – Appeal against inaction – Access to the Court - European Convention on Human Rights – Division of State powers – Role of the court

The Government submitted an annual report to Parliament under the Climate Act. The decision to submit the annual report to Parliament was not a decision that could be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court under the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act.

The aim of the Climate Act and its decision-making system for climate policy was to help ensure that Finland would achieve carbon neutrality by 2035 at the latest, and the Act also set an interim target for 2030 and emission reductions for 2040 and 2050. It was also necessary to ensure compliance with the obligations arising from the treaties binding Finland and the legislation of the European Union. The climate policy planning system was put in place to ensure that the objectives of the Climate Act were met. The Climate Act provided for a right of appeal against a government decision on a climate policy plan. The government decision stating the need for additional measures could only be appealed in the context of a decision to amend the plan. There was no provision in the Act that allows for an appeal in a situation where no decision had been taken to amend the plans.

Climate change poses a serious threat to the living conditions of present and future generations on Earth and thus constitutes a threat to the realisation of human rights. In a situation where policy-makers failed to take the necessary steps to prevent and mitigate the threat as required by international and national law, access to a court had to be ensured at national level to assess whether the inaction had violated human rights.

The Supreme Administrative Court found that the Government had primary responsibility for planning and implementing climate policy in accordance with international obligations and the Climate Act. It had the responsibility to decide on the timetable and the means by which the obligations were to be implemented. On appeal, the Court’s role was to ensure that the Government decisions were in accordance with the law and did not obstruct the exercise of human and fundamental rights or lead to a situation contrary to binding international and national legal obligations. Decision-making to implement the obligations under the Climate Act was multi-dimensional and based on extensive, multi-faceted studies of the impacts of different policy measures. The threshold for the Court to find that the Government had acted unlawfully in violation of human rights by failing to take adequate measures had to be high, in accordance with the constitutional provision on the division of state functions.

Taking into account the provisions of the Constitution of Finland on protection under the law and the protection of human and fundamental rights and fundamental environmental rights, as well as the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on the right to a fair trial and the protection of private and family life as interpreted by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in its judgment of 9 April 2024 in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland, the appellant association and others had the right, to bring the Government’s opinion on the need for further measures under the Climate Act to the Supreme Administrative Court for assessment in the context of the Government decision to submit the annual climate report required by the Climate Act.

The Supreme Administrative Court concluded, for the reasons set out in the decision, that the statements contained in the Government’s Annual Climate Report on the assessment of the need for additional measures could not be considered contrary to the Climate Act. The appeal was rejected.

Constitution of Finland, sections 3 and 20; section 21, subsection 1; section 22; and section 46, subsection 1

European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6(1) and Article 8(1)
Administrative Judicial Procedure Act, section 6, subsection 1; section 8, subsection 1; and section 13, subsection 1

Climate Act, sections 1, 2 and 7; section 16, subsection 1; section 17, subsection 1; section 18, subsection 1; and section 21b

Judgement of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, (9 April 2024, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0409JUD005360020)

See and cf. KHO 2023:62

Decision subject to appeal

Government, 27 June 2024 no. YM/2024/35

Ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court

The Supreme Administrative Court examines an appeal by the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation and others on the question of whether the decisions taken by the Government in connection with the adoption of the Annual Climate Report are unlawful.

The appeal is dismissed.

Background to the case

(1) The Government submitted the 2023 Annual Climate Report (K 17/2023 vp) to Parliament by its decision no. YM/2023/56 of 14 July 2023.
As regards monitoring data and the need for further action, the Annual Climate Report states, inter alia, that:

(2) The rate of emission reductions is in line with the 2030 Climate Act target. Key to the carbon neutrality target is the assumed level of carbon sinks in 2035, which determines the magnitude of the required emission reductions. Climate policy planning has assumed a net sink level for the land-use sector of -21 Mt CO₂ eq. in 2035, which would mean that emissions from the emissions trading and effort-sharing sectors could total up to 21 Mt CO₂ eq. With the significant reduction in the net sink of the land-use sector in 2021, the assumed carbon sink level of -21 Mt CO₂ eq. does not seem to be achievable with current and planned land-use sector actions. Achieving the national carbon neutrality target will require further action in the land-use and other sectors.

