State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation

Last updated
State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation
State coat of arms of the Netherlands.svg
Court Supreme Court of the Netherlands
Decided20 December 2019 (2019-12-20)
ECLI ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2006
Transcript(s) ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007
Case history
Appealed fromDistrict Court of The Hague
Appealed toHague Court of Appeal [1]

State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation (Dutch: De Staat der Nederlanden v. Stichting Urgenda) was climate change litigation heard by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands in 2019 related to government efforts to curtail carbon dioxide emissions. The case was brought against the Dutch government in 2013, arguing the government, by not meeting a minimum carbon dioxide emission-reduction goal established by scientists to avert harmful climate change, was endangering the human rights of Dutch citizens as set by national and European Union laws.

Contents

The initial ruling in 2015, requiring the government to meet an emissions goal of 25% reduction from 1990 levels by 2020, was upheld through the Supreme Court on appeals, affirming that reduction in emissions was necessary for the Dutch government to protect human rights. It is the first such tort case taken against a government challenging climate change aspects based on a human rights foundation, and the first such successful climate justice case.

Background

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its fourth and fifth assessment reports on climate change in 2007 and 2014, respectively. Among other findings, the reports emphasized the need for significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in the short-term, by 2030. The European Union (EU) established a goal for all member states to achieve a 40% reduction from 1990 levels by 2030, ahead of the 2016 Paris Agreement which established a similar goal worldwide. Each member state, including the Netherlands, was bound to establish its own national-level policies ahead of the Paris agreement to reach this goal. [2]

The Netherlands had generally been seen as a leading country in trying to limit climate change as much of the country sits at or below sea level and would be significantly impacted by rising ocean levels. During the 2010s, activists asserted that the government started to favor more traditional fossil fuel industries over renewables, and the country began lagging in its commitment to reducing climate change. [3]

The Urgenda Foundation  [ nl ] is a climate activist group founded in 2008 representing the interests of 886 Dutch citizens. They had been following the IPCC assessment reports and other climate change reports, as well as the discussion by their attorney, Roger Cox, in his 2010 book Revolution Justified: Why Only the Law Can Save Us Now describing potential routes to seek climate change action by governments through climate justice, the idea that human rights are violated by governments' failure to reduce emissions and prevent climate change. [3] [4] Urgenda wrote to the Dutch government urging them to commit to a 40% reduction in carbon dioxide levels by 2020. [3] The letter not only referred to recent reports like the IPCC assessment, but also implored that the Dutch government had a duty to reduce emissions to protect human rights under EU policy. This is the first-known instance of using the EU's human rights laws in seeking government action towards climate change. [5]

The government, in reply, stated that this target was too aggressive compared to the planned 30% by 2020 target the EU was striving for at the time, and that the country would only commit to a 40% if all other EU member countries had the same objective. [6]

District Court

Urgenda sued the state in September 2013, arguing the state must commit to a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions of 40% by 2030 or a minimum of 25% by 2020, bound by Dutch and EU law. [7] Urgenda's complaint asserted that the government was responsible for managing all carbon dioxide emissions from the country and it was duty-bound by their laws to reduce the nation's contribution to climate change. [6]

The first hearing for the case was held in April 2015 at the District Court at The Hague. [3] The District Court ruled in June 2015 in favor of Urgenda, and required the Netherlands government must achieve 25% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 levels by 2020. The Court found that prior to 2010, the state had planned to have 30% reductions by 2020, but since 2010, had changed their policy and reduced the goal to 14–17%. While the state had argued that the Netherlands' net contribution of carbon dioxide emissions was not as significant as other major countries, the Court said in its ruling "The state should not hide behind the argument that the solution to the global climate problem does not depend solely on Dutch efforts. Any reduction of emissions contributes to the prevention of dangerous climate change and as a developed country the Netherlands should take the lead in this." [8] The ruling asserted that the Dutch government was legally bound to reduce emissions to protect human life, and that the costs associated with a 25% reduction were not unreasonably high. The court did express concern about respecting the legislative process, and set the requirement to 25%, the minimum that IPCC and other reports estimated was possible for developed countries that was necessary to prevent dangerous climate change. [6]

