The Climate Docket

WHAT WE COVER:

  • Liability Litigation
    • Baltimore Lawsuit
    • California Climate Lawsuits
    • Colorado Lawsuit
    • Mass. v. Exxon
    • New York City Lawsuit
    • Rhode Island Lawsuit
    • Other Suits
  • Access to Courts
    • Liability Waivers
    • State Legislation
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Powered by Genesis

You are here: Home / International / Final Appeal in Historic Urgenda Case May Hinge on Human Rights
Final Appeal in Historic Urgenda Case May Hinge on Human Rights

Final Appeal in Historic Urgenda Case May Hinge on Human Rights

May 28, 2019 Filed Under: International, Liability Litigation

print

By Isabella Kaminski

The Urgenda Foundation stressed the human rights implications of failing to combat climate change during the latest hearing in its landmark legal case against the Dutch government.

The Netherlands’ Supreme Court heard oral arguments from both Urgenda and the government on Friday on whether Dutch law was applied correctly when a court ruled in 2015 that the country is required to cut its carbon emissions by 25 percent by 2020 compared to 1990 levels. That decision, in Urgenda Foundation v. The State of Netherlands, gave climate activists hope that courts would begin to compel countries to uphold their promises for climate action.

Although the Dutch government acknowledged the importance of tackling climate change, it continues to fight the court opinion that it has a fundamental “duty of care” to protect the environment for its people.

The government lost its first appeal at the Court of Appeal in the Hague in October, which upheld the district court’s decision. The second appeal was to the Supreme Court, which considers points of law rather than the facts of individual cases. Should the Supreme Court rule against the government, there would be no further avenue for appeal.

The government said the earlier decision “limits the state’s freedom of choice in establishing policy on the scope of this reduction” which could have “significant consequences” for government freedom to make climate policy in other areas.

Urgenda submitted its written defense in April and asked to have a hearing.

Dennis van Berkel, legal counsel for the Urgenda Foundation, said it put more emphasis on the case’s human rights aspects in its arguments to the Supreme Court. “The reason for that is the Court of Appeal based its judgment on human rights: article 2 and article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. That was a different legal basis from the basis that the district court had used.”

Van Berkel said the United Nations’ High Commissioner for Human Rights had asked the Netherlands’ Supreme Court whether it could provide a legal opinion. Third party interventions, known as an amicus curae, are common in U.S. cases but not allowed under Dutch law. “However, it does show the international interest in the case,” van Berkel said.

Both sides now have a month to respond to any arguments. After that, two court-appointed advocate generals will provide a formal opinion, probably in September. The Supreme Court is expected to make a final decision by the end of the year.

Van Berkel acknowledges that the ruling would be very close to the Netherlands’ 2020 deadline for the emissions target, which the country admits it is unlikely to reach. But he said a decision in favour of Urgenda would put more pressure on the government to meet its 2030 emissions target.

The latest greenhouse gas data from Centraal Bureau Voor de Statistiek, the Netherlands’ statistics body, showed a 14.5 percent reduction in the country’s emissions in 2018 compared with 1990, signaling that a 25 percent cut by the start of next year is close to impossible.

Van Berkel said he is pleased that climate change has become a much more important topic in Dutch politics since the 2015 ruling and the country passed its first piece of climate change legislation in December. But van Berkel called it a “paper tiger.” The act sets ambitious long-term emissions targets but does not introduce any system of carbon budgets nor an independent national climate change authority.

“How that act will influence future litigation, we don’t know,” he said. “But we do think that if our judgment stands and if it’s established that within the Dutch context not taking sufficient measures is a violation of human rights, that means something for the legality of future actions by the government.”

The case has already had an impact not just in the Netherlands but worldwide, inspiring lawsuits in several countries, including the U.S.

Van Berkel said the provisions in this case are universal. “It’s obviously not binding on other courts but we do expect it to have a strong indicative [effect] and for other courts to take inspiration from it.”

