## Facts

- Urgenda Foundation, a Dutch environmental organization, filed a civil tort action against the State of the Netherlands seeking stronger greenhouse-gas (GHG) mitigation.
- Urgenda brought the case on its own behalf and in connection with the interests of 886 Dutch residents who supported the action.
- Urgenda alleged climate change posed severe, foreseeable risks to residents and that developed states needed 25–40% reductions by 2020 (from 1990 levels) to remain within a 2°C pathway.
- The State’s policy aimed at approximately a 17% reduction by 2020, which Urgenda alleged was insufficient and unlawfully negligent.
- Urgenda sought declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the State to adopt more ambitious measures, without dictating particular instruments.

## Issues

1. Whether a civil court may adjudicate and grant injunctive relief requiring a minimum national GHG-reduction outcome, consistent with separation of powers.
2. Whether Urgenda had standing to bring a collective claim to protect the relevant interests of Dutch residents affected by climate change.
3. Whether the State owed a duty of care under Dutch tort law, interpreted in light of domestic, European, and international norms, to take reasonable measures to prevent dangerous climate change.
4. Whether the court could lawfully require a quantified minimum reduction target (at least 25% by end-2020 compared with 1990).

## Decision

- The court held the State acted unlawfully toward Urgenda by pursuing a 2020 reduction target below 25% compared with 1990 levels.
- The court ordered the State to ensure that the annual volume of Dutch GHG emissions is reduced by at least 25% by the end of 2020 relative to 1990.
- The court rejected separate adjudication of the individual supporters’ claims, concluding their interests were sufficiently covered through Urgenda’s action.
- The court found the claim justiciable because it ordered a result while leaving the choice of policy measures to the political branches.

## Legal Principles

- Under Dutch tort law, the State can commit an unlawful omission by failing to take reasonable preventive measures against a foreseeable, serious risk to residents.
- Courts may set a minimum legally required outcome while preserving governmental discretion over the means of compliance, reducing separation-of-powers concerns.
- In defining the scope of a governmental duty of care, courts may consider converging norms and principles reflected in domestic constitutional duties, international climate commitments and principles (including precaution and no-harm), and European legal standards.
- A state’s relatively small share of global emissions does not preclude responsibility where harm is cumulative and each state is expected to contribute a fair share to risk reduction.
- A minimum reduction threshold may be derived from widely accepted scientific and policy benchmarks for developed states, and falling below that minimum can constitute negligence.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the Netherlands’ climate mitigation trajectory was unlawfully inadequate under a duty-of-care framework and ordered the State to achieve at least a 25% reduction in national GHG emissions by the end of 2020 compared to 1990, while leaving the government free to choose the instruments to meet that target.


Urgenda Found. v. State of the Neth. (Min. of Infrastructure & Env’t), No. C/09/456689/HA ZA 13-1396 (Hague Dist. Ct. June 24, 2015)