Ngo Urgenda v. The Government of the Netherlands | A summary of international climate change litigation cases

2022-04-26 0 By

Article 21 of the Constitution of the Netherlands;Eu emission reduction target;Principles of the European Convention on Human Rights;The principle of non-harm in international law;Principle of dangerous negligence;The principles of equity, prevention and sustainability of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change;And the principle of high levels of protection, the precautionary principle and the precautionary principle embodied in European climate policy.Basic case: In March 2013, the Urgenda Foundation, a Dutch environmental group, and 900 Dutch citizens sued the Dutch government, demanding it do more to prevent global climate change.A court in The Hague has ordered the Dutch government to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020.The government’s existing pledge to cut emissions by 17 per cent is insufficient to meet the country’s reasonable contribution to the UN goal of limiting global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.The Court concluded that states were obliged to take mitigation measures because of the seriousness of the consequences of climate change and the significant risks of climate change occurring.In September 2015, the Dutch government appealed.In April 2017, Urgenda filed a cross-appeal against the court’s ruling that “Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) cannot be directly invoked in litigation”.(Note: the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life respectively.)On 9 October 2018, the Court of Appeal in The Hague upheld the district Court’s ruling that the Dutch government breached its duty of care under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020.The court accepted Urgenda s claim under Article 2 of the ECHR, which protects the right to life, and Article 8 of the ECHR, which protects the right to private life, family life, residence, and communication.The court ruled that the Dutch government was obliged under the ECHR to protect these rights from the real threat of climate change.The court rejected the government’s argument.In responding to these appeals, the Court confirmed its obligation to apply the provisions of treaties to which the Netherlands is a party and which have direct effect, including articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.In addition, the court in article 193 of the treaty of the European Union operation did not find any banned members as individuals to take more than the European Union’s ambitious climate action, also did not find any can make up for the lack of the government’s obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions adaptation measures, and also don’t think the problem of global can cover for the Dutch government action.In January 2019, the Dutch government appealed again.In April of that year, Urgenda filed a written defense in an appeal to the Supreme Court.Its submitted agenda Outlines the dangers of climate change and the national responsibility to reduce emissions by at least 25 per cent by 2020.The Supreme Court of the Netherlands heard the appeal on 24 May 2019.On September 13, independent judicial officials and the attorney general issued a formal opinion recommending that the Supreme Court uphold Urgenda’s decision.Verdict: On 20 December 2019, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands upheld this ruling under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Human Rights Law.Urgenda won.Timeline: March 2013: Filing June 2015: Urgenda wins September 2015: Dutch government appeals October 2018: National appellate judgment October 2018: Urgenda wins appeal January 2019: Dutch government appeals April 2019:May 2019: Hearings held September 2019: The Supreme Court recommends that Urgenda’s decision be upheld December 2019: The Supreme Court finally rules in Urgenda’s favor.Climate Change/Global warming/Greenhouse Gas emissions/Human Rights This article is the second in a series of international climate change litigation cases compiled by Green Club Green Belt and Road (EBRs) Case Analysis 20220402.The author is the International Department of Green Development Association of China and bnU-HKBU (Beijing Normal University-Hong Kong Baptist University)UIC globalization and Development (GAD) program co-sponsored by students # Netherlands ## Public interest litigation ## Climate change ## International