Environmental Law

25/06/2015

Spectacular judgment by Dutch Court in climate change case

Court orders State to achieve reduction target of 25% in 2020

Palace of Justice, The Hague (photo by Flickr user Elvin)

In an unprecedented and unexpected decision, a Dutch court found that the Netherlands government has acted negligently and therefore unlawfully towards Urgenda by implementing a policy aimed at achieving a reduction for 2020 of less than 25% compared to the year 1990. The court had to overcome many obstacles to reach this decision, such as the obstacle of causation (from a global perspective, the Netherlands has a relatively small contribution to climate change, so how can the Dutch State by liable for climate change damage suffered by individual Dutch citizens?) and the obstacle of the principle of separation of powers, which does not allow courts to move into politics (setting mitigation targets is usually considered to be a policy matter, of which courts should remain clear). In other countries, particularly the United States, where many climate change suits have been decided or are ongoing, these two obstacles present the main reason why most climate change cases went nowhere, so far…

In its decision of June 24^th, 2015, which was rightfully translated in English as international interest in the judgment will be massive, the Court orders the State to limit the joint volume of Dutch annual greenhouse gas emissions, or have them limited, so that this volume will have reduced by at least 25% at the end of 2020 compared to the level of the year 1990. How did the Court reach this decision, and, more importantly, how did it overcome the two obstacles mentioned above?

The case was initiated by Urgenda, a foundation that was established in 2008 with the aim to stimulate and accelerate the transition processes to a more sustainable society, beginning in the Netherlands, by, among other things, legal action. More than 800 individual citizens joined the suit, so the case was lodged by Urgenda acting on its own behalf as well as in its capacity as representative of these individuals. Under Dutch tort law, NGOs are allowed to initiate public interest cases (see extensively Berthy van den Broek, Liesbeth Enneking, Public Interest Litigation in the Netherlands. A Multidimensional Take on the Promotion of Environmental Interests by Private Parties through the Courts, 2014 Utrecht Law Review 10:3). On standing, the Court not only finds that Urgenda is allowed to represent current generations, but also future generations, because the foundation is aimed at achieving a sustainable development (see judgment under 4.6-4.8). This makes this case a landmark case for the debate on intergenerational equity as well.

The question that the court had to address is whether the State acts unlawfully by “only” pursuing the reduction targets that were imposed upon the Netherlands by EU-law for 2020: a 21% reduction for sectors covered by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (basically large industry and power stations), and a 16% reduction for non-EU ETS sectors (such as transport and agriculture). Under Dutch tort law, there are two ways in which unlawful action or inaction can be established: actions contrary to legal norms, or actions that are not contrary to written legal norms, but that are considered to be violating the standard of due care. First, the Court finds that the state did not breach its legal obligations under a range of legal instruments, such as the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, various EU climate change instruments, the European Convention of Human Rights, etc.

Then, however, the Court tests whether the State fulfilled its duty of care towards its citizens. This is where the case becomes really interesting, because in order to establish what exactly, in this case, this duty of care entails, the Court relies on a large number of binding and non-binding rules and principles (such as the precautionary principle and the principle of ‘fairness’), policy statements, and even ‘scientific consensus’, to determine what can be expected of the State. The Court then finds: ‘Due to the severity of the consequences of climate change and the great risk of hazardous climate change occurring – without mitigating measures – the court concludes that the State has a duty of care to take mitigation measures. The circumstance that the Dutch contribution to the present global greenhouse gas emissions is currently small does not affect this. (…) It is an established fact that with the current emission reduction policy (…) the State does not meet the standard which according to the latest scientific knowledge and in the international climate policy is required for Annex I countries to meet the 2°C target.’

How did the Court overcome the two obstacles mentioned above: causation and separation of powers?

