Case Law Database
Urgenda Foundation v State of Netherlands
| Date of Application: | Mon, 13 Jan 2020 |
|---|---|
| Date of Decision: | Wed, 24 Jun 2015 |
| Decision Making Body: | Netherlands Supreme Court |
| Law Applied: | European Convention on Human Rights Netherlands Constitution |
| Keywords: | Emissions reductions, declaratory, Injunction |
| Full Case Details - Download Full Judgment (pdf) |
Urgenda Foundation v State of Netherlands [2015] HAZA C/09/00456689
At Issue: Seeking declaratory judgment and injunction to compel the Dutch government to reduce GHG emissions.
Summary:
A Dutch environmental group, the Urgenda Foundation, and 900 Dutch citizens sued the Dutch government to require it to do more to prevent global climate change. The court in the Hague ordered the Dutch state to limit GHG emissions to 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, finding the government’s existing pledge to reduce emissions by 17% insufficient to meet the state’s fair contribution toward the UN goal of keeping global temperature increases within two degrees Celsius of pre-industrial conditions. The court concluded that the state has a duty to take climate change mitigation measures due to the “severity of the consequences of climate change and the great risk of climate change occurring.” In reaching this conclusion, the court cited (without directly applying) Article 21 of the Dutch Constitution; EU emissions reduction targets; principles under the European Convention on Human Rights; the “no harm” principle of international law; the doctrine of hazardous negligence; the principle of fairness, the precautionary principle, and the sustainability principle embodied in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; and the principle of a high protection level, the precautionary principle, and the prevention principle embodied in the European climate policy. The court did not specify how the government should meet the reduction mandate, but offered several suggestions, including emissions trading or tax measures. This is the first decision by any court in the world ordering states to limit greenhouse gas emissions for reasons other than statutory mandates.
The Dutch government submitted 29 grounds of appeal. Urgenda submitted a cross-appeal, contesting the court’s decision that Urgenda cannot directly invoke Articles 2 & 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in these proceedings.
On Oct 9, 2018, the Hague Court of Appeal upheld the District Court's ruling, concluding that by failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by end-2020, the Dutch government is acting unlawfully in contravention of its duty of care under Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR. The court recognized Urgenda’s claim under Article 2 of the ECHR, which protects a right to life, and Article 8 of the ECHR, which protects the right to private life, family life, home, and correspondence. The court determined that the Dutch government has an obligation under the ECHR to protect these rights from the real threat of climate change. The court rejected the government’s argument that the lower court decision constitutes “an order to create legislation” or violation of trias politica and the role of courts under the Dutch constitution. In response to these appeals, the court affirmed its obligation to apply provisions with direct effect of treaties to which the Netherlands is party, including Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR. Further, the court found nothing in Article 193 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that prohibits a member state from taking more ambitious climate action than the E.U. as a whole, nor that adaptation measures can compensate for the government’s duty of care to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, nor that the global nature of the problem excuses the Dutch government from action.
The Dutch government appealed the decision, and the Netherlands' Supreme Court heard the appeal on May 24, 2019. On September 13 the Advocate and Procurator General, independent judicial officers, issued a formal opinion recommending that the Supreme Court uphold the decision.
On December 20, 2019, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands upheld the decision under Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR.
(Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands - Climate Change Litigation)
Summary provided courtesy of the Sabin Centre https://climatecasechart.com/
Court filed documents:
Decision court a quo (2015)
Decision Supreme Court Netherlands (13 January 2020)
Related CRC articles
- 6. Right to life, survival and development (CRC Article 6)
- 12. Right to express views freely and have these taken into account (CRC Article 12)
- 16. Right to privacy, family, home, communications and reputation (CRC Article 16)
Decision of court a quo (2015):
The court relies on the European Convention on Human Rights to make its decision, in particular:
Article 2 the right to life
Article 8 the right to home life and family life
Article 13 the right to effective legal protection
These rights are related to the following CRC aerticles:
Art 6 – Right to life
Art 16 – Right to privacy, family, home, communications, and reputation
Art 12 - Right to express views freely and have these taken into account
P41 at para 4.49
“(a) The right to life is protected under Article 2 of the Convention. This Article does not solely concern deaths resulting directly from the actions of the agents of a State, but also lays down a positive obligation on States to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within their jurisdiction. This means that public authorities have a duty to take steps to guarantee the rights of the Convention even when they are threatened by other (private) persons or activities that are not directly connected with the State.”
