STATE OF

NETHERLANDS
VS.
URGENDA
FOUNDATION

Climate Change
 BACKGROUND OF CASE
In 2015 the Dutch environmental group Urgenda Foundation (Urgent Agenda), a citizens’ platform
involved in the development of plans and measures to prevent climate change with members from various
domains in society, sued the Kingdom of the Netherlands (the “State”) to require it to do more to prevent
global climate change.

On 24 June 2015 the Hague District Court (the “District Court”) ordered the State to reduce its greenhouse
gas emissions by at least 25% as of end-2020 relative to the 1990 emission level, as lesser reductions
would not meet the State’s fair contribution towards the UN Goal of keeping global temperature increases
within 2°C relative to pre-industrial levels. Furthermore, the court concluded that the State owed a duty of
care to take climate change mitigating measures.

The State appealed the decision of the District Court citing 29 grounds, which were contested by Urgenda
which additionally filed a cross appeal.
 BACKGROUND OF CASE
It should be noted that since the District Court decision, the level of CO2 emissions in the base year of
1990 were retrospectively adjusted upwards due to the adaptation of a new calculation method. As a result
the assumed total CO2 reduction of the Netherlands of 14-17% in 2020 was revised to 23% (19-27% taking
account of the margin of uncertainty).

In its appeal, the State sought to submit the dispute to the Court in its entirety and Urgenda cross appealed
against the District Court’s opinion that, considering Article 34 ECHR, it cannot rely on Articles 2 and 8
ECHR in the present proceedings.

In connection with its cross-appeal, Urgenda claimed “that the State has acted unlawfully towards it,
because such conduct violates proper social conduct and is contrary to the positive and negative duty of
care expressed in Articles 2 (the right to life) and 8 ECHR (the right to family life, which also covers the
right to be protected from harmful environmental influences of a nature and scope this serious).”
 Nature!
ISSUE OF THE CASE
THE CENTRAL QUESTIONS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
WERE:

(1) WHETHER ECHR ARTICLES 2 AND 8 APPLY TO A CLAIM

RELATED TO CLIMATE CHANGE;

(2) WHETHER THE NETHERLANDS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR

FAILING TO ADEQUATELY ACT TO CONTAIN THE ADVERSE
EFFECT OF CLIMATE CHANGE (THE QUESTION OF “PARTIAL
RESPONSIBILITY”); AND

(3) WHAT CONCRETE STATE ACTIONS CAN BE DERIVED FROM

THOSE INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS.
 A TORTIOUS ACT
 Was it a violation of (i) a right or (ii) obligation?

 Applicable law:

 Article 21 of the Dutch Constitution

• “it shall be the concern of the authorities to keep the country habitable and to protect and improve the environment. “

 The “no harm rule”

• states have the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the
environment of other states.

 Article 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to family/ private life) of ECHR

 Urgenda itself not a direct victim of ECHR violations ( no actio popularis)

 DUTY OF
CARE
Was it a violation of (iii) the duty of care?
 Nature and extent of the damage.

 Knowledge and foreseeability of this damage.

 Chance that damage will occur

 Nature of the acts of the States contributing to

the damage.

 Onerousness of taking precautionary measures.

 Discretion of the State to execute its public

duties.
 BALANCE OF POWER

Did the court trespass on the territory of legislative and executive

branches of government?

Court:
- No full separation of state powers, but balance of power
- Court is obligated to provide legal protection and settle legal
disputes
 DECISION BY SUPREME COURT

The SC rejected the State’s appeal.

The SC observed that it is not disputed that climate

change poses a genuine threat in the coming decades.
The SC elaborates on that point, emphasising that
according to more recent insights global warming should
not go beyond 1.5 °C.
 DECISION BY SUPREME COURT

Turning to the protection of human rights, based on the European

Convention on the Protection of Human Rights (hereinafter:
ECHR), the SC noted that the Convention requires the States parties
to the Convention to protect the rights established therein for their
inhabitants. Article 2 ECHR protects the right to life, while Article 8
ECHR ensures the right to respect for private and family life.
According to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights
(hereinafter: ECtHR), these provisions oblige a contracting State to
take suitable measures if a real and immediate risk to people’s lives
or welfare exists and the State is aware of that risk.
 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE.

The Urgenda case is the first in the world in which a government has
been ordered to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by an absolute
minimum amount in order to comply with its legal obligations. The
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has stated that
“the decision confirms that the Government of the Netherlands and, by
implication, other governments have binding legal obligations, based on
international human rights law, to undertake strong reductions in
emissions of greenhouse gases.