(3) In its communication to the Government on the 2023 Annual Climate Report (EK 3/2024 vp), Parliament adopted the position that it requires the Government to take steps to update key climate policy plans and prepare proposals for cost-effective additional measures, taking into account the overall impact of the measures.

(4) The Government in its decision of 11 April 2024 (YM/2024/16) decided to place Parliament’s communication about the 2023 Annual Climate Report on the record and to take the measures resulting from the position expressed in the communication.

(5) The Government submitted the 2024 Annual Climate Report (K 16/2024 vp) to Parliament by its decision no. YM/2024/35 of 27 June 2024.

As regards monitoring data and the need for further action, the Annual Climate Report states, inter alia:

(6) The rate of emission reductions is not sufficient to meet the 60 % emission reduction target for 2030 set in the Climate Act. The difference to the target is about 1.3 Mt CO₂ eq. based on the current scenario, which means that the combined need for additional measures in the emissions trading and effort-sharing sectors is of this order of magnitude. Based on current information, the net sink development in the land-use sector looks considerably weaker than previously estimated. According to the current scenario, the additional action needed to reach the 2035 carbon neutrality target is in the order of 19 Mt CO₂ eq. Achieving the target will require further action in the land-use and other sectors.

Demands and assessments before the Supreme Administrative Court

(7) The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation, Greenpeace Norden, Amnesty International Finland, Finnish Sámi Youth, Climate Grandparents and the Finnish Nature Association have in their joint appeal demanded that the Government take measures in accordance with the Climate Act to amend the climate policy plans in a sufficiently short time frame by following the additional procedure in order to achieve the objectives of the Climate Act.

In support of their appeal, the appellants put forward, inter alia, the following arguments:

(8) By the time of the 2024 Annual Climate Report, the Government had not responded to the need for further action to comply with the Climate Act identified in the 2023 Annual Climate Report. Furthermore, the Government had not reacted to the measures required by Parliament’s communication on the Annual Climate Report 2023 to update the key climate plans and prepare additional measures, despite the fact that the Government decided to take action on Parliament’s communication in its decision of 11 April 2024.

(9) According to Statistics Finland’s official statistics, the land-use sector was a source of emissions for the first time in 2021 and the same situation continued in 2022. An update of previous statistics in 2023 showed that the land-use sector was already a net source of emissions in 2018. According to Statistics Finland’s latest flash estimate for 2023, the size of the net sink is still far from the target level of the national carbon neutrality objective, although the land-use sector has changed back to being a weak net sink. This view of the state of the land-use sector has been confirmed by reports from the Natural Resources Institute Finland, the Finnish Environment Institute and the Finnish Climate Panel.

(10) Failure to adopt an additional action decision will lead to a result contrary to the Climate Act. The Government’s actual actions show that it has no intention of taking appropriate decisions in a sufficiently short time frame to achieve the objectives and obligations required by law. This is also demonstrated by the fact that the Government has cancelled measures included in existing climate policy plans.

(11) The Government’s inaction will lead to a situation where the objectives of the Climate Act are seriously compromised. The carbon neutrality target will not be met by 2035 if decisions are not taken quickly enough. At the same time, the emission reduction targets for 2030, 2040 and 2050 will be compromised. According to the Natural Resources Institute Finland’s scenario update, Finland will not reach carbon neutrality in 2035 without sufficient additional measures.

(12) The Government's inaction violates the obligation under section 22 of the Constitution of Finland to safeguard fundamental and human rights and the positive action obligations set by the European Court of Human Rights to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to safeguard human rights. The fairness of climate action will not be achieved if a decision on further action is not taken by amending climate policy plans in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Climate Act. Following the procedures will ensure that the Climate Act’s objective of safeguarding the rights of the Sámi people is met.

(13) This case pertains to a situation referred to in the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court (KHO 2023:62), where failure to take a decision at this stage will lead to a result that contravenes the Climate Act. The Government’s actual actions show that it has no intention of taking appropriate decisions in a sufficiently short time frame to achieve the objectives and obligations required by law.

