This contribution takes the form of an uncommon case report. It discusses an action brought to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) before the final decision has been rendered. The author believes this is justified because the innovative character of the procedural and substantive reasoning of the application could be of interest to a wider public. This may be the case even if the CJEU eventually dismisses the action as being inadmissible, leaving the substantive questions undecided. The applicants in Carvalho and Others v. European Union claim that European Union (EU) law does not limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as strictly as is required by EU human rights and international law. The case note explains the parties in the case, the acts being challenged, the relief being sought, and the content and application of the relevant procedural and substantive law. The case is illustrative of the high barriers for direct access to the CJEU, and suggests how they might be overcome. It is also a laboratory for examining the interface of climate science, economics, and law. At this interface, available emissions budgets and the technical and economic feasibility of emissions reductions are calculated and made legally relevant. Carvalho is based on the applicants’ conviction that, where the EU assumes a regulatory competence such as that of GHG emissions reduction, it must exercise it in accordance with its human rights and international obligations.

中文翻译：

---

Armando Carvalho 等人诉欧盟：援引人权和《巴黎协定》以改善气候保护立法

该贡献采用罕见病例报告的形式。它讨论了在做出最终决定之前向欧盟法院 (CJEU) 提起的诉讼。作者认为这是合理的，因为该申请的程序和实质性推理的创新特征可能会引起更广泛的公众的兴趣。即使 CJEU 最终以不可受理为由驳回该诉讼，而实质性问题仍未决定，情况也可能如此。申请人在卡瓦略等五。欧洲联盟声称欧盟 (EU) 法律并未严格限制温室气体 (GHG) 排放，如欧盟人权法和国际法所要求的那样。案例说明解释了案件的当事人、被质疑的行为、寻求的救济以及相关程序法和实体法的内容和适用。该案例说明了直接进入欧洲法院的高障碍，并提出了如何克服这些障碍。它也是一个研究气候科学、经济学和法律界面的实验室。在此界面上，计算可用的排放预算以及减排的技术和经济可行性，并使其具有法律相关性。卡瓦略是基于申请人的信念，即在欧盟承担诸如温室气体减排等监管能力的情况下，它必须根据其人权和国际义务行使该能力。