Abstract
On 9 October 2018, The Hague Court of Appeal confirmed the first instance judgement rendered in the world-famous Urgenda case: the Dutch State commits a tort by setting a goal for greenhouse gas emissions reduction of only 20% by the end of 2020, compared to 1990 levels. The State is ordered to raise this goal to at least 25%. Both judgments are heavily criticised by constitutional and administrative law scholars. Most of this critique is ultimately linked to the objection that the Courts overstepped their task in the constitutional separation of powers. With this objection the State also takes the case to the Supreme Court. This annotation analyses the appellate court’s decision step by step, pointing out where it differs from the lower court’s decision and engaging with the various critiques. The Court of Appeal directly applies Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to family life) of the ECHR, finds that these rights cover climate change related situations, and on the basis of Dutch civil procedure determines that 25% reduction is the factual minimum to prevent ECHR violations. Although parts of the decision could have been motivated in more detail, the authors conclude that the Court applied the law correctly and that neither the separation of powers, nor the political question doctrine were infringed.
Laura Burgers works as Ph.D. Candidate at the Centre for the Study of European Contract Law, University of Amsterdam. Her thesis Justitia, the People’s Power and Mother Earth focuses on the democratic legitimacy of environmental lawsuits like Urgenda, and is to be finished by the end of 2019. Tim Staal completed his Ph.D. research at the international law department of the University of Amsterdam. It was published by Hart Publishing as Authority and Legitimacy of Environmental Post-Treaty Rules (2019). He currently teaches international law at the same university and is a freelance investigative journalist for Platform Investico and De Groene Amsterdammer.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Court of Appeals of The Hague (Gerechtshof Den Haag, hereafter: Court of Appeals) Urgenda v State of the Netherlands, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2018:2591, 8 October 2018.
- 2.
District Court of The Hague (Rechtbank Den Haag, hereafter: District Court) Urgenda v State of the Netherlands, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:7145, 24 June 2015.
- 3.
Inter alia L Breebaart, Hoogleraar: Urgenda zadelt regering op met onmogelijke last, Trouw, 9 October 2018, https://www.trouw.nl/home/hoogleraar-urgenda-zadelt-regering-op-met-onmogelijke-last~ad785b24/, accessed 23 January 2019; G Boogaard, Laten we de democratie niet onder curatele stellen, De Volkskrant, 11 October 2018, https://www.volkskrant.nl/columns-opinie/laten-we-de-democratie-niet-onder-curatele-stellen~b53f718a/, accessed 23 January 2019; S de Jong, Maar er bestaat helemaal geen ‘recht op een goed klimaat’, NRC, 12 October 2018, https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2018/10/12/twistgesprek-7-a2417785, accessed 23 January 2019; W Hommes, Het Hof bedrijft politiek met de Urgenda-uitspraak, De Volkskrant, 16 October 2018, https://www.volkskrant.nl/columns-opinie/het-hof-bedrijft-politiek-met-urgenda-uitspraak~b528c988/, accessed 23 January 2019; I Leijten, The Dutch Climate Case Judgment: Human Rights Potential and Constitutional Unease, Verfassungsblog, 19 October 2018, https://verfassungsblog.de/the-dutch-climate-case-judgment-human-rights-potential-and-constitutional-unease/, accessed 23 January 2018.
- 4.
Ministerie van Algemene Zaken, Staat tekent cassatie aan in Urgenda-zaak - Nieuwsbericht, Rijksoverheid.nl, 16 October 2018, https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2018/11/16/staat-tekent-cassatie-aan-in-urgenda-zaak, accessed 23 January 2019.
- 5.
Just like Tim’s daughter Halina who was born in the week the Appellate Court rendered its Urgenda decision.
- 6.
For a sophisticated analysis of the transnational links between climate lawsuits, see Colombo 2017.
- 7.
Article 21 Dutch Constitution.
- 8.