Court of Appeals

The Dutch government appealed the ruling over multiple actions through 2018 to the Court of Appeals at the Hague. The state argued that the District Court's orders exceeded the trias politica, the Dutch's separation of powers, by creating environmental policy through its rulings. In these appeals, Urgenda further stressed the human rights issue, and introduced assertions that the Dutch government was bound by Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to address emissions, which the state refuted. [9] The Court of Appeals ruled in October 2018 upholding the 25% emissions reduction order. [10] The Court of Appeals rejected the state arguments that the order exceeded the separation of powers: the ruling was non-specific and did not specify the legislation of how to achieve the target, and because the matter was related to human rights, including those from the ECHR, the courts had the authority to issue such rulings. [9]

Supreme Court

The state then lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. The Supreme Court issued its rejection of the appeal on 20 December 2019 and upholding the 25% reduction requirement. In its ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Dutch government was responsible for management of carbon dioxide emissions for the country and was bound to protect human rights. [11] The ruling reiterated from the Court of Appeals that "every country is responsible for its share" of emissions. [12]

A key part of the judgment rejected that because other countries would cause global warming whatever the Netherlands did, that the state did not have responsibility.

5.7.7 Partly in view of the serious consequences of dangerous climate change (…), the defence that a state does not have to take responsibility because other countries do not comply with their partial responsibility, cannot be accepted. Nor can the assertion that a country’s own share in global GHG emissions is very small and that reducing emissions from one’s own territory makes little difference on a global scale, be accepted as a defence. Indeed, acceptance of these defences would mean that a country could easily evade its partial responsibility by pointing out other countries or its own small share. If, on the other hand, this defence is ruled out, each country can be effectively called to account for its share of emissions and the chance of all countries actually making their contribution will be greatest, in accordance with the principles laid down in the preamble to the UNFCCC (…). 5.7.8 Also important in this context is that, as has been considered (…) about the carbon budget, each reduction of GHG emissions has a positive effect on combating dangerous climate change, as every reduction means that more room remains in the carbon budget. The defence that a duty to reduce GHG emissions on the part of the individual states does not help because other countries will continue their emissions cannot be accepted for this reason either: no reduction is negligible.

Impact

In the Netherlands

As the case was sent to the Supreme Court, the Dutch government began enacting measures to meet the emissions target. Already planning on banning coal power plants by 2030, the government ordered the shutdown of the Hemweg plant in 2020, four years earlier than planned. [13] Starting from discussions in December 2018, the Dutch government passed a new climate plan in June 2019, targeting 49% carbon dioxide emissions reduction by 2030. This plan includes taxes on industries on carbon dioxide emissions, transiting from gas to electric power through incentives, and pay-per-use driving taxes as early as 2025. [14]

Even with enacted changes, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency reported in January 2019 that they projected that carbon dioxide emissions reductions would reach between 19 and 26% from 1990 by the end of 2020, leaving the state in need of more steps to assure the target is met. [12] The rulings in the case, while binding the government to meet the 25% reduction, did not specify what actions exist should the government miss that target. [15] A spokesperson for Urgenda stated they did not inquire about penalties for the government failing to make the target, as they "consider that there is no reason that the government does not respect the decision of the highest court of justice in the Netherlands". [16]

Global

While not the first climate change litigation, [17] the original 2015 ruling against the Netherlands was heralded worldwide as the first successful tort action against a government to address climate change to protect human rights, an area otherwise known as climate justice. [8] The ruling on the Netherlands case led to similar climate justice lawsuits in other countries, including Belgium, France, Ireland, Germany, New Zealand, Britain, Switzerland and Norway. [12]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States</span> Climate changing gases from the North American country

