The case Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands (2019), also known as the Klimaatzaak Urgenda in Dutch, was a legal case handled by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. It involved a lawsuit against the Dutch government, which began in 2013. The lawsuit argued that the government was not meeting a minimum goal set by scientists to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This, the lawsuit claimed, put the human rights of Dutch citizens at risk, as outlined in national and European Union laws.

In 2015, a court ruled that the government must reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 25% compared to 1990 levels by 2020. This decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court after an appeal. The court stated that reducing emissions was necessary to protect human rights. This case was the first time a government was challenged in a lawsuit about climate change based on human rights, and it was the first successful case of its kind related to climate justice.

Background

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its fourth and fifth reports on climate change in 2007 and 2014. These reports highlighted the importance of greatly reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the short-term, by 2030. The European Union (EU) set a goal for all member countries to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by 40% compared to 1990 levels by 2030. This goal was set before the 2016 Paris Agreement, which aimed for similar worldwide reductions. Each EU member state, including the Netherlands, was required to create its own national policies before the Paris Agreement to meet this target.

The Netherlands has often been viewed as a country leading efforts to reduce climate change because much of its land is at or below sea level and would be greatly affected by rising ocean levels. In the 2010s, activists claimed the government began supporting traditional fossil fuel industries more than renewable energy sources, causing the country to slow its progress in reducing climate change.

The Urgenda Foundation, a climate activist group formed in 2008, represents 886 Dutch citizens. The group studied IPCC reports and other climate change studies, as well as a 2010 book by lawyer Roger Cox, which discussed using human rights laws to push governments to act on climate change. Urgenda sent a letter to the Dutch government, urging it to commit to reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 40% by 2020. The letter cited recent reports, including IPCC findings, and argued that the government had a responsibility to cut emissions to protect human rights under EU policies. This was the first known case of using EU human rights laws to demand government action on climate change.

The government responded that the 40% reduction target was too high compared to the EU's then-planned goal of a 30% reduction by 2020. It stated the Netherlands would only agree to the 40% target if all other EU member countries shared the same goal.

District Court

In September 2013, Urgenda filed a lawsuit against the Netherlands, stating that the government must reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 40% by 2030 or at least 25% by 2020, as required by Dutch and European Union laws. Urgenda claimed the government was responsible for managing the country’s carbon dioxide emissions and had a legal duty to reduce the nation’s role in causing climate change.

The first court hearing for the case took place in April 2015 at the District Court in The Hague. In June 2015, the court ruled in favor of Urgenda, requiring the Netherlands to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 25% from 1990 levels by 2020. The court noted that before 2010, the government had planned for a 30% reduction by 2020, but later lowered the target to 14–17%. The court rejected the government’s argument that the Netherlands’ carbon emissions were less significant than those of other major countries, stating, “The state should not hide behind the argument that the solution to the global climate problem does not depend solely on Dutch efforts. Any reduction of emissions contributes to preventing dangerous climate change, and as a developed country, the Netherlands should take the lead in this.” The court also said the government was legally required to reduce emissions to protect human life and that achieving a 25% reduction was not too costly. While the court acknowledged concerns about respecting the legislative process, it set the 25% reduction as the minimum goal, based on estimates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other reports, which suggested this level was necessary to avoid dangerous climate change.

Court of Appeals

The Dutch government challenged the court's decision in multiple cases in 2018 by taking the matter to the Court of Appeals in the Hague. The government claimed that the District Court's orders went beyond the principle of separation of powers, known as trias politica, by making environmental policy decisions through its rulings. During the appeals, Urgenda emphasized the importance of human rights and argued that the Dutch government must follow Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to reduce emissions. The government disagreed with this argument. In October 2018, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the 25% emissions reduction requirement. The court rejected the government's claim that the order violated the separation of powers, stating that the ruling was not detailed and did not require specific laws to achieve the goal. The court also noted that because the issue involved human rights, including those outlined in the ECHR, it had the authority to make such decisions.

Supreme Court

The state filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. On 20 December 2019, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal and confirmed the requirement to reduce emissions by 25%. The court stated that the Dutch government must manage the country's carbon dioxide emissions and protect human rights. The ruling repeated what the Court of Appeals had previously said: "Every country is responsible for its share" of emissions.

A major part of the judgment said that the argument that other countries would cause global warming regardless of the Netherlands' actions was not valid. The court said that even if other countries caused global warming, the Netherlands still had a responsibility.

Impact

As the case was sent to the Supreme Court, the Dutch government started taking steps to meet its emissions target. The government had already planned to ban coal power plants by 2030, but it decided to shut down the Hemweg plant in 2020, four years earlier than planned. Beginning with discussions in December 2018, the Dutch government created a new climate plan in June 2019. This plan aimed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 49% by 2030. It included taxing industries for their carbon dioxide emissions, encouraging a switch from gas to electricity through incentives, and introducing pay-per-use driving taxes as early as 2025.

Even after these changes, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency reported in January 2019 that it predicted carbon dioxide emissions would decrease by 19 to 26% compared to 1990 levels by the end of 2020. This meant the country still needed more actions to reach its target. The court rulings required the government to meet the 25% reduction goal but did not explain what steps would be taken if the government failed to do so. A spokesperson for Urgenda said the group did not ask about penalties for missing the target, stating they "believe there is no reason the government would not respect the decision of the highest court in the Netherlands."

Although not the first climate change lawsuit, the 2015 ruling against the Netherlands was celebrated globally as the first successful legal case against a government to address climate change and protect human rights, a field known as climate justice. This ruling inspired similar climate justice lawsuits in other countries, including Belgium, France, Ireland, Germany, New Zealand, Britain, Switzerland, and Norway.