District Court, 4.46. Critical is E Gijselaar, Het EVRM en de klimaatzaak: toetsing aan niet van toepassing zijnde normen, Utrecht Centre for Accountability and Liability Law Blog, 8 July 2015, http://blog.ucall.nl/index.php/2015/07/het-evrm-en-de-klimaatzaak-toetsing-aan-niet-van-toepassing-zijnde-normen/, accessed 24 January 2019.
- 9.
‘Reflexwerking’ in Dutch.
- 10.
Pleadings of the State, 1.22–1.26.
- 11.
District Court, 4.45.
- 12.
Court of Appeals, 35.
- 13.
See Bleeker 2018a.
- 14.
Court of Appeals, 36.
- 15.
District Court, 4.7–4.8.
- 16.
Cf Article 1:2 Dutch Civil Code.
- 17.
Court of Appeals, 37 (emphasis added).
- 18.
This doctrine is usually traced back to Article 32 ECHR, according to which: ‘The jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to all matters concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention…’ (emphasis added), eg Gerards and Fleuren 2013, p. 43.
- 19.
Cf Besselink 2018.
- 20.
W Hommes, Het Hof bedrijft politiek met de Urgenda-uitspraak, De Volkskrant, 16 October 2018, https://www.volkskrant.nl/columns-opinie/het-hof-bedrijft-politiek-met-urgenda-uitspraak*b528c988/, accessed 23 January 2019; I Leijten, The Dutch Climate Case Judgment: Human Rights Potential and Constitutional Unease, Verfassungsblog, 19 October 2018, https://verfassungsblog.de/the-dutchclimate-case-judgment-human-rights-potential-and-constitutional-unease/, accessed 23 January 2019.
- 21.
Defending the latter is C Eckes, De Urgenda uitspraak doet júíst recht an het EVRM, EU Explainer, 27 October 2018, http://euexplainer.nl/?p=520, accessed 24 January 2019. This question is of extra importance, because some older case law of the Dutch Supreme Court has been understood by some commentators to prevent Dutch courts from interpreting the ECHR more generously than the European Court of Human rights. See X v Y, Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), 10 August 2001, ECLI:NL:HR:2001:ZC3598 and discussion of potential consequences for Urgenda by I Leijten, The Dutch Climate Case Judgment: Human Rights Potential and Constitutional Unease, Verfassungsblog, 19 October 2018, https://verfassungsblog.de/the-dutchclimate-case-judgment-human-rights-potential-and-constitutional-unease/, accessed 23 January 2019.
- 22.
Öneryildiz v Turkey, ECrtHR Grand Chamber, No. 48939/99, 30 November 2004, 89, 90 (‘deterrence against threats’, ‘preventive measures’). Although the positive obligations of states under Articles 2 and 8 include other aspects as well, such as an obligation to stop ongoing nuisances and a procedural obligation to investigate, these are irrelevant here, since Urgenda’s claim concerns the future conduct of the state.
- 23.
Fadeyeva v Russia, ECrtHR Chamber, No. 55723/00, 9 June 2005, 64.
- 24.
Fadeyeva, 89 (‘to assess whether the State could reasonably be expected to act so as to prevent or put an end to the alleged infringement of the applicant's rights’); Brincat and Others v Malta, Nos. 60908/11, 62110/11, 62129/11, 62312/11 and 62338/11, 24 July 2014, 116 (‘to legislate or take other practical measures to ensure that the applicants were adequately protected’).
- 25.
Court of Appeals, 41 (emphasis added). There is some boldness in the Court converging Articles 2 and 8 into a single norm. Arguably that is misguided insofar as the greater role that the concept of fair balance plays under Article 8. For this point, see also https://verfassungsblog.de/the-dutch-climate-case-judgment-human-rights-potential-and-constitutional-unease/. We do not pay more attention to this point because a violation of either Article would be sufficient to arrive at the same verdict.
- 26.
