Articles

Update on Climate Change Litigation

Update on climate change litigation

Update on Climate Change Litigation

28.01.2021 BE law

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.

Introduction

As we informed you in our earlier blog, climate change litigation is booming. After the Dutch Supreme Court confirmed the Urgenda-decision, other human rights based cases are filed before both national and international courts. The current blog will inform you on four interesting cases in the climate change litigation landscape.

Youth for climate Justice v. Austria e.a.

On 2 September 2020, six Portuguese youth filed a complaint against 33 countries (including Belgium and the Netherlands) before the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: "ECtHR"). This is the first climate case brought before the ECtHR. The complaint states that the respondents violated/violate the human rights of the applicants by failing to take sufficient action on climate change, and relies on articles 2 (right to life), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition on discrimination) of the Convention.

On 30 November 2020, the ECtHR accepted, fast-tracked and communicated the case to the 33 countries, which will have to respond to the claims of the applicants by the end of February 2021.

Milieudefensie v. Shell

While the majority of climate litigation concerns the actions and/or omissions of governments, suits against corporations have become more common:

(source: http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-climate-change-litigation/?cn-reloaded=1).

The case of Milieudefensie e.a. v. Shell serves as an interesting example in this regard. On 5 April 2019, the Dutch environmental organization Milieudefensie e.a. sued Shell for contributing to climate change. The claimants allege that Shell acts wrongfully due to insufficient efforts to combat climate change. Milieudefensie e.a. demand that Shell reduces its CO2 emissions with 45 % in 2030, compared to 2010, ultimately towards a zero level in 2050.

The hearings took place on 1, 2, 15 and 17 December 2020. According to Milieudefensie, a verdict can be expected a few months after the hearings. 

Commune de Grande-Synthe v. France

On 23 January 2019, the municipality of Grande-Synthe sued the French government for insufficient action on climate change, emphasizing its geographical vulnerability to the effects of climate change (i.c. sea level rise) as a low-lying coastal municipality. 

On 19 November 2020, the French Council of State decided to hear the claim of the municipality and requested the French government to produce evidence supporting that France is taking adequate actions towards meeting its own 2030 climate goals.

Vzw Klimaatzaak v. Belgium e.a.

Lastly, the Belgium climate case is finally in its final procedural stages. Very similar to the Dutch Urgenda case, the organization vzw Klimaatzaak sued both the federal Belgium government and the regional governments for failing to take adequate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

After a lengthy legal debate on the language of the procedure, parties finally submitted their main conclusions from February 2019 through March 2020. The hearings are set for March 2021.

Lessons (to be) learned

While all the climate cases discussed in the current blog build on the principles laid down in the Urgenda case law, it is uncertain whether these cases will have the same outcome as its Dutch precedent. The Dutch case against Shell, for example, does not involve a claim against the State but concerns the actions of a private actor. Private actors, such as enterprises, remain in general outside the scope of international law, implying that the (direct) application of human rights meets a few additional hurdles compared to the Urgenda case law.

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

Team

Related news

04.05.2021 NL law
Participatie en privacyregels: hoe te combineren onder de Omgevingswet?

Short Reads - In het stelsel van de Omgevingswet (Ow) is een belangrijke rol bedacht voor participatie bij de totstandkoming van besluiten. Het beoogde resultaat: tijdig belangen, meningen en creativiteit op tafel krijgen en daarmee een groter draagvlak en kwalitatief betere besluitvorming bereiken. Door een grotere betrokkenheid van meer personen gaan overheden en initiatiefnemers ook meer persoonsgegevens verwerken. Dit brengt privacyrisico’s met zich mee. Wat regelt de Ow op het gebied van privacy, de verwerking van persoonsgegevens en datagebruik?

Read more

21.04.2021 NL law
The Sustainable Finance Package: a game changer in finance

Short Reads - Today’s publication of the Sustainable Finance Package will impact large corporates, as well as financial institutions, including asset managers, insurers and others. New rules on sustainability reporting, taxonomy, product governance and more are taking shape. This year and 2022 will require specific action from our clients to comply with the EC’s ambitious plans to green the EU economy. Read more below from Stibbe’s ESG team of specialists.

Read more

04.05.2021 NL law
Aanbevelingen van het Pbl voor de circulaire economie: meer bestuursrechtelijke verplichtingen voor bedrijven?

Short Reads - Begin dit jaar publiceerde het Planbureau voor de leefomgeving (Pbl) zijn eerste Integrale Circulaire Economie Rapportage. Die rapportage bespreekt de huidige status van de circulaire economie in Nederland en geeft adviezen om de transitie te versnellen. Het Pbl roept nadrukkelijk de Nederlandse overheid op om de circulaire economie verder te bevorderen. Daarbij ziet het Pbl een belangrijke rol voor nieuwe circulaire verplichtingen voor bedrijven.

Read more