Breaking Barriers: Enhancing Access to Justice and Accountability Through Procedural Reforms in EU Climate Litigation

Abstract

This thesis examines the procedural barriers faced by non-privileged applicants in challenging legislative and regulatory acts of the European Union under Articles 263 and 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, focusing on their role in climate litigation. It explores through normative research, comparative method and de lege ferenda -method, how these barriers affect access to justice, accountability, and the enforcement of the Union’s ambitious climate goals and commitments. The research aims to understand the impact of these procedural barriers and proposes reforms to address them. The findings reveal that the restrictive interpretation of standing requirements under Article 263, particularly the requirement for direct and individual concern criterion, severely limits access for non-privileged applicants. Article 267 provides an alternative route through preliminary rulings, but its reliance on national courts undermines its effectiveness. These limitations weaken the Union’s capacity to respond to climate challenges and limit access to justice in the Union. The thesis proposes reforms to standing rules, including adopting collective standing mechanisms and open standing concepts drawn from different draft legislations, such as the ELI-Unidroit Model and IBA Model Statute. Enhancing preliminary references and expanding internal review procedures under the Aarhus Regulation are also recommended to create a more inclusive and effective procedural framework. Ultimately, the study concludes that addressing these procedural barriers is critical for ensuring access to justice and complying with climate goals. By implementing targeted reforms, the EU can balance institutional efficiency with greater access to justice and accountability, fostering a legal system that supports meaningful climate action.