In June, Urgenda is also publishing a list of 40 specific emission reduction measures that the government could take to meet the 2020 target. “It would also show that there’s societal support,” van Berkel said.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: International, Liability Litigation

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Trackbacks

  1. Young Canadians suing the government urge court to greenlight their case says:
    June 7, 2019 at 3:03 pm

    […] Final Appeal in Historic Urgenda Case May Hinge on Human Rights […]

  2. In Courtrooms, Environment Modification Is No Longer Up for Dispute - Science and Tech News says:
    June 17, 2019 at 12:02 pm

    […] in the Netherlands’ Supreme Court, where the last argument is most likely to focus on an analysis of human rights law However it was the very first time a court had actually required a federal government to act upon […]

  3. Climate Change Deniers Aren’t Getting Very Far With America’s Judges - Naija Leads says:
    June 18, 2019 at 6:03 am

    […] in the Netherlands’ Supreme Court, where the final argument is likely to revolve around an interpretation of human rights law. But it was the first time a court had forced a government to act on climate change, and it […]

  4. In Courtrooms, Climate Change Is No Longer Up for Debate – Aiden Promotions says:
    June 24, 2019 at 2:48 pm

    […] in the Netherlands’ Supreme Court, where the final argument is likely to revolve around an interpretation of human rights law. But it was the first time a court had forced a government to act on climate change, and it […]

  5. Irish court rejects demand for more aggressive climate action says:
    September 23, 2019 at 3:57 pm

    […] tort law or how that is assessed.” However, the final decision in Urgenda is likely to rest on a human rights argument, rather than tort law, and the extent to which domestic courts can make determinations on […]

  6. Også andre stater er trukket for retten for dårlig klima-politikk: Her er sakene aktivistene setter sin lit til – Filter Nyheter says:
    November 6, 2019 at 9:38 am

    […] for muligheten til å utforme klimapolitikk på andre felter. Motparten fokuserer ifølge Climate Litigation News på sakens menneskerettighetsaspekter i den siste, avgjørende […]

  7. Irish climate case appealed to the country's Supreme Court says:
    November 22, 2019 at 5:26 pm

    […] The case, dubbed “Climate Case Ireland,” claims that the Irish government’s National Mitigation Plan adopted in 2017 violates statutory law, the Irish constitution and human rights obligations because it fails to reduce greenhouse gas emissions quickly enough. The case is modeled after the Urgenda climate case in the Netherlands, where a court ruled in 2015 that the Dutch government must make steeper emissions cuts by 2020. An appeals court upheld that ruling and the case currently awaits a decision by the Dutch Supreme Court.  […]

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Latest News

Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing

By Karen Savage The acting solicitor general will be allowed time to argue in support of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and nearly two dozen other companies next week during oral arguments before … [Read More...]

Recent Posts

  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?
  • Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing
  • Oil Companies Ask Supreme Court to Decide Jurisdiction of More Climate Cases
  • Climate Suits Grew in 2020, Could Clear Huge Hurdle in 2021

Most Popular

  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?
  • Hawaii Joins Trend: Recognizes Constitutional Right to Safe Climate and Environment
  • Carbon Majors Can Be Held Liable for Human Rights Violations, Philippines Commission Rules
  • R.I. Wins Battle to Keep Climate Suit Vs. Big Oil in State Court
  • Study Estimates Seawalls to Protect U.S. Coast Will Cost $400 Billion

Categories

  • Access to Courts
  • Baltimore Lawsuit
  • California Climate Lawsuits
  • Charleston, S.C. Lawsuit
  • Colorado Lawsuit
  • Connecticut Lawsuit
  • Delaware Lawsuit
  • Exxon Climate Investigation
  • Featured
  • Hoboken Lawsuit
  • International
  • Latest News
  • Liability Litigation
  • Liability Waivers
  • Mass. v. Exxon
  • Minnesota Lawsuit
  • New York City Lawsuit
  • Other Suits
  • Politics
  • Rhode Island Lawsuit
  • State Legislation
  • Uncategorized
  • Washington DC Lawsuit

Follow us

  • View climatedocket’s profile on Facebook
  • View climatedocket’s profile on Twitter

RSS

RSS Feed RSS - Posts

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.