(14) The appealability of the Government’s decision is also supported by the judgement of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights of 9 April 2024 in the KlimaSeniorinnen case (Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Switzerland and Others v. Switzerland, no. 53600/20). According to the judgement, national climate law and its effective implementation are keyways by which countries ensure compliance with human rights obligations in the context of climate change. The judgement contains criteria for assessing whether a country has complied with its obligations for positive action.

(15) The Government’s actions have not demonstrated that it is complying or intends to comply with the climate change mitigation objectives as required by the judgements. In addition, the sink target in the land-use sector’s climate plan has not been kept up to date, and timely action to plan and implement mitigation measures is lacking. The Government has not acted in a timely, appropriate and coherent manner. Its inaction is jeopardising not only people’s fundamental rights to life and a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, but also the rights of children, future generations, the Sámi and the elderly.

(16) The Climate Act provides for appeals against Government decisions on both climate policy plans and Government decisions to amend them. The right of appeal must also be guaranteed to appellants if the Government fails to take the necessary decisions. If additional measures have not been decided in the procedure laid down in the Climate Act, it is logical to link the appeal to the Government’s decision-making on the Annual Climate Report.

(17) The Ministry of the Environment stated in its opinion that the appeal should be ruled inadmissible. If the appeal is considered admissible, it must be rejected.

The Ministry of the Environment provided the following grounds for its opinion:

(18) The appeal is primarily about the adequacy of the Government's action and not about its lawfulness. It follows from the constitutional decisions provided for in the Constitution of Finland that the courts should, as a matter of principle, exercise restraint when it comes to assessing the adequacy of the actions of the Government when acting on the trust of Parliament. The Climate Act contains a comprehensive appeal provision, which is compatible with Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR and Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.

(19) Finland’s 2035 carbon neutrality target was set on the basis of scientific evidence. The Climate Act also sets emission reduction targets for 2030, 2040 and 2050. The objectives and planning system under the Climate Act include taking into account and complying with international and EU law obligations.

(20) The Climate Act does not set quantitative targets for sinks and carbon removals or for the land-use sector and its net sinks. In addition to the development of net sinks in the land-use sector, the achievement of the carbon neutrality target will be influenced by the growth of potential technical sinks and the development of emissions from the effort-sharing and emissions trading sectors over the next decade.

(21) To achieve the carbon neutrality target under the Climate Act, carbon dioxide emissions in 2035 must not exceed carbon removals by sinks. Based on current information, the net sink development in the land-use sector looks considerably lower than previous estimates. According to the current scenario, the additional action needed to reach the 2035 carbon neutrality target is in the order of 19 Mt CO₂ eq. Achieving the target will require further action in the land-use and other sectors.

(22) Based on Parliament’s communication on the 2023 Annual Climate Report, the Government has decided to take steps to update climate policy plans and prepare proposals for cost-effective additional measures, taking into account the overall impact of the measures. The Government will prepare further actions in line with the Annual Climate Report 2024.

(23) New climate actions will be outlined in the Energy and Climate Strategy and the Medium-Term Climate Plan, which are under preparation. The full range of additional measures required to meet climate policy objectives and obligations will be assessed as part of the preparation of the strategy. The preparation of the strategy will be accompanied by a programme to reduce the emission debt in line with the Programme of Petteri Orpo's Government. The strategy and climate plan are being prepared in parallel and are due to be completed in 2025.

(24) The preparation of a new medium-term climate plan started at the end of 2023, following the need for further action identified in the 2023 Annual Climate Report. The climate plan reviews emissions trends based on updated scenarios, and identifies additional measures to meet the 2030 effort-sharing sector obligation. It also examines emissions trading in the context of the 2035 carbon neutrality target. Given the time needed to prepare the plan, it is appropriate to include additional measures in the effort-sharing sector in the climate plan, which will be prepared in the normal time frame.

(25) The Government adopts a climate plan for the land-use sector at least every second parliamentary term. During the parliamentary terms when there is no obligation to draw up a plan, an assessment must be made of the relevance of the existing plan and the need for new measures. Possible additional actions in the land-use sector were already assessed during spring 2024 as part of the preparation of the Energy and Climate Strategy. A land-use sector climate plan assessment will be carried out during 2024 and 2025.

