The State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation
The Hague Court of Appeal, Civil-Law Division
ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2018:2610 (2018)

- Written by Solveig Singleton, JD
Facts
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) included Article 2, which protected the right to life, and Article 8, which protected the right to family life. Both articles could apply to environmental issues and problems. As of 2018, the Netherlands (defendant) was one of the countries with the highest greenhouse gas emissions in the world. Before 2011, environmental authorities within the government of the Netherlands agreed that the Netherlands should try to reduce emissions 30 percent by the end of 2020. However, following difficult negotiations with other European nations, the Netherlands committed to rules that would reduce emissions only 20 percent. Internationally, the United Nations called for nations to reduce emissions from 25–40 percent, and many authorities agreed with this goal. Urgent Agenda, or Urgenda (plaintiff), a citizens’ group dedicated to addressing climate change, believed that the Netherlands should do more to reduce emissions. Urgenda brought suit in district court in the Netherlands, arguing that the Netherlands’ refusal to do more violated its duty of care under the ECHR. The district court agreed with Urgenda that the Netherlands had acted unlawfully and ordered that the state adopt a reduction target of 25 percent.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.