Referring to Öneryildiz v Turkey. As the emphasized part makes clear, the norm requires a factual assessment, the importance of which we will get to in a moment.
- 27.
Öneryildiz, 71 (‘The Court considers this obligation must be construed to apply in the context of any activity, whether public or not, in which the right to life may be at stake …’). Cf also C Eckes, De Urgenda uitspraak doet júíst recht aan het EVRM, EU Explainer, 27 October 2018, http://euexplainer.nl/?p=520, accessed 24 January 2019.
- 28.
C Eckes, De Urgenda uitspraak doet júíst recht aan het EVRM, EU Explainer, 27 October 2018, http://euexplainer.nl/?p=520, accessed 24 January 2019.
- 29.
Lopez Ostra v Spain, ECtHr Chamber, No. 16798/90, 9 December 1994.
- 30.
Öneryildiz v Turkey.
- 31.
Human rights scholar Rick Lawson pointed us to a decision that the Court of Appeal could have invoked, ECtHR Mastromatteo/Italy 24 October 2002, nr. 37703/97, in which it was considered whether the right to life was violated when criminals on prison leave murdered the son of the applicant. Although no violation was found, the ECtHR did deem this situation to fall within the scope of Article 2, which demonstrates this Article does not require the State would know in advance specifically who or how many people would be at risk in the absence of required preventive measures.
- 32.
Court of Appeals, 43. Öneryildiz, 101.
- 33.
Öneryildiz, 98 (‘a decisive factor for the assessment of the circumstances of the case, namely that there was practical information available to the effect that the inhabitants of certain slum areas of Ümraniye were faced with a threat to their physical integrity …’), 100 (‘neither the reality nor the immediacy of the danger in question is in dispute’). For Article 8, some guidance can be found in Fadeyeva, 133 (‘there is no indication that the State designed or applied effective measures which would take into account the interests of the local population, affected by the pollution, and which would be capable of reducing the industrial pollution to acceptable levels’).
- 34.
Öneryildiz, 101 (‘it was impossible for the administrative and municipal departments responsible … not to have known of the risks … or of the necessary preventive measures’) (emphasis added).
- 35.
Court of Appeals, 42.
- 36.
True, the ECtHR sometimes acknowledges that the margin of appreciation might have effect on the national separation of powers, such as in the case Jane Nicklinson and Paul Lamb v United Kingdom, ECtHR, Nos. 2478/15 and 1787/15, 16 July 2015 – yet this was in relation to formal legislation rather than to policy, the latter of which is at issue in the Urgenda case.
- 37.
Court of Appeals, 44.
- 38.
Deaths caused by heatwaves and forest fires, for instance.
- 39.
While Dutch CO2 emissions are still rising, total Dutch emissions of greenhouse gases are falling. See also Court of Appeals, 26.
- 40.
Court of Appeals, 44, last bullet point.
- 41.
Court of Appeals, 45.
- 42.
Cf The People’s Climate Case claim at https://peoplesclimatecase.caneurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/application-delivered-to-european-general-court-1.pdf.
- 43.
Cf the Klimaseniorinnen claim at https://klimaseniorinnen.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/request_KlimaSeniorinnen.pdf.
- 44.
Stockholm District Court (Stockholms Tingsrätt) 30 June 2017 Push Sverige, Fältbiologerna et al v Staten, Magnolia; and Stockholm Court of Appeal (Svea Hovrätt) 23 January 2018 Push Sverige, Fältbiologerna et al v Staten, Magnolia. The claimants chose not to go to the Supreme Court.
- 45.
Human Rights Committee (2018) General comment No. 36 (2018) on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life.
- 46.
Court of Appeals, 43.
- 47.
Article 149 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.
- 48.
Court of Appeals, 3.7
- 49.
Court of Appeals, 3.7–3.8.
- 50.
Court of Appeals, 50.
- 51.
Besselink 2018.
- 52.
