umraniye escort pendik escort
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
bodrum escort

Climate change litigation: Dutch Supreme Court upholds Urgenda decision

Climate change litigation: Dutch Supreme Court upholds Urgenda decisio

Climate change litigation: Dutch Supreme Court upholds Urgenda decision

24.12.2019 EU law

On Friday 21 December 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the Dutch government in the Urgenda-case, hence upholding the order of the Court of Appeal of The Hague. The The Hague Court of Appeal ordered the Dutch State in 2018 (confirming the 2015 decision of the The Hague Court of first instance) to reduce Dutch greenhouse gas emissions by 25% compared to 1990, by the end of 2020. As other climate cases, such as the Belgian one, are in their final stages of proceedings, this decision sets an important precedent.


As we informed you earlier this year, climate change litigation covers a wide range of possible cases, and is happening worldwide. The Dutch Urgenda case is the most prominent example of successful climate change litigation so far. In 2015, the The Hague Court of first instance ordered the Dutch State in 2015 to reduce Dutch greenhouse gas emissions by 25% compared to 1990, by the end of 2020. This order was confirmed in appeal by the Court of Appeal of The Hague. On Friday 20 December 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court rejected the Dutch State’s cassation appeal against this decision.

This blog provides you with a short summary of the decision of the Dutch Supreme Court, and the possible effects on other climate change cases that are currently pending.

Decision of the Dutch Supreme Court


The Dutch government appealed the decision of the The Hague Court of Appeal on nine grounds. The first two grounds concerned the interpretation by the Court of Appeal of Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, while the third ground was based on the argument that the Urgenda case should not have been admissible in the first place. Grounds four to eight addressed the climate goal of reducing greenhouse gases by (at least) 25% by the end of 2020. The last ground was based on, inter alia, the separation of powers ('trias politica'): it would not be up to judges to interfere in the political debate on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

After the Advocate General and the Prosecutor General advised to confirm the decision of the The Hague Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court ultimately decided on the issue on Friday 20 December 2019, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the Dutch government. State parties to the European Convention on Human Rights, such as The Netherlands, have a legal duty to protect the life and well-being of its citizens and must therefore take measures against the dangerous effects of climate change. According to the Supreme Court, these obligations are laid down in Articles 2 and 8 ECHR. As indicated by the Supreme Court, there is a large degree of consensus in the scientific and international community on the urgent need for developed countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020. The Dutch State did not explain why a lower reduction would be justified and could still lead, on time, to the final target accepted by the Dutch State.

The Dutch State has argued that it is up to politicians to decide on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Supreme Court, however, the Dutch Constitution requires the Dutch courts to apply the provisions of the ECHR. This role of the courts to offer legal protection is an essential element of a democracy under the rule of law. The courts are responsible for guarding the limits of the law. That is what the Court of Appeal has done in this case, according to the Supreme Court. As the The Hague Court of Appeal did not impose the precise measures the Dutch Government had to take to obtain a reduction by 25% of greenhouse gas emissions, it did not violate the principle of the separation of powers ("Politiek domein").Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeal was allowed and could decide that the Dutch State is obliged to achieve the 25% reduction by the end of 2020, on account of the risk of dangerous climate change that could also have a serious impact on the rights to life and well-being of residents of the Netherlands.

A precedent for all climate change litigation?

The Urgenda case will probably set an important precedent for similar cases - i.e. cases wherein human rights are invoked to demand more ambitious climate change policy - that are currently pending in Germany, Ireland, France and Belgium, among other countries.

Climate change litigation, however, exists in many shapes and forms. More specifically, there is a trend towards suing polluting companies such as RWE, Total, and the like.

As discussed in our last blog, there exist quite a few hurdles claimants must meet before any of these cases can result in a conviction, including awarding damages for victims of specific harm or loss, related to climate change. The judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court nonetheless demonstrates that authorities can be held to account in case of failure to take appropriate actions in light of the climate goals.


The Urgenda case sets an important precedent for comparable climate change cases, unequivocally confirming that human rights can be invoked to demand more ambitious climate change policy from States.

We will keep you updated on any new developments in the field of climate change litigation.


Related news

29.01.2021 NL law
Podcast: Nederlands bestuursprocesrecht in strijd met Verdrag van Aarhus

Short Reads - Nederlanders is jarenlang ten onrechte de toegang tot de rechter ontzegd. Zo bepaalde het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie eerder deze maand. Als je het in Nederland oneens bent met een omgevingsbesluit, maar in een voortijdig stadium geen zienswijze had ingediend mocht je volgens de wet (6:13 Awb) niet naar de rechter stappen. Dit wetsartikel blijkt nu in strijd met het Europese Verdrag van Aarhus.

Read more

27.01.2021 NL law
20ste tranche Besluit uitvoering Crisis en herstelwet (BuChw) in werking getreden: uitzondering plan-m.e.r.-plicht voor kleine projecten voer voor procedures?

Short Reads - Op 18 december 2020 is de 20ste tranche van het Besluit uitvoering Crisis- en herstelwet (BuChw) in werking getreden. Deze tranche voorziet er onder meer in dat voor bestemmingsplannen die zien op kleine projecten waarvoor een passende beoordeling moet worden gemaakt, niet automatisch ook een milieueffectrapportage voor plannen (“plan-m.e.r.“) hoeft te worden verricht. In dit blogbericht bespreken wij deze wijziging.

Read more

28.01.2021 BE law
Update on Climate Change Litigation

Articles - One year after the Dutch Supreme Court upheld the Urgenda decision, climate change litigation is still trending. In this blog, we will inform you on four developments in the climate change litigation landscape that build on the principles laid down in the Urgenda case law, while also giving rise to new questions.

Read more

27.01.2021 NL law
De meerjarenafspraken energie-efficiëntie (MJA3/MEE) zijn afgelopen: wat betekent dat voor de energiebesparingsverplichtingen van bedrijven?

Short Reads - In het kader van de Meerjarenafspraken energie-efficiëntie – ook wel de MJA3/MEE-convenanten – werkten ruim 1.000 bedrijven uit 40 sectoren de afgelopen jaren aan energiebesparing en CO2-reductie. De convenanten liepen af op 31 december 2020, maar dat betekent niet dat ook de verplichtingen voor bedrijven om zich in te zetten voor energiebesparing ophouden te bestaan. In dit blogbericht zetten wij de belangrijkste gevolgen van het aflopen van de convenanten en de op dit moment geldende verplichtingen op een rij.   

Read more

26.01.2021 NL law
Beoordelingskader voor intrekking natuurvergunningen en geen vergunningplicht bij intern salderen: een duidelijke uitspraak

Short Reads - Op 20 januari 2021 deed de Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State (“Afdeling”) uitspraak over een verzoek tot intrekking van de natuurvergunning van een veehouderij. Deze uitspraak is een blogbericht waard, omdat hierin (i) het kader voor het intrekken van natuurtoestemmingen uiteen wordt gezet en (ii) de Afdeling duidelijk maakt dat als een project wel enige, maar geen significante gevolgen voor Natura 2000-gebieden heeft, er geen vergunningplicht geldt. Dit laatste geldt ook in het geval van intern salderen. Hierna schetsen wij kort het oordeel van de Afdeling.

Read more