the netherlands
Urgenda
In November 2013, with Roger Cox’s extraordinary vision, as outlined in his book Revolution Justified, and inspired by Our Children’s Trust’s first round of U.S. state and federal climate change cases filed in 2011, hundreds of Dutch citizens, along with the Dutch Urgenda Foundation, sued their government to hold the state liable for failing to take measures to prevent dangerous climate change. The plaintiffs argued that under Dutch tort law, the State could be held liable for negligence due to its failure to adequately reduce greenhouse (GHG) emissions in line with its previous international commitments to reduce emissions by 25-40% by 2020. They also argued that the government’s failure to achieve its GHG emission reduction commitments violated their fundamental rights to life, privacy and health under the European Code of Human Rights. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Netherlands was acting unlawfully towards the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also sought injunctions ordering the Netherlands (1) to limit its GHG emissions to a level of 40%, or at least 25% below 1990 levels before 2020 and (2) to present to Parliament within 6 months a program of measures with corresponding budgets that would ensure such GHG emissions reductions. In June 2015, the Hague District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, imposing a 25% reduction of GHG emissions by 2020. The District Court’s decision was upheld by both the Court of Appeals in October 2018 and the Netherlands Supreme Court in December 2019. The Urgenda decision provides excellent analysis on why courts have the power and duty to decide legal claims where governments’ climate policies contravene fundamental rights. While the Urgenda case is similar to Juliana v. United States in that it alleged that the government violated fundamental human rights, it did not challenge the government’s conduct that affirmatively caused climate change, instead challenging the government’s failure to reduce GHG emissions.
The Urgenda case presented the best available science to the court, but sought to hold the Netherlands accountable for its international political commitment to reduce emissions by at least 25% by 2020. The appellate courts, and thereafter the government in response to the court’s decision, committed to emission reductions beyond its early political targets.
June 24, 2015
The Hague District Court ruled in favor of the Urgenda Foundation (representing multi-generations of citizens), finding that the severity and scope of the climate problem make it necessary for the Dutch government to reduce the Dutch greenhouse gas emissions at a much higher pace. In its ruling, the court imposed a 25% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 upon the government, ruling that the current Dutch climate policies that aim for only a 16% reduction in 2020 are unlawful.
The Dutch court considered that the nature and extent of the damage ensuing from climate change, the knowledge and foreseeability of this damage, and the chance that hazardous climate change will occur are such that the Dutch government has a serious duty of care to take measures to prevent it. According to the court it is an established fact that the Dutch government has the constitutional power to control the collective Dutch emissions level and that it indeed controls it. By signing the UN climate treaty, the State once again expressly accepted its responsibility for the national emission level and in this context accepted the obligation to reduce emissions as much as needed to prevent dangerous climate change.
The court found that the State should not hide behind the argument that the solution to the global climate problem does not depend solely on Dutch efforts. In the words of the court: Dutch per capita emissions are one of the highest in the world and any reduction of emissions contributes to the prevention of dangerous climate change. Also, the court ruled that there is enough evidence to assume a sufficient causal link between the Dutch greenhouse gas emissions, global climate change, and the effects (now and in the future) on the Dutch living climate.
Read the joint blog post describing the Dutch win by Roger Cox, Julia Olson, and Serge de Gheldere, Judges Can Save Us From Climate Change, And They've Already Started.
Read a summary of the court's decision.
April 16, 2015
"A Dutch Group Is Suing Its Government Over Climate Change; Could We Do The Same In America?"
Read the full Climate Progress article here.
March 2014
November 20, 2013
In the Netherlands, and with the support of Our Children's Trust, hundreds of citizens have taken to the courts to seek climate justice and protection of their human rights. These 886 Dutch citizens—along with the Dutch Urgenda foundation — served a summons on their government to hold the State liable for its role in failing to take measures to prevent dangerous climate change. The summons asks the Court of The Hague to compel the Dutch government to live up to its obligations under Dutch Law, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The plaintiffs argue that under Dutch tort law, the State can be held liable for negligence due to its failure to adequately reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Additionally, the government’s continuing fossil fuel subsidies make the Dutch State further liable for its contribution to climate change. The plaintiffs claim that the State’s failure to take steps to reduce GHG emissions by 25–40% before the year 2020 violates its obligations under the UNFCCC. They also argue that the government’s failure also violates the ECHR, which protects individuals’ right to life and families’ right to privacy and health. Over half of the territory of the Netherlands lies below sea level, and the majority of Dutch citizens live below sea level. Therefore, climate change poses a very real risk both to life and to the right of families to maintain their health.
The citizens of the Netherlands are not alone in their attempt to seek climate justice in the courts. Our Children’s Trust partner, attorney Roger H.J. Cox, represents the plaintiffs. Cox notes in the Utrecht Journal of International and European Law that the European Union and its Member States have not taken the necessary steps to reduce GHG emissions by the amount required under the UNFCCC and the 2010 Cancún Agreement. He also states that legal actions similar to the Dutch summons can be pursued in other European countries because “each European State has a duty of care to reduce its nation’s greenhouse gas emissions from its own territory to a level that is necessary . . . to help prevent dangerous climate change.”
By showing the important connection between climate change and human rights, Cox and the over 800 Dutch citizens he represents are proving that the law has a vital role to play as the guardian of our most cherished rights.
Read an English translation of the summons.
Read a summary of the summons.
Our Children's Trust partner and Dutch attorney Roger H.J. Cox gives a TEDx talk: Juridical action against climate change.