Contesting climate policy in the EU: resistance, repression, and fundamental rights

This article critically examines the growing tension between climate activism and state repression in the European Union, focusing on the legal and political implications of criminalising civil disobedience in environmental movements. It starts from the hypothesis that the legal frameworks of the EU member states and the EU itself insufficiently protect the rights of climate activists, leading to democratic backsliding and the erosion of fundamental freedoms. Grounded in John Rawls’ theory of civil disobedience as a public, non-violent, and conscientious act aimed at changing unjust laws or policies, the article explores whether climate resistance should be considered a legitimate form of political expression rather than a threat to public order. Using a multidisciplinary and comparative legal method, the analysis draws on European and international human rights instruments—including the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Aarhus Convention—EU climate policy frameworks such as the European Green Deal, and recent jurisprudence from national and European courts. It finds that while legal systems nominally protect freedom of expression and assembly, in practice, they often allow for disproportionate sanctions, police violence, and the misuse of antiterror laws against environmental activists. The article concludes that EU climate governance lacks a consistent human rights-based approach (HRBA), particularly in policy implementation and allocating EU funds. It calls for integrating fundamental rights into all aspects of climate governance, including litigation, policy design, and public participation, to ensure a just, democratic, and socially equitable green transition.