For a general treatment of the authority of COP decisions and other ‘post-treaty rules’, see Tim’s forthcoming monograph Authority and Legitimacy of Environmental Post-Treaty Rules (Hart Publishing 2019) and ‘Exercising or Evading International Public Authority? The Many Faces of Environmental Post-Treaty Rules’ (2016) 7 Goettingen Journal of International Law 303.
- 53.
Facts of which it would be difficult to see how they could have been established differently in a public law proceeding.
- 54.
Court of Appeals, 48.
- 55.
Court of Appeals, 49.
- 56.
Ibid.
- 57.
This agreement was adopted in December 2015, a few months of the Urgenda decision on first instance, delivered in June 2015. The Court of Appeal however, considers all facts up until the day of the hearing held on 28 May 2018.
- 58.
Court of Appeals, 50.
- 59.
Court of Appeals, 51.
- 60.
Court of Appeals, 66.
- 61.
Court of Appeals, 52.
- 62.
Court of Appeals, 53.
- 63.
Court of Appeals, 63. The Court refers to the case of Tatar v. Romania of the ECrtHR.
- 64.
Court of Appeals, 74.
- 65.
- 66.
- 67.
Court of Appeals, 54.
- 68.
Court of Appeals, 55–56.
- 69.
Court of Appeals, 57.
- 70.
Court of Appeals, 58.
- 71.
Court of Appeals, 59.
- 72.
Court of Appeals, 60.
- 73.
Court of Appeals, 61–64.
- 74.
Bleeker 2018b.
- 75.
Court of Appeals, 64.
- 76.
As testified by Laura’s Ph.D. thesis to be, covering various climate cases litigated in European private law.
- 77.
For instance, we will not discuss the many threats and warnings of the practical effects of the judgment, such as the impossibility for the Court to deal with a failure to implement the judgment, or a decreased willingness of the State to conclude or support international agreements and declarations.
- 78.
District Court 4.94–4.102.
- 79.
This was decided by the Supreme Court in the Waterpakt case. Supreme Court of the Netherlands (Hoge Raad) 21 March 2003 Waterpakt v State of the Netherlands ECLI:NL:HR:2003:AE8462.
- 80.
Court of Appeals, 69.
- 81.
G Boogaard, Laten we de democratie niet onder curatele stellen, De Volkskrant, 11 October 2018, https://www.volkskrant.nl/columns-opinie/latenwe-de-democratie-niet-onder-curatele-stellen*b53f718a/, accessed 23 January 2019.
- 82.
Court of Appeals, 67.
- 83.
Cf Articles 6 and 13 ECHR, Article 47 CFREU.
- 84.
Cf also van den Berg 2017.
- 85.
More doubt remains with regard to the Court’s treatment of Article 8 ECHR, implying that it contains the same standard as Article 2.
- 86.
W Hommes, Het Hof bedrijft politiek met de Urgenda-uitspraak, De Volkskrant, 16 October 2018, https://www.volkskrant.nl/columns-opinie/het-hof-bedrijft-politiek-met-urgenda-uitspraak*b528c988/, accessed 23 January 2019.
- 87.
Cf C Eckes, De Urgenda uitspraak doet júíst recht aan het EVRM, EU Explainer, 27 October 2018, http://euexplainer.nl/?p=520, accessed 24 January 2019.
- 88.
W Hommes, Het Hof bedrijft politiek met de Urgenda-uitspraak, De Volkskrant, 16 October 2018, https://www.volkskrant.nl/columns-opinie/het-hof-bedrijft-politiek-met-urgenda-uitspraak*b528c988/, accessed 23 January 2019.
- 89.
See Sect. 10.3.2.
- 90.
- 91.
Cf Eddy Bauw in De Jong 2018.
- 92.
As argued by Boogaard 2016.
- 93.
Pleadings of the State, 1.18, 3.12; Court of Appeals, 30.
- 94.
