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 / Historic Urgenda Climate Ruling Upheld by Dutch Supreme Court
Historic Urgenda Climate Ruling Upheld by Dutch Supreme Court

Historic Urgenda Climate Ruling Upheld by Dutch Supreme Court

December 20, 2019 Filed Under: International, Liability Litigation

print

By Isabella Kaminski

The HAGUE—The Netherlands’ Supreme Court upheld the landmark ruling in Urgenda v. the Netherlands, announcing its decision on Friday that governments have a human rights duty to protect their citizens from climate change.

The strongly worded judgment orders the Dutch government to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by the end of 2020, compared with 1990 levels.

The final decision backs lower court rulings in the case, initially by the District Court of The Hague in 2015 and reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal last October. Earlier this year, independent judicial officials advised the Dutch Supreme Court to uphold it. The case was brought by the nonprofit Urgenda Foundation, which charged that the country’s climate policies were not strong enough to protect its citizens.

Dennis van Berkel, legal counsel for Urgenda, welcomed the “unequivocal” judgment, stressing that it was the first time any court in the world had ruled on the human rights implications of climate change.

It said the state had clear obligations to protect the environment under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights involving the right to life and the right to a private and family life.

“It’s not just the final decision but the way the judges argued their reasoning,” van Berkel said. “The court was very clear. Human rights protect people against the impacts of climate change and the government and parliament have to respect those human rights when defining their policies. That’s why this is a case for the courts to decide, because the dangers of climate change are so massive that they are human rights issues.” 

The court also said governments need to consider the latest climate science when drawing up policies, in this case putting those policies in line with the maximum 1.5 Celsius global warming target stressed by the IPCC. 

The case is seen as a landmark in climate litigation, and has inspired similar suits across the world including in the U.S., Norway, Pakistan, Ireland, Belgium, Colombia, Switzerland and New Zealand.

Carroll Muffett, president of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), described the judgment as “really outstanding news”. 

“Having followed this case along its trajectory, it began not only with a well-argued case from Urgenda but a really carefully thought out decision from the original district court. The more thoroughly these issues are analysed the more inescapable the conclusions have become; that every state has a fundamental human rights obligation to address the threat of climate change and to address it now, not in the future.”

Muffett said the judgment is consistent with the findings of other enquiries, including the recent one by the Philippines Commission on Human Rights. “The court interpreted the European Convention of Human Rights but what it was basically interpreting was the right to life, property and livelihood. And the court found implicitly in those the right to a livable environment and a climate that can sustain life.”

The Dutch government previously said it would comply with the ruling, but disagreed with the courts’ opinion that it had a legal duty to protect the environment for its people.

Netherlands minister of economic affairs and climate policy Eric Wiebes said in a statement that the government had “taken note” of the decision and will issue a formal response in the second half of January.

Urgenda’s success is expected to have a positive impact on other pending suits, including a case brought by a group of Dutch environmental groups earlier this year against Royal Dutch Shell. The case is represented by Roger Cox, the same lawyer who initially represented Urgenda. 

They argue that Shell’s business model poses a threat to the climate goals of the Paris Agreement. In a formal reply in November, Shell denied that it was liable. 

Nine de Pater, climate and energy researcher and campaigner at Friends of the Earth Netherlands/Milieudefensie, which is leading the suit against Shell, said the Supreme Court’s Urgenda decision is important because both cases use a similar legal reasoning based on human rights obligations.

Muffett said the judgment may also affect a current case challenging the Norwegian government’s approval of offshore oil drilling,

“The truth is we now have a rising number of cases across European and round the world where these findings are going to be relevant,” Muffett said. “We are now in a place where the law is increasingly on their side.”

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. Historic Urgenda climate ruling upheld by Dutch Supreme Court | Edmund Rice International- Care of Earth says:
    December 21, 2019 at 1:17 pm

    […] Source: Historic Urgenda climate ruling upheld by Dutch Supreme Court […]

  2. 2019: The year climate litigation hit high gear around the world says:
    December 30, 2019 at 1:48 pm

    […] Historic Urgenda Climate Ruling Upheld by Dutch Supreme Court […]

  3. ‘Groundbreaking’ Supreme Court Ruling Mandates Fast Carbon Cut in The Netherlands - The Energy Mix says:
    January 5, 2020 at 11:12 pm

    […] not just the final decision but the way the judges argued their reasoning,” added Urgenda legal counsel Dennis van Berkel. “The court was very clear. Human rights protect people […]

  4. Indonesia flood victims launch lawsuit vs. government for damages says:
    January 15, 2020 at 12:24 pm

    […] the Morrison government. The petition, which has more than 60,000 signatures, references the recent court victory in the Netherlands forcing the government to make deeper cuts in carbon emissions, and says Australian citizens should […]

  5. Youth lawsuit challenges Germany's newest climate law says:
    January 21, 2020 at 2:01 pm

    […] Greenpeace pointed to the Urgenda lawsuit in the Netherlands, in which the Dutch Supreme Court affirmed  the government’s duty to  take stronger climate action to protect […]

  6. A Ground-Breaking Climate Change Ruling in the Netherland – BPP Human Rights Blog says:
    January 31, 2020 at 9:13 am

    […] 1 https://www.climatedocket.com/2019/12/20/urgenda-climate-ruling-netherlands-supreme-court/  […]

  7. The Dutch Have a Carbon Nuetral Plan – Could it be Adopted in the UK? | Decisions, Decisions, Decisions says:
    April 25, 2020 at 2:58 am

    […] Lobby group Urgenda has won a case in the Dutch Supreme court on human rights grounds and the dutch government has adopted its plan to halve dutch energy use by […]

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

  • Colorado Judge Rejects Oil Companies’ Attempt to Move Climate Case
  • Biden’s DOJ Could Help Swing Momentum Around Climate Cases
  • Supreme Court Questions Oil Companies’ Tactics to Shake Climate Cases
  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?

Most Popular

  • Climate Case Gets Green Light from European Union Court
  • Documents Detail What Shell Knew About Climate Change Decades Ago
  • France, Home of the Paris Agreement, Faces Lawsuit for Lack of Climate Progress
  • BP Accused of 'Greenwashing' and Deceiving Public With Renewable Energy Ads
  • Court: Climate Impacts of Pipeline Projects Cannot Be Ignored

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.