On causation, the Court uses earlier case law on joint liability: the fact that one actor’s contribution to damage is minor, does not allow courts to reject liability. On the contrary, this actor can, under certain circumstances, be hold liable for the entire damage by those who suffer the damage. It is then up to the targeted tortfeasor to reclaim part of these costs from the other tortfeasors. After having referred to this jurisprudence, the Court states: ‘The fact that the amount of the Dutch emissions is small compared to other countries does not affect the obligation to take precautionary measures in view of the State’s obligation to exercise care. After all, it has been established that any anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission, no matter how minor, contributes to an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere and therefore to hazardous climate change.’ Interestingly, the Court follows the principle of common-but-differentiated responsibilities that is one of the main principles of the UNFCCC to argue that it is only fair that the Netherlands takes a proactive approach when it comes to mitigation: ‘Here too, the court takes into account that in view of a fair distribution the Netherlands, like the other Annex I countries, has taken the lead in taking mitigation measures and has therefore committed to a more than proportionate contribution to reduction. Moreover, it is beyond dispute that the Dutch per capita emissions are one of the highest in the world.’ The Court then concludes:

From the above considerations (…) it follows that a sufficient causal link can be assumed to exist between the Dutch greenhouse gas emissions, global climate change and the effects (now and in the future) on the Dutch living climate. The fact that the current Dutch greenhouse gas emissions are limited on a global scale does not alter the fact that these emission contribute to climate change. The court has taken into consideration in this respect as well that the Dutch greenhouse emissions have contributed to climate change and by their nature will also continue to contribute to climate change.

The Court spends a good deal of considerations on the separation of powers. It apparently is very conscious of the fact that it is encroaching upon the realm of policy-making.  The government defended its policy by stating that it is working towards remaining within the 2 degrees limit. To achieve this, bigger emission cuts would be required in 2030. It was a policy decision, backed up by a majority in Parliament, to stall emission cuts a bit (also with a view to the economic crisis), and to speed up emission reductions later. According to the government, this is a legitimate political decision that should not be reviewed by courts.

The Court, however, takes a firm position in the separation of powers debate: ‘It is worthwhile noting that a judge, although not elected and therefore has no democratic legitimacy, has democratic legitimacy in another – but vital – respect. His authority and ensuing “power” are based on democratically established legislation, whether national or international, which has assigned him the task of settling legal disputes. This task also extends to cases in which citizens, individually or collectively, have turned against government authorities. The task of providing legal protection from government authorities, such as the State, pre-eminently belong to the domain of a judge. This task is also enshrined in legislation.’ According to the Court, this is exactly what the claim asks of them: provide legal protection against negligence on the part of the State. The Court acknowledges that by granting judicial review in this case, it will moving into the policy arena: ‘This does not mean that allowing one or more components of the claim can also have political consequences and in that respect can affect political decision-making. However, this is inherent in the role of the court with respect to government authorities in a state under the rule of law. The possibility – and in this case even certainty – that the issue is also and mainly the subject of political decision-making is no reason for curbing the judge in his task and authority to settle disputes. Whether or not there is a “political support base” for the outcome is not relevant in the court’s decision-making process.’

This is a firm statement indeed! The Court does acknowledge that there has to remain room for political decision-making, hence they only set the minimum reduction target of 25% reduction, without imposing the measures that need to be taken to achieve this target, nor preventing (future) decision-makers to go beyond this target. Why 25%? The court bases this decision upon scientific data, but also upon previous policy statements by Dutch authorities and upon the statement in court that a 25% emission cut in itself would not be entirely impossible to achieve. The Court rejects the policy decision to stall the reduction speed until 2030, by arguing that this approach ‘will cause a cumulation effect, which will result in higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in comparison to a more even procentual or linear decrease of emissions starting today. A higher reduction target for 2020 (40%, 30% or 25%) will cause lower total, cumulated greenhouse gas emissions across a longer period of time in comparison with the target of less than 20% chosen by the State. The court agrees with Urgenda that by choosing this reduction path, even though it is also aimed at realising the 2°C target, will in fact make significant contributions to the risk of hazardous climate change and can therefore not be deemed as a sufficient and acceptable alternative to the scientifically proven and acknowledged higher reduction path of 25-40% in 2020.’

There are many very important elements in this judgement that warrant further discussion and research. It is clear that the Dutch Court provided a break-through in climate change litigation, at least in the Netherlands. We have to wait and see whether this approach is copied by courts in other countries, and, first, whether this spectacular decision survives appeal. The Dutch government did not yet indicate whether it will appeal the judgement. It currently ‘studies’ the decision.

Update: Subsequent to the writing of this blogpost, the government of the Netherlands indeed appealed the Urgenda case. On 9 October 2018, the Higher Court in The Hague rejected all objections by the State. An explanation of this second sensational judgment is available here.