District Court of Amsterdam, X c.s. v Staat der Nederlanden en Gemeente Amsterdam (Citizenship after Brexit), 7 February 2018, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2018:605.
- 95.
This concerns topics such as defense policy or foreign policy where the Court cannot oversee all interests and information. For an example, see Supreme Court of the Netherlands (Hoge Raad) 29 November 2002 Danikovic c.s. v State of the Netherlands.
- 96.
Citizenship after Brexit, 5.3, 5.4.
- 97.
Citizenship after Brexit, 5.8, 5.9.
- 98.
Citizenship after Brexit, 5.7.
- 99.
See 10.2.
- 100.
A Dutch style of decision-making aimed at consensus among representatives of different parts of society such as unions, employers’ organisations and NGOs.
- 101.
Court of Appeals, 72.
- 102.
Court of Appeals, 73.
References
Besselink L (2018) De constitutioneel meer legitieme manier van toetsing: Urgenda voor het Gerechtshof Den Haag. Nederlands Juristenblad NJB 93(41):3078–3082
Bleeker T (2018a) Voldoende belang in collectieve acties: Drie maal artikel 3:303 BW. Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Burgerlijk Recht NBTR 20(5):139–151
Bleeker T (2018b) Aansprakelijkheid voor klimaatschade: een driekoppige draak. Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Burgerlijk Recht NBTR 1:4–11
Boogaard G (2016) Urgenda en de rol van de rechter. Over de ondraaglijke leegheid van de Trias Politica. Ars Aequi 65(1):26–33
Colombo E (2017) The Quest for Cosmopolitan Justice in Climate Matters. Nord Miljörättslig Tidskrift 2:25–39
De Jong E (2015) Urgenda: rechterlijke risicoregulering als alternatief voor risicoregulering door de overheid? Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Burgerlijk Recht 319–326
De Jong E (2018) Rechterlijke risicoregulering en het EVRM: over drempels om de civiele rechter als risicoreguleerder te laten optreden. NJCM Bulletin 43:207–230
De Vries A, Somsen H (2016) De Urgenda-uitspraak: Geen schending van EU-recht. Aansprakelijkheid Verzekering En Schade (4):149–151
Enneking L, De Jong E (2014) Regulering van onzekere risico’s via public interest litigation? Nederlands Juristenblad NJB 23, 1542–1551
Gerards JH, Fleuren JWA (2013) Implementatie van het EVRM en de uitspraken van het EHRM in de nationale rechtspraak: Een rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek. Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
Peeters M (2016) Urgenda Foundation and 886 Individuals v. The State of the Netherlands: The Dilemma of More Ambitious Greenhouse Gas Reduction Action by EU Member States. Review of European Comparative International Environmental Law 25(1):123–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12146
Peeters MGWM (2014) Europees klimaatrecht en nationale beleidsruimte. Nederlands Juristenblad NJB 2014(41):2918–2925
Roy S (2017) Distributive Choices in Urgenda and EU Climate Law, SSRN Paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3064346. Accessed 23 January 2019
Roy S, Woerdman E (2016) Situating Urgenda v the Netherlands within comparative climate change litigation. Journal of Energy and Natural Resources Law 34(2):165–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646811.2016.1132825
Thurlings TJ (2015) The Dutch Climate Case - Some Legal Considerations, SSRN Paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2696343. Accessed 23 January 2019. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2696343
van den Berg K (2017) De rechter en de politiek: een drieluik, 1st edn. In: Tjeenk Willink HD, van den Berg JM, Jensma F (eds) Rechtspraak en politiek: hoe leven die samen in het ene huis, dat democratische rechtsstaat heet? Boom Juridische Uitgevers, The Hague
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Burgers, L., Staal, T. (2019). Climate Action as Positive Human Rights Obligation: The Appeals Judgment in Urgenda v the Netherlands. In: Nijman, J., Werner, W. (eds) Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2018. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, vol 49. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-331-3_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-331-3_10
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-330-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-331-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)