(26) The Government decides in autumn 2024 which additional measures to start preparing. The Climate Act does not specifically provide for a procedure for the adoption of additional measures. At this stage, the objectives and obligations under the Climate Act have not been compromised to the extent that they cannot be achieved and met. Decisions on possible further action will be taken within a time frame sufficient to achieve and meet the objectives and obligations of the Climate Act, even though no decisions have been taken in the context of the 2024 Annual Climate Report.

(27) The appellants stated in their rejoinder that the climate policy measures planned and initiated by the Government do not comply with the procedure required by the Climate Act, and therefore do not ensure the realisation of the substantive objectives of the Act or safeguard fundamental and human rights.

Grounds for the ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court

Questions before the Court

(28) The first question to be decided is whether the appeal seeks to challenge a decision that is eligible for judicial review by appeal.

(29) If the appeal is considered to be brought against a decision eligible for appeal, it shall be decided whether the contents of the decision are contrary to the Climate Act on the grounds set out in the appeal.

Applicable and related legal provisions

(30) Section 6, subsection 1 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act provides that a decision by which an authority has ruled on an administrative matter or ruled an administrative matter inadmissible shall be eligible for judicial review by appeal.

(31) According to section 8, subsection 1 of the said Act, appeals against the decision of a government plenary session shall be made to the Supreme Administrative Court.

(32) According to section 13, subsection 1 of the said Act, an appeal may be filed on the grounds that a decision is unlawful.

(33) According to section 81, subsection 2, paragraph 2 of the said Act, an administrative court may rule an appeal inadmissible if the decision is not eligible for appeal.

(34) Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights states that, in the determination of their civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against them, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

(35) According to Article 8(1) of the Convention, everyone has the right to respect for their private and family life.

(36) According to section 3 of the Constitution of Finland, legislative powers are exercised by Parliament, Governmental powers by the President of the Republic and the Government, and judicial powers by independent courts of law.

(37) According to section 20, subsection 1 of the Constitution of Finland, nature and its biodiversity the environment and the national heritage are the responsibility of everyone. According to subsection 2 of this section, the public authorities shall endeavour to guarantee for everyone the right to a healthy environment and for everyone the possibility to influence the decisions that concern their own living environment.

(38) According to section 21, subsection 1 of the Constitution of Finland, everyone has the right to have their case dealt with appropriately and without undue delay by a legally competent court of law or other authority, as well as to have a decision pertaining to their rights or obligations reviewed by a court of law or other independent organ for the administration of justice.

(39) According to section 22 of the Constitution of Finland, the public authority shall guarantee the observance of basic rights and liberties and human rights.

(40) According to section 46, subsection 1 of the Constitution of Finland, the Government shall submit to Parliament annual reports on governmental activities and on the measures undertaken in response to parliamentary decisions, as well as annual reports on State finances and adherence to the budget. According to subsection 2 of the said section, other reports shall be submitted to Parliament as provided in the Constitution or in another Act or in the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.

(41) According to section 1 of the Climate Act, the Act lays down the objectives and framework for the planning of Finland’s climate policy and the monitoring of its implementation. The purpose of the Act is to: 1) enhance and coordinate the planning of the measures aimed at climate change mitigation and adaptation and the monitoring of the implementation of the measures, and 2) provide Parliament and the public with better opportunities to take part in climate policy planning and influence it.

(42) According to section 2, subsection 1 of the said Act, the objective of the Act and the climate policy planning system based on it is to contribute to ensuring that greenhouse gas emissions decrease and the removals by sinks increase as prescribed in paragraphs 1–4 of the said subsection and within the prescribed period. According to subsection 2 of the said section, the objective of the Act and the climate policy planning system based on it is also to contribute to ensuring that the obligations concerning the reduction and monitoring of greenhouse gases, strengthening of sinks, and adaptation arising from the treaties binding on Finland and from the European Union legislation are met. According to subsection 3 of the said section, the objective of the Act and the climate policy planning system based on it is to: 1) contribute to ensuring sustainable development and justice of the climate measures; 2) contribute to ensuring the prerequisites for the Sámi people to maintain and develop their own language and culture.

(43) According to section 7, subsection 1 of the Climate Act, the climate policy planning system under the Act comprises the following climate policy plans: 1) Long-term Climate Plan; 2) National Climate Change Adaptation Plan; 3) Medium-term Climate Plan; 4) Climate Plan for the land-use Sector. According to subsection 2 of the said section, the climate policy planning system sets out the targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, strengthening sinks and climate change adaptation as well as the measures required to achieve the targets in different administrative branches.

