## Facts

- Stichting Urgenda, a Dutch environmental organization, brought a collective action on behalf of current and future residents of the Netherlands.
- The suit challenged the State’s planned greenhouse-gas (GHG) reductions for 2020 (approximately 17% below 1990 levels) as inadequate in light of climate science and international consensus.
- Urgenda sought a mandatory order requiring the State to achieve at least a 25% reduction (and argued for 40%) in domestic GHG emissions by the end of 2020 relative to 1990.
- A district court ordered the State to reduce emissions by at least 25% by 2020; an intermediate appellate court affirmed, grounding the obligation in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Articles 2 and 8.
- The State appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing (among other points) lack of standing, limits on applying the ECHR, separation-of-powers concerns, and that courts could not impose a quantitative reduction target.

## Issues

1. Whether Urgenda had standing to bring a collective action to protect the interests of current and future residents in relation to climate risks.
2. Whether dangerous climate change triggers the State’s positive obligations under ECHR Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (private and family life) to take protective mitigation measures.
3. Whether a court may order the State to achieve a specific minimum emissions-reduction level without violating separation of powers.
4. Whether the minimum required reduction for a developed country by 2020 could properly be set at the lower bound of the 25–40% range identified in climate science and international practice.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court dismissed the State’s cassation appeal and left in place the order requiring at least a 25% reduction in domestic GHG emissions by the end of 2020 relative to 1990.
- The court held that climate change poses real and immediate risks to the lives and welfare of persons within the State’s jurisdiction, engaging positive obligations under ECHR Articles 2 and 8.
- The court concluded that the State must take reasonable and suitable measures and that, at minimum, a 25% reduction by 2020 was required; a lower target would breach the State’s human-rights obligations.
- The court held that ordering compliance with this minimum obligation was within judicial competence because the State retained discretion over the means of achieving the required reduction.

## Legal Principles

- ECHR Articles 2 and 8 impose positive duties on a state to take reasonable and effective protective measures when it is aware of real and immediate risks to life and to private and family life from environmental dangers, including climate change.
- A state’s responsibility is not negated by the global character of climate change; each state bears partial responsibility for its contribution and must do its share.
- Courts may enforce minimum human-rights-based obligations even when compliance affects policy choices; separation of powers is respected where the order sets a results-based floor and leaves the selection of policy instruments to the political branches.
- In determining the minimum required mitigation level, courts may consider broadly supported climate science and international practice; where a developed-country range of 25–40% reductions by 2020 is accepted, requiring at least the lower bound can fall within the state’s permissible discretion.
- Collective actions may be an appropriate vehicle to secure effective protection against widely shared climate risks, consistent with access to an effective remedy.

## Conclusion

The court held that inadequate climate mitigation can violate ECHR rights and affirmed an enforceable minimum duty requiring the Netherlands to reduce domestic greenhouse-gas emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020 compared to 1990 levels, while leaving implementation choices to the political branches.


State of the Netherlands v. Stichting Urgenda, No. 19/00135 (Neth. 2019)