Decision ‘provides a clear path forward for concerned individuals to undertake climate litigation’
 |
| Marjan Minnesma (second on right), director of environment NGO Urgenda, holds a banner outside the Supreme Court prior its ruling in the Urgenda case on 20 December in The Hague. (AFP/Getty) |
Hailed as an “immense victory for climate justice”, the supreme court rejected the government’s appeal against earlier rulings, handing environmental activists a final victory in a gruelling six-year legal battle.
The Dutch government will now have to cut emissions by at least 25 per cent by the end of 2020 from benchmark 1990 levels.
“This is the most important climate change court decision in the world so far, confirming that human rights are jeopardised by the climate emergency and that wealthy nations are legally obligated to achieve rapid and substantial emission reductions,” said the UN’s special rapporteur on human rights and the environment, Dr David Boyd.
Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte said he guaranteed his government would do everything it could to reach 2020 target, without elaborating on possible measures.
| Climate change: Decade's defining issue in pictures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  |
| Athens, GreeceIn this decade, humans have become ever more aware of climate change. Calls for leaders to act echo around the globe as the signs of a changing climate become ever more difficult to ignore. AFP/Getty |
It is now more than four years since a court in The Hague first ordered emissions to be cut in a case brought by Dutch organisation Urgenda, which spawned similar legal challenges in courts around the world.
The government appealed that verdict, saying that courts should not be able to order the government to take action. The government lost the appeal in October 2018, but appealed again, this time to the supreme court.
Friday’s ruling rejected that appeal, saying the Dutch government must act “on account of the risk of dangerous climate change that could also have a serious impact on the rights to life and well-being of residents of the Netherlands.”
“Those consequences are happening already,” Justice Kees Streefkerk, the chief justice, said in the decision.
The court found that, based on the European Convention on Human Rights, the government had a legal duty to protect its citizens from climate breakdown, and should shape policy accordingly.
Experts said this paved the way for activists in all 47 member states on the Council of Europe to use the courts to ensure their governments took appropriate measures to prevent climate breakdown.
“This landmark ruling provides a clear path forward for concerned individuals in Europe — and around the world — to undertake climate litigation in order to protect human rights, and I pay tribute to the civil society groups which initiated this action,” said the UN’s high commissioner for human rights, Michelle Bachelet.
The 2015 ruling was the first anywhere in the world ordering a government to curb emissions, and of 1,442 climate lawsuits around the world, Friday’s “was the strongest decision ever”, Michael Gerrard, director Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law told the New York Times.
There have since been lawsuits in countries ranging from South Africa to Germany, with mixed results.
Earlier this month, three German farming families said they won’t appeal a court’s decision to dismiss their climate change lawsuit against Angela Merkel’s government.
Links
- Doctrine of Public Trust
- Dutch Court Upholds Urgenda, Says Government Must Reduce Emissions
- Dutch Government Appeals Against Court Ruling Over Emissions Cuts
- Are Countries Legally Required To Protect Citizens From Climate Change?
- See You In Court, Citizens Tell Governments On Climate Change
- The Trial Of The Century
- A Dramatic New Plan To Fight Climate Change: Sue The Federal Government
- More People Heading To Court To Spur Action On Climate Change, Study Finds
- Climate Change Before The Court
No comments:
Post a Comment