(44) According to section 16, subsection 1 of the Climate Act, the Government shall monitor the implementation of the climate policy plans referred to in sections 9–12 adequately to determine whether the targets concerning climate change mitigation and adaptation set out in the plans and the objectives referred to in section 2 will be achieved. On the basis of the monitoring, the Government shall, if necessary, decide on the additional measures required to achieve the targets.

(45) According to section 17, subsection 1 of the Climate Act, the Government shall revise the climate policy plans referred to in sections 9–12 in accordance with the decision concerning additional measures referred to in section 16, subsection 1. Revising the plans shall be in accordance with the provisions on the procedure followed in the preparation of the plans laid down in sections 13 and 14.

(46) According to section 18, subsection 1 of the Climate Act, the Government shall submit an Annual Climate Report to Parliament each calendar year. According to paragraph 1 of this subsection, the Annual Climate Report shall contain data on the trends in emissions and removals. According to paragraph 2 of the said subsection, the Annual Climate Report shall contain an assessment of the adequacy of the existing and planned measures presented in the climate policy plans with regard to the achievement of the targets set for the following 15 years and an assessment of the need for the additional measures required to achieve them referred to in section 16, subsection 1.

(47) According to section 21b, subsection 1 of the Climate Act (amendment act 108/2023), appeals to administrative courts are governed by the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act, unless otherwise provided by law. An appeal against a government decision under section 16, subsection 1 of the Act, which states that further measures are necessary, may be lodged only in connection with a decision referred to in section 17, subsection 1. According to subsection 2 of the said section, the right of appeal against a government decision on a climate policy plan rests with the following:

1) anyone who may be specifically affected by, or have a right, obligation or interest in, the impacts of, or adaptation to, climate change or its mitigation;

2) a national registered association representing the interests of the persons referred to in paragraph 1 in accordance with its statutes or, where the effects of climate change or its mitigation or adaptation may be of particular relevance to a specific region or part of a country, a similar local or regional association;

3) a national registered association or foundation whose purpose is to promote the protection of nature, health or the environment;

4) the regional government, if the effects of climate change or its mitigation or adaptation may have a special impact on the region;

5) a national government authority whose public interests relating to its area of competence are specifically affected by the impacts of climate change or climate change mitigation or adaptation, and any other government authority whose public interests relating to its area of competence and jurisdiction are specifically affected by the impacts of climate change or climate change mitigation or adaptation;

6) the Sámi Parliament;

7) Skolt Sámi village meetings.

Legal assessment

The Annual Climate Report and the basis for examining the appeal

(48) The appellants have asked that the Government is obliged to take the additional measures and actions required by the Climate Act to amend the climate policy plans in order to achieve the climate objectives laid down in the Act. According to the appeal, the decision on additional measures under the Climate Act has been neglected, although the Government’s annual climate reports for 2023 and 2024 to Parliament identified the need for additional measures.

(49) In the Finnish system of administrative judicial procedure, a decision by which an authority decides a case or declares it inadmissible is traditionally regarded as a decision eligible for appeal under section 6, subsection 1 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act. The established interpretation is that, unlike in some other countries, the inaction of a public authority cannot be challenged by an appeal or a lawsuit against such inaction.

(50) The Supreme Administrative Court states that, under the system of administrative judicial procedure, the examination of a case before an administrative court requires an appeal to be based on a decision of an authority, in this case the Government. In support of their appeal, the appellants’ have invoked the inaction of the Government. To demonstrate this, attention has been drawn to, among other matters, the opinions stated in connection with the Government’s decision of 27 June 2024 on the 2024 Annual Climate Report to Parliament on the need for further action under the Climate Act. The appellants’ appeal was lodged within the 30-day appeal period for the Government decision in question.

(51) The Climate Act sets a carbon neutrality target for 2035 and emission reduction targets for 2030 and 2040, as well as a 2050 target subject to revision. The act also indicates a target for increasing sinks to meet the carbon neutrality target, including beyond 2035.

