## Facts

- Urgenda Foundation, a Dutch environmental NGO, brought a collective action seeking a court order requiring the Netherlands to reduce domestic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020 compared to 1990 levels.
- Urgenda alleged the State’s insufficient mitigation policy created a real risk of dangerous climate change threatening residents’ rights to life and to respect for private and family life under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as given effect in domestic law.
- The District Court ordered the State to ensure at least a 25% reduction by end-2020, grounding liability primarily in domestic tort law (a duty of care).
- The State appealed, challenging standing, justiciability, the existence and scope of any enforceable duty, and reliance on scientific and international climate materials.
- Urgenda cross-appealed, arguing the duty should be anchored expressly in ECHR positive obligations.
- The Court of Appeal accepted the underlying scientific consensus that industrialized states should reduce emissions 25–40% below 1990 levels by 2020 to maintain a reasonable chance of limiting warming to 2°C, and found climate change posed a serious risk of loss of life and disruption of family life in the Netherlands.
- The Netherlands’ policy trajectory was found to fall below the minimum reduction level indicated for developed states.

## Issues

1. Whether Urgenda had standing to sue to protect the interests of current and future residents affected by climate change.
2. Whether the dispute was justiciable given separation-of-powers concerns and the State’s policy discretion in climate matters.
3. Whether Articles 2 and 8 ECHR impose positive obligations on the State to take mitigation measures against dangerous climate change.
4. Whether those obligations required a minimum reduction of at least 25% by end-2020 compared to 1990 levels.
5. Whether the Netherlands’ relatively small share of global emissions defeated causation or responsibility for mitigation duties.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal dismissed the State’s appeal and upheld the operative order requiring at least a 25% reduction in Dutch GHG emissions by end-2020 relative to 1990.
- The Court accepted Urgenda’s cross-appeal in substance by grounding the duty primarily in the State’s positive obligations under Articles 2 and 8 ECHR.
- The Court held Urgenda had standing to bring a collective action to protect the interests of residents affected by climate change.
- The Court held the case was justiciable: courts may assess whether the State has met minimum legal obligations under human rights law, while leaving the choice of specific measures to the political branches.
- The Court rejected the “small contributor” defense, holding each state is responsible for its share of global emissions and may be called to account for failing to reduce them.

## Legal Principles

- Articles 2 and 8 ECHR impose positive obligations requiring a state to take reasonable and suitable measures to protect against a real threat of serious harm, including long-term environmental risks such as dangerous climate change.
- Judicial review may determine whether the state’s overall level of protection meets minimum rights-based requirements; separation of powers does not bar courts from setting a minimum outcome standard while leaving policy instruments to the executive and legislature.
- International climate science and broadly accepted international and regional policy materials may be used as interpretive aids to specify the content of ECHR-based duties, even when those materials are not directly enforceable as binding obligations.
- For developed states, a reduction of at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 was treated as the minimum necessary to satisfy the state’s duty of care under ECHR Articles 2 and 8 in light of the identified risks.
- In global environmental harms driven by cumulative contributions, a state’s partial contribution does not negate responsibility; concurrent contributions can still trigger legal accountability for failure to mitigate.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal held that dangerous climate change creates a real risk to protected human rights, and that the Netherlands had a positive duty under ECHR Articles 2 and 8 to ensure a minimum emissions reduction of at least 25% by end-2020 compared to 1990, while retaining discretion over the specific measures used to achieve that target.


State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2018:2610 (Ct. App. The Hague 2018)