The United States produced 5.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2020, the second largest in the world after greenhouse gas emissions by China and among the countries with the highest greenhouse gas emissions per person. In 2019 China is estimated to have emitted 27% of world GHG, followed by the United States with 11%, then India with 6.6%. In total the United States has emitted a quarter of world GHG, more than any other country. Annual emissions are over 15 tons per person and, amongst the top eight emitters, is the highest country by greenhouse gas emissions per person. However, the IEA estimates that the richest decile in the US emits over 55 tonnes of CO2 per capita each year. Because coal-fired power stations are gradually shutting down, in the 2010s emissions from electricity generation fell to second place behind transportation which is now the largest single source. In 2020, 27% of the GHG emissions of the United States were from transportation, 25% from electricity, 24% from industry, 13% from commercial and residential buildings and 11% from agriculture. In 2021, the electric power sector was the second largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 25% of the U.S. total. These greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to climate change in the United States, as well as worldwide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy</span> Dutch Cabinet-level economic development agency

The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy is the Netherlands' ministry responsible for international trade, commercial, industrial, investment, technology, energy, nuclear, renewable energy, environmental, climate change, natural resource, mining, space policy, as well as tourism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paris Agreement</span> 2015 international treaty on climate change

The Paris Agreement, often referred to as the Paris Accords or the Paris Climate Accords, is an international treaty on climate change. Adopted in 2015, the agreement covers climate change mitigation, adaptation, and finance. The Paris Agreement was negotiated by 196 parties at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference near Paris, France. As of February 2023, 195 members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are parties to the agreement. Of the three UNFCCC member states which have not ratified the agreement, the only major emitter is Iran. The United States withdrew from the agreement in 2020, but rejoined in 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Electricity sector in the Netherlands</span>

The total electricity consumption of the Netherlands in 2021 was 117 terawatt-hours (TWh). The consumption grew from 7 TWh in 1950 by an average of 4.5% per year. In 2021, fossil fuels, such as natural gas and coal, accounted for about 62% of the total electricity produced. Renewable energy sources, such as biomass, wind power, and solar power, produce 38% of the total electricity. One nuclear plant in the Netherlands, in Borssele, is responsible for about 3% of total generation. The majority of the electricity, more than 75%, is produced centrally by thermal and nuclear units.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate change in Europe</span> Emissions, impacts and responses of Europe related to climate change

Climate change has resulted in an increase in temperature of 2.3 °C (2022) in Europe compared to pre-industrial levels. Europe is the fastest warming continent in the world. Europe's climate is getting warmer due to anthropogenic activity. According to international climate experts, global temperature rise should not exceed 2 °C to prevent the most dangerous consequences of climate change; without reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, this could happen before 2050. Climate change has implications for all regions of Europe, with the extent and nature of impacts varying across the continent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clean Power Plan</span> United States energy plan from President Obama

The Clean Power Plan was an Obama administration policy aimed at combating anthropogenic climate change that was first proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in June 2014. The final version of the plan was unveiled by President Barack Obama on August 3, 2015. Each state was assigned an individual goal for reducing carbon emissions, which could be accomplished how they saw fit, but with the possibility of the EPA stepping in if the state refused to submit a plan. If every state met its target, the plan was projected to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation 32% by 2030, relative to 2005 levels, as well as achieving various health benefits due to reduced air pollution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate change in Germany</span> Emissions, impacts and responses of Germany related to climate change

Climate change is leading to long-term impacts on agriculture in Germany, more intense heatwaves and coldwaves, flash and coastal flooding, and reduced water availability. Debates over how to address these long-term challenges caused by climate change have also sparked changes in the energy sector and in mitigation strategies. Germany's energiewende has been a significant political issue in German politics that has made coalition talks difficult for Angela Merkel's CDU.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate change litigation</span> Use of legal practice to further climate change mitigation

Climate change litigation, also known as climate litigation, is an emerging body of environmental law using legal practice to set case law precedent to further climate change mitigation efforts from public institutions, such as governments and companies. In the face of slow climate change politics delaying climate change mitigation, activists and lawyers have increased efforts to use national and international judiciary systems to advance the effort. Climate litigation typically engages in one of five types of legal claims: Constitutional law, administrative law, private law (challenging corporations or other organizations for negligence, nuisance, etc., fraud or consumer protection, or human rights.