(52) The Climate Act targets are planned to be achieved with the climate policy planning system, which sets targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, strengthening sinks and climate change adaptation as well as the measures required to achieve the targets in different administrative branches. The planning system consists of a long-term plan, a medium-term climate plan, a land-use sector climate plan and an adaptation plan, which are adopted by the Government according to a timetable set out for each plan.

(53) Under the reporting and monitoring system of the Climate Act, the Government reports to Parliament on the climate policy plans it has adopted. The Government monitors the implementation of the climate plans and the adequacy of the targets laid down by law; decides, if necessary, on additional measures needed to achieve the plans and targets; and amends the climate plans in accordance with the decision, following the procedure for preparing the plans.

(54) In addition, the Government submits an Annual Climate Report to Parliament every calendar year, which must include, among other matters, an assessment of the adequacy of the current and planned measures set out in the climate policy plans in terms of achieving the targets set for the following 15 years and an assessment of the need for additional measures to achieve them. In its communication of response to the Government, Parliament gives its position on the Annual Climate Report.

(55) An amendment to the Climate Act, which entered into force on 1 March 2023, added a provision on appeals, according to which government decisions on climate plans can be appealed. A government decision stating the need for additional measures can only be appealed in the context of a government decision to amend the climate plan. According to the preparatory work of the amendment (HE 239/2022 vp), the possibility of appeal does not apply, for example, to a government decision on the Annual Climate Report.

(56) The Supreme Administrative Court notes that, in the period between the adoption of the climate plans, the government decision making on the need for additional measures to achieve the objectives of the Climate Act is concretised in the Annual Climate Report submitted to Parliament. However, according to the Climate Act and its rationale, the Annual Climate Report cannot itself be subject to appeal.

(57) The Supreme Administrative Court also held in its earlier decision KHO 2023:62 on a climate issue that the submission of the Annual Climate Report by the Government to Parliament or its consideration by Parliament does not in principle contain decisions whose lawfulness could be assessed by a court. However, the Supreme Administrative Court held that the assessment of the lawfulness of the Government’s decision-making procedure could be subject to judicial review if the failure to take a decision at that stage might lead to an outcome in contravention of the Climate Act, or if the Government’s actual conduct showed that it did not intend to take appropriate decisions in a timely manner to achieve and comply with the objectives and obligations required by the Act.

(58) The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, after the above-mentioned decision of the Supreme Administrative Court, gave its judgement on 9 April 2024 in the climate case Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and others v. Switzerland. The Court found that Switzerland had violated Article 6(1) of the ECHR, the right of access to a court. According to the judgement, countries have an obligation to take timely and appropriate measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to reach the carbon neutrality target. The judicial process cannot replace the role of the legislature and the executive, but the role of the court is to complement democratic procedures by assessing the actions taken. The assessment of the margin of discretion of a country must take into account whether the competent national authorities have taken into account the need to set, update, monitor and act in a timely, appropriate and consistent manner in the formulation and implementation of relevant legislation and measures, including the need to set a timetable and milestones for greenhouse gas emissions and carbon neutrality. According to the judgement, procedural safeguards are particularly relevant in assessing whether a country has exceeded its margin of discretion. The court stressed the primacy of effective national legal protective measures in climate change appeals.

(59) Based on the best scientific evidence, climate change is a matter of life and death for humankind, threatening the living conditions of present and future generations on Earth unless urgent and effective action is taken to limit emissions and preserve and enhance carbon sinks. Therefore, postponing action will shift responsibility to the future and make it more difficult to achieve the 1.5°C maximum temperature increase target of the Paris Agreement (Finnish Treaty Series 75-76/2016).

(60) The Supreme Administrative Court finds that the Government has primary responsibility for planning and implementing climate policy in accordance with international obligations and the Climate Act. It has the responsibility to decide on the timetable and the means by which the obligations are to be implemented. The role of the court is to ensure, on appeal, that government decisions are in accordance with the law and do not obstruct the exercise of human and fundamental rights. In this situation, the role of the Court is to ensure that the government decision, if clearly inadequate, does not lead to a situation that is contrary to binding international and national obligations. Decision-making to implement the obligations under the Climate Act is multi-dimensional and based on extensive, multi-faceted studies of the impacts of different policy measures. The threshold for a court to find that the Government has acted unlawfully in violation of human rights by failing to take adequate measures has to be high, in accordance with the constitutional provision on the division of state functions.

