Court of appeals confirms landmark Urgenda climate case ruling
Yesterday, the Court of Appeal of The Hague confirmed the verdict of the District Court in the climate case between the Urgenda Foundation and the Dutch State. The Court of Appels confirms the ruling that the State has the legal obligation to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at the end of 2020 by at least 25% compared to 1990. In this lawsuit, the Urgenda Foundation was assisted by Koos van den Berg and Marijn Kingma.
ECHR
The State had appealed against the District Court judgment because the State argued that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts to determine what the minimum reduction of GHG emissions should be. According to the State, the separation of powers (trias politica) prevents the judge from imposing a reduction order on the State. The Court of Appeal does not agree with this. Unlike the District Court, the Court of Appeal based its judgement on the right of life and the right of family protection, as laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). According to the Court of Appeal, the Urgenda Foundation can invoke these ECHR provisions, and the Court of Appeal is obliged to apply these provisions, and give priority to them.
The Court of Appeal considered: ‘‘the Court believes that it is appropriate to speak of a real threat of dangerous climate change, resulting in the serious risk that the current generation of citizens will be confronted with loss of life and/or a disruption of family life. As has been considered above by the Court, it follows from Articles 2 and 8 ECHR that the State has a duty to protect against this real threat.’’
International Panel of Climate Change
In accordance with the District Court, the Court of Appeal found that the Netherlands is not doing enough to counter this dangerous climate change. The Court of Appeal relies on reports from the International Panel of Climate Change, which show that GHG emissions must be reduced by 25-40% in 2020, in order to remain below a world temperature rise of 2ºC. The Court of Appeal also considers it relevant that the State itself assumed a 30% reduction target by the year 2020.
The Court of Appeal notes: ‘‘After 2011, this policy objective was adjusted downwards to 20% by 2020 at the EU level, without any scientific substantiation and despite the fact that more and more became known about the serious consequences of greenhouse gas emissions for global warming.’’
The Dutch State has its own responsibility
The State’s argument that Dutch emissions are minimal compared with global emissions and that the Netherlands can not solve the climate problem on its own, is not followed by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal agrees that the Netherlands can not solve this problem on its own, but states that this does not relieve the State of its obligation to take measures, within its capabilities, to protect against the dangers of serious climate change. Like the ruling of the District Court of The Hague, this confirmation by the Court of Appeal is groundbreaking and unique.
Click here to read an English translation of the judgement of the Court of Appeal.
The case has been covered by international media such as the Guardian and the New York Times. Click here for information about this case on the website of the Urgenda Foundation.