Urgenda is a nonprofit foundation (stichting) in the Netherlands which aims to help enforce national, European and international environment treaties. In 2013, Urgenda filed a lawsuit against the state of the Netherlands – respectively also against the government – at the court of The Hague, to force them to make more effective policies that reduce the amount of emissions, with the aim to protect the people of the Netherlands against the effects of climate change and pollution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate change in the Netherlands</span> Emissions, impacts and responses of the Netherlands related to climate change

The Netherlands is already affected by climate change. The average temperature in the Netherlands rose by more than 2 °C from 1901 to 2020. Climate change has resulted in increased frequency of droughts and heatwaves. Because significant portions of the Netherlands have been reclaimed from the sea or otherwise are very near sea level, the Netherlands is very vulnerable to sea level rise.

Friends of the Irish Environment v Government of Ireland was an important climate change case decided by the Irish Supreme Court in 2020. In the case, the Supreme Court quashed the Government of Ireland's 2017 National Mitigation Plan on the grounds that it lacked the specificity required by the Irish Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015. The Supreme Court ordered the government to create a new plan which was compliant with the 2015 Climate Act.

Tessa Khan is an environmental lawyer who lives in the United Kingdom. She co-founded and is co-director of the Climate Litigation Network, which supports legal cases related to climate change mitigation and climate justice.

<i>Milieudefensie v Royal Dutch Shell</i> Dutch legal case (2021)

Milieudefensie v Royal Dutch Shell (2021) is a human rights law and tort law case heard by the district court of The Hague in the Netherlands in 2021 related to efforts by several NGO's to curtail carbon dioxide emissions by multinational corporations. It was brought by the Dutch branch of Friends of the Earth and a group of other NGO's against the oil corporation, Shell plc. In May 2021, the court ordered Shell to reduce its global carbon emissions from its 2019 levels by 45% by 2030, relating not only to the emissions from its operations, but also those from the products it sells. It is considered to be the first major climate change litigation ruling against a corporation.

West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. 697 (2022), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court relating to the Clean Air Act, and the extent to which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can regulate carbon dioxide emissions related to climate change.

The Oslo Principles, formally the Oslo Principles on Global Obligations to Reduce Climate Change, are a set of principles identifying the legal obligations of states to limit climate change, as well as means of meeting these obligations. Written by an international group of legal experts, the Principles’ goal is to limit the rise in average global temperature to 2 degrees Celsius. The Oslo Principles were presented on March 30 at King’s College London.

<i>Lliuya v RWE AG</i>

Lliuya v RWE AG (2015) Case No. 2 O 285/15 is a German tort law and climate litigation case, concerning liability for climate damage in Peru from a melting glacier, against Germany's largest coal burning power company, RWE, which has caused approximately 0.47% of all historic greenhouse gas emissions. It is currently on appeal in the Upper State Court, Oberlandesgericht Hamm.

Neubauer v Germany 1 BvR 2656/18 is a landmark German constitutional law case, concerning the duty of the German federal government to take action to prevent climate damage.

<i>Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd</i>

Smith v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd [2024] NZSC 5 is a landmark New Zealand tort law case, concerning liability of major fossil fuel polluters for climate damage. The NZ Supreme Court held that polluting companies could be liable in tort to pay damages from global warming and rising sea levels to people whose coastal property is damaged, overturning courts below.