Appealability of decisions on additional measures under the Climate Act

(61) The Supreme Administrative Court states that the need to safeguard fundamental rights and the fulfilment of international obligations in the context of climate change mitigation, which is essential for the future of humanity as a whole, must be taken into particular account when assessing the obligation of public authorities to safeguard human rights and fundamental rights. This may also require ensuring access to court in decision-making scenarios where no explicit provision for appeal exists.

(62) The Supreme Administrative Court states that the principle of the rule of law enshrined in section 2 and the principle of the separation of powers enshrined in section 3 of the Constitution of Finland require, on the one hand, the safeguarding of the tripartite division of state power and, on the other hand, the safeguarding of the human and fundamental rights of present and future generations, taking into account Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR and sections 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of Finland. According to a recent ruling by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, a country’s failure to take action on climate change may constitute a violation of human rights under the ECHR if appropriate measures are not taken in a timely manner. The judgement underlines the right to appeal under Article 6(1) of the ECHR and the primacy of national legal protection mechanisms.

(63) The Supreme Administrative Court considers that the planning system under the Climate Act and the right of appeal contained therein, in principle, meet the legal protection requirements of the Constitution of Finland and the ECHR, provided that the Government takes the necessary additional decisions in due time and proceeds to amend the climate plans if the monitoring of the achievement of the climate objectives under the Act shows that the achievement of the objectives is in danger.

(64) In the planning system of the Climate Act, the Annual Climate Report to Parliament is not only part of the dialogue between Parliament and the Government, which is politically responsible to Parliament, but also a key part of the reporting and monitoring system under the Act. If the monitoring data show that further action is needed to meet the targets under the Climate Act, the assessment must be included in the Annual Climate Report. The Government must decide on the additional measures needed and then decide to implement the climate plan. Such a decision by the Government may be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

(65) Under the Climate Act, the climate plan for the land-use sector is adopted at least every second parliamentary term. During the mid-term review period, the current plan is updated and the need for new measures assessed. The first climate plan for the land-use sector was adopted in July 2022. According to the timetable laid down in the law, the new land-use sector climate plan will be adopted in the next parliamentary term, which would ordinarily start in 2027 and end in 2031. The land-use sector, especially in terms of carbon sinks on agricultural and forestry land, will play a key role in achieving the 2035 carbon neutrality target. A potential deficit in the land-use sector could also affect the binding 2030 target for the effort-sharing sector, if the deficit cannot be covered by the purchase of sink or emission allowances from other EU countries. If Finland does not meet its land-use sector target under the LULUCF Regulation for the 2021–2025 commitment period, the remaining calculated emissions will be transferred to the effort-sharing sector obligation for the 2026–2030 commitment period, taking into account the calculation rules of Regulation (EU) 2018/841 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

(66) The Supreme Administrative Court states that the possibility to appeal in relation to the planning system of the Climate Act must be assessed in the light of the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the KlimaSeniorinnen case issued after the preliminary ruling KHO 2023:62 of the Supreme Administrative Court. In the case under review, it must therefore be examined in particular whether the planning system of the Climate Act is problematic under Article 6(1) of the ECHR if the right of appeal cannot in fact be exercised in situations where, despite the monitoring information, the Government does not take decisions on additional measures under the Climate Act in a sufficiently timely manner or where decisions on additional measures are in fact taken in some other procedure not pursuant to the Climate Act. The Supreme Administrative Court considers that the right of appeal against decisions on plans under the Climate Act is not in itself a sufficient guarantee of the implementation of Article 6(1) of the ECHR, as these plans are drawn up rather rarely. In practice, if there is a delay in changing plans in the middle of a planning period, the implementation of measures may become so ineffective that it is no longer reasonably possible to achieve the objectives, making appeals against the plans useless.

(67) In the 2023 Annual Climate Report, the related Parliament’s communication, the Government’s decision on the communication and the 2024 Annual Climate Report, the need for additional measures under the Climate Act was acknowledged. According to the information received, the Government has so far not taken a decision on additional measures under the Climate Act or a decision to amend the climate plan. There has therefore been no possibility to bring the assessment of the additional measures before the Court under the appeal provision of the Climate Act.

