The State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy) v. Stichting Urgenda

Nature of the Case

The Supreme Court of the Netherlands upheld the lower courts’ orders to the State, directing the State to reduce the country’s greenhouse gases by at least 25% by 2020 (compared to 1990 measures) pursuant to its obligations under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights;  the State is required to achieve this reduction because of the significant risk of harm posed by climate change, which could have a severe impact on the lives and wellbeing of the Netherlands’ residents. There are no further avenues of appeal available to the State.

Enforcement of the Decision and Outcomes

The Supreme Court’s decision affirmed the order made by the District Court of the Hague in 2015.  Since 2015, the Netherlands has enacted some of the most ambitious climate policies in Europe. The Dutch Government has agreed to close all coal-fired power stations by 2030 at the latest, including three plants that only came online in 2015. In 2019, the Dutch Parliament passed a new Climate Change Act which has been hailed as one of the most progressive in Europe. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the Government has consulted the Urgenda Foundation on measures to be adopted to bridge the remaining emissions reduction “gap” in order to comply with the order. In April 2020, the Dutch government announced a range of measures to implement the decision. In January 2020, the Government closed its oldest coal-fired power station and, in April 2020, the Government committed to reduce the capacity of its remaining coal-fired power stations by 75% and announced a 3 billion euro package of measures to reduce Dutch emissions by 2020, in line with the order of the Supreme Court.

Significance of the Case

The Urgenda case is the first in the world in which a government has been ordered to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by an absolute minimum amount in order to comply with its legal obligations. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has stated that “the decision confirms that the Government of the Netherlands and, by implication, other governments have binding legal obligations, based on international human rights law, to undertake strong reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases.”

The Urgenda case forms part of a rapidly evolving body of norms at the national, regional and international level regarding States’ human rights obligations to urgently mitigate climate change. Since 2015, individuals and communities around the world have initiated proceedings against States seeking to achieve similar rulings. Claimants have directly relied upon the Urgenda decisions in cases against States in Ireland, Germany, Norway, France, Belgium and the Republic of Korea. There are ongoing legal proceedings regarding States’ human rights obligations to mitigate climate change in Ireland, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, the United States, Canada, Peru, and South Korea.

For their contributions to the summary, special thanks to: Tessa Khan (individual member), Co-Director of the Climate Litigation Network, an initiative of the Urgenda Foundation, and Lucy Maxwell, Legal Associate at the Climate Litigation Network, and member the Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy (PHRGE) at Northeastern University.