<i>Greenpeace v. Eni</i> 2024 Italian court case

Greenpeace v. Eni is a 2024 human rights law and tort law suit heard by the Civil Court of Rome, Italy related to efforts by several NGOs to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by multinational corporations. The lawsuit was brought by the Italian branch of Greenpeace, the advocacy group ReCommon, and twelve civil plaintiffs. The suit was filed against energy company Eni and two of its co-owners, the Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance and the investment bank Cassa Depositi e Prestiti.

Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland (2024) was a landmark European Court of Human Rights case in which the court ruled that Switzerland violated the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to adequately address climate change. It is the first climate change litigation in which an international court has ruled that state inaction violates human rights.

References

  1. ↑ "Climate Case Explained". Archived from the original on 26 January 2020. Retrieved 26 January 2020.
  2. ↑ Harvey, Fiona; Traynor, Ian (22 January 2014). "EU to cut carbon emissions by 40% by 2030". The Guardian . Archived from the original on 6 December 2019. Retrieved 21 December 2019.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Howard, Emma (14 April 2015). "Dutch government facing legal action over failure to reduce carbon emissions". The Guardian . Archived from the original on 23 December 2019. Retrieved 21 December 2019.
  4. ↑ Wilson, Tom (17 December 2021). "Lawyer who defeated Shell predicts 'avalanche' of climate cases". Financial Times. Retrieved 29 December 2021.
  5. ↑ Harvey, Fiona (14 November 2012). "Dutch government may face legal action over climate change". The Guardian . Archived from the original on 22 December 2019. Retrieved 21 December 2019.
  6. 1 2 3 "Urganda Foundation v. The State Of The Netherlands (Ministry Of Infrastructure And The Environment), Judgment of 24 June 2015" (PDF). The Hague District Court. 24 June 2015. Archived (PDF) from the original on 21 December 2019. Retrieved 21 December 2019– via Harvard Law Review.
  7. ↑ "Climate organization is suing state". Nederlandse Omroep Stichting. 23 September 2013. Archived from the original on 22 December 2019. Retrieved 21 December 2019.
  8. 1 2 Neslen, Arthur (24 June 2015). "Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling". The Guardian . Archived from the original on 23 December 2019. Retrieved 21 December 2019.
  9. 1 2 "State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation". Harvard Law Review : 2090–2097. 10 May 2019. Archived from the original on 19 May 2019. Retrieved 21 December 2019.
  10. ↑ Neslen, Arthur (9 October 2018). "Dutch appeals court upholds landmark climate change ruling". The Guardian . Archived from the original on 23 December 2019. Retrieved 21 December 2019.
  11. ↑ "Activists Cheer Victory in Landmark Dutch Climate Case". The New York Times . 20 December 2019. Archived from the original on 21 December 2019. Retrieved 21 December 2019– via Associated Press.
  12. 1 2 3 Schwartz, John (20 December 2019). "In 'Strongest' Climate Ruling Yet, Dutch Court Orders Leaders to Take Action". The New York Times . Archived from the original on 21 December 2019. Retrieved 21 December 2019.
  13. ↑ "Dutch to close Amsterdam coal-fired power plant four years early – RTL". Reuters. 7 March 2019. Archived from the original on 22 December 2019. Retrieved 21 December 2019.
  14. ↑ Hermes, John (28 June 2019). "Dutch Government Plans CO2 Emissions Levy for Industrial Firms". Bloomberg Businessweek . Archived from the original on 22 December 2019. Retrieved 21 December 2019.
  15. ↑ Akkermans, Joost; Proper, Ellen (20 December 2019). "Dutch Supreme Court Orders 25% Cut in CO2 Starting Next Year". Bloomberg Businessweek . Archived from the original on 20 December 2019. Retrieved 21 December 2019.
  16. ↑ Valadares, Henrique (21 December 2019). "Justice forces Netherlands to step up climate action, gives NGOs "hope"". France 24 . Archived from the original on 21 December 2019. Retrieved 21 December 2019.
  17. ↑ "Global trends in climate change legislation and litigation" (PDF). Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. 2017. Archived (PDF) from the original on 23 December 2019. Retrieved 21 December 2019.


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.