(68) The Climate Act sets binding targets for climate policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase removals by sinks to combat and mitigate the serious threat to humanity posed by climate change. Taking into account the right of everyone to bring a case before a court of law when deciding on their rights under the Constitution and the ECHR, the Supreme Administrative Court considers that, in relation to the Government decision to submit the 2024 Annual Climate Report to Parliament, a finding comparable to the decision has been reached with regard to the assessment of the need for additional measures under the Climate Act, which must be considered eligible for appeal in this situation. For the reasons set out above, the Supreme Administrative Court will examine the appeal.

Lawfulness of the Government decision

(69) The appeal requires an assessment of whether the above-mentioned Government decision, on the grounds set out in the appeal, is contrary to the Climate Act as regards the assessment of the need for further measures.

(70) According to section 18, subsection 2 of the Climate Act, the Annual Climate Report must contain an assessment of the adequacy of the existing and planned measures presented in the climate policy plans with regard to the achievement of the targets set for the following 15 years and an assessment of the need for the additional measures required to achieve them.

(71) The 2023 Annual Climate Report stated that achieving the 2035 carbon neutrality target under the Climate Act would require additional action in land-use and other sectors. In its communication to the Government on the 2023 Annual Climate Report, Parliament called on the Government to take steps to update key climate policy plans and prepare a proposal for cost-effective additional measures, taking into account the overall impact of the measures. On 11 April 2024, the Government decided to take measures resulting from the position expressed in the communication. The Government’s decision of 27 June 2024 to submit the 2024 Annual Climate Report to Parliament states that, despite positive developments, the rate of emission reductions is not yet sufficient to meet the 2030 emission reduction target of the Climate Act. Achieving the national carbon neutrality target will require further action in the land-use and other sectors.

(72) In its statement on the appeal at hand, the Ministry of the Environment referred to the 2024 Annual Climate Report and stated that new climate measures will be set out in the forthcoming Energy and Climate Strategy and Medium-Term Climate Plan, which are due to be completed in 2025. They will be used to prepare any further action needed. An assessment of the climate plan for the land-use sector will be carried out in 2024 and 2025. According to the Ministry of the Environment, existing and new complimentary measures will be implemented and strengthened in parallel.

(73) The 2024 Annual Climate Report contains information on emission trends in 2023 and an estimate of progress towards climate targets. The rate of emission reductions is not sufficient to meet the 60 % emission reduction target for 2030 set in the Climate Act. The difference to the target is about 1.3 Mt CO₂ eq. based on the current scenario, which means that the combined need for additional measures in the emissions trading and effort-sharing sectors is of this order of magnitude. Based on current information, the net sink development in the land-use sector looks considerably worse than previously estimated. According to the current scenario, the additional action needed to reach the 2035 carbon neutrality target is in the order of 19 Mt CO₂ eq. Achieving the target will require further action in the land-use and other sectors.

(74) According to the planning system of the Climate Act, the Annual Climate Report assesses the need for further action based on monitoring data on the implementation of climate policy plans. Additional measures and changes to climate plans will be decided separately. The Ministry of the Environment has announced that additional measures are being prepared. The Supreme Administrative Court notes that, on the basis of the information presented in the appeal and the information obtained in the case, it is not yet possible to take a detailed position on whether these future additional measures are sufficient to achieve the objectives of the Climate Act, as the preparation of the measures is still ongoing.

(75) However, the 2024 Annual Climate Report estimated the need for further action on the basis of monitoring data. The Supreme Administrative Court considers that the statements regarding the assessment of the need for additional measures are not, as such, contrary to the Climate Act, even though the nature and scale of the additional measures are not specified in detail. For these reasons, the Supreme Administrative Court dismisses the appeal. If the preparations of the additional measures were to be delayed considerably so that it would obviously no longer be possible to achieve the binding objectives set out in the Climate Act within the prescribed time frame, it would be considered that the obligations of the Climate Act concerning the additional measures have been unlawfully neglected.

(76) Accordingly, the Supreme Administrative Court finds that the government decision does not violate the Climate Act and the appeal must be dismissed.