Supreme court decision (2020):
“The obligation to take suitable measures also applies when it comes to environmental hazards that threaten large groups or the population as a whole, even if the hazards will only materialise over the long term. While Articles 2 and 8 ECHR are not permitted to result in an impossible or disproportionate burden being imposed on a state, those provisions do oblige the state to take measures that are actually suitable to avert the imminent hazard as much as reasonably possible. Pursuant to Article 13 ECHR, national law must offer an effective legal remedy against a violation or imminent violation of the rights that are safeguarded by the ECHR. This means that the national courts must be able to provide effective legal protection.”
Involvement of children in hearings
- Not sure
Future generations
Decision of court a quo (2015):
P43 at para 4.57
“The principle of fairness (i) means that the policy should not only start from what is most beneficial to the current generation at this moment, but also what this means for future generations, so that future generations are not exclusively and disproportionately burdened with the consequences of climate change. The principle of fairness also expresses that industrialised countries have to take the lead in combating climate change and its negative impact. The justification for this, and this is also noted in literature, lies first and foremost in the fact that from a historical perspective the current industrialised countries are the main causers of the current high greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere and that these countries also benefited from the use of fossil fuels, in the form of economic growth and prosperity. Their prosperity also means that these countries have the most means available to take measures to combat climate change.”
P47 at para 4.76
“Due to this principle of fairness, the State, in choosing measures, will also have to take account of the fact that the costs are to be distributed reasonably between the current and future generations. If according to the current insights it turns out to be cheaper on balance to act now, the State has a serious obligation, arising from due care, towards future generations to act accordingly. Moreover, the State cannot postpone taking precautionary measures based on the sole reason that there is no scientific certainty yet about the precise effect of the measures.”
P50 at para 4.89
“In the opinion of the court, the possibility of damages for those whose interests Urgenda represents, including current and future generations of Dutch nationals, is so great and concrete that given its duty of care, the State must make an adequate contribution, greater than its current contribution, to prevent hazardous climate change.”
Outcome of decision for the applicants
- Relief sought by applicants granted
The court in the Hague ordered the Dutch state to limit GHG emissions to 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, finding the government’s existing pledge to reduce emissions by 17% insufficient to meet the state’s fair contribution toward the UN goal of keeping global temperature increases within two degrees Celsius of pre-industrial conditions.
Did outcome of decision develop the law
- Yes
This is the first decision by any court in the world ordering states to limit greenhouse gas emissions for reasons other than statutory mandates.
The court finds that the States has a positive duty to take climate change mitigation measures due to the severity of consequences of climate change and the great risk of climate change occurring.
The court finds that public officials have a (positive) duty to take steps to guarantee the rights of the Convention even when they are threatened by other (private) persons or activities that are not directly connected with the State, and that the state must be able to provide effective legal protection.
The court relies on various local, regional and international sources.
The Urgenda case established a precedent for governments' obligations to protect citizens from climate change.
While not exclusively a youth-led case, it significantly advanced the legal arguments for protecting young people from the impacts of climate change.
The case has inspired numerous other climate litigation efforts around the world, many of which involve young plaintiffs.
Involvement of NGO/law firm in application
Available information on how children got involved in the litigation
Kata Dozsa, “Children as Climate Citizens: A Sociolegal Approach to Public Participation” (Routledge, 2024), p200
Age range of litigants
- Other (Under 25)