elni Review 2020, pp. 7-11. https://doi.org/10.46850/elni.2020.002

The judgment of the Hoge Raad (hereafter HR) given on 20 December 2019 in the Urgenda case upheld the Court of Appeal judgment of 9 October 2018 ruling on a collective interest action brought by the Urgenda Foundation on behalf of 886 Dutch citizens objecting to the inadequacy of measures to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the Netherlands. The HR largely endorsed the particularly detailed advisory opinions delivered on 13 September 2019 by Procurator General F.F. Langemeijer and Advocate General M.H. Wissink. The HR judgment is of particular interest in view of the personal, temporal and substantive scope of Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereafter ECHR).
In recent years there has been an increasing debate on the link between climate change and positive obligations of a preventive nature that are incumbent upon States under human rights law. In the landmark Urgenda case, the HR held that, given the severity of the impact of climate change, the Dutch State is subject to a duty of care in accordance with Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to privacy and family life) ECHR, which have direct effect, and is required to adopt mitigating measures. These measures must involve a 25% reduction of GHG emissions by the end of 2020, instead of the government's projected reduction of 20%. This target is deemed to be necessary so as to limit the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere to 450 ppm in order to prevent the dangerous climate change that would be associated with any temperature rise in excess of 2°C.

Access full article

References

1. Case C-19/0035, Urgenda [2019] HR: 2019: 2006.
2. The Hague Court of Appeal, 9 October 2018, Netherlands v Urgenda, confirming the obligation of the Netherlands to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 25% by 2020 compared with levels in 1990. Transnational Environmental Law, Volume 8, Issue 1, March 2019, pp. 167 – 192, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102519000049.
3. Case Guerra v. Italy, 19 December 1998.
4. European Court of Human Rights, 2004, Case of Taskin and others v. Turkey, 10 November 2004.
5. Case Luginbühl v. Switzerland, 17 January 2006.
6. European Court of Human Rights, 2006, Case Öçkan and others v. Turkey, 28 March 2006.
7. European Court of Human Rights, 2009, Case Tatar v. Romania, 27 January 2009.
8. European Court of Human Rights, 2004, Case Öneryildiz v. Turkey, 30 November 2004, no. 48939/99.
9. European Court of Human Rights, 2008, Budayeva and Others v. Russia, 20 March 2008, nos 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02.
10. N. de Sadeleer, ‘Enforcing EUCHR Principles and Fundamental Rights in Environmental Cases’, 81 (2012) Nordic Journal of International Law, 39–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/157181011X618758.
11. N. de Sadeleer, EU Environmental Law and the Internal Market (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2014), 112-122.
12. Case Ruano Morcuende v. Spain, 6 September 2005.
13. European Court of Human Rights, 2005, Case Fadeyeva v. Russia, 9 June 2005, Application no. 55723/00.
14. European Court of Human Rights, 2004, Case Moreno Gómez v. Spain, 16 November 2004, Application no. 55723/00.
15. European Court of Human Rights, 2009, Case Tatar v. Romania, 27 January 2009, application no. 67021/01. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the Romanian authorities’ failure to protect the right of the applicants, who lived in the vicinity of a gold mine, to enjoy a healthy and protected environment.
16. European Court of Human Rights, 2010, Case Dées v. Hungary, 9 November 2010, Application no. 2345/06.
17. European Court of Human Rights, 2005, Case Fadeyeva v. Russia, 9 June 2005, Application No. 55723/00. 
18. European Court of Human Rights, 2010, Case Mileva v. Bulgaria, 25 November 2010, Applications nos. 43449/02 and 21475/04.
19. European Court of Human Rights, 1994, Case Lopez Ostra v. Spain, 9 December 1994, Application no. 16798/90.
20. Case Ruano Morcuende v. Spain, 17 January 2006.
21. European Court of Human Rights, 2019, Case Cordella et al v. Italy, 24 January 2019, n. 54414/13 and n. 54264/15. The Court unanimously established Italy’s responsibility in failing to adopt the necessary administrative and legal measures to de-pollute the affected area and to provide individuals with an effective domestic remedy to challenge the dangerous and uncertain status quo, in violation of Arts 8 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
22. European Court of Human Rights, 2006, Case Giacomelli v. Italy, 2 November 2006, Application no. 59909/00.
23. European Court of Human Rights, 2011, Case Grimkovskaya v Ukraine, 2 July 2011, Application no. 38182/03.
24. European Court of Human Rights, 2012, Case Maile and Hardy v. The United Kingdom, Application no. 31965/07.
25. High Court of Justice of London, United Kingdom, 2008, Downs v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, The judge said "defects" in Defra's approach to pesticide safety contravened a 1991 EC directive. [2008] EWHC 2666 (Admin).
26. European Court of Human Rights, 1999, Case Asselbourg and 78 Others and Greenpeace Luxemburg v. Luxemburg, 29 June 1999.
27. European Court of Human Rights, 1999, Case Bernard and 47 others physical persons as well as Greenpeace Luxemburg v. Luxemburg, 29 June 1999.
28. European Court of Human Rights, 2011, Case Grimkovskaya v. Ukraine, 21 July 2011, Application no. 38182/03.
29. Court of Justice of Den Haag, 2018, Urgenda climate case. Unlawful act. Violation of duty of care under articles 2 and 8 ECHR. State must now further reduce greenhouse gases. Judgment upheld, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2018:2591.
30. N. de Sadeleer, Environmental Principles: from Political Slogans to Legal Rules, 2nd ed. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2020) 135-369. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198844358.001.0001.
31. O. De Schutter, ‘Changements climatiques et droits humains: l'affaire Urgenda’ (2020) Rev. Tr. Dr. H. 15.