Justice forces Netherlands to step up climate action, gives NGOs 'hope'

"Huge victory for climate justice", celebrated the NGO Greenpeace. The Dutch Supreme Court on Friday, December 20 in The Hague, condemned the Dutch state for climate inaction, ordering it a "final obligation" to redouble its efforts and "to achieve a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. greenhouse effect of at least 25% by the end of 2020 compared to 1990 levels, "said the judges.

The highest court in the country has confirmed two previous decisions, challenged by the government, "under the European Convention on Human Rights" (ECHR), she said. According to the judges, the Dutch state had not done enough to protect its citizens from the dangerous effects of climate change. Because it could "threaten their lives and their well-being".

Pollution and vulnerable champions

Seat of the oil giant Shell, the Netherlands is also home to the most important seaport in Europe… and is among the biggest polluters on the continent. Small, but densely populated, the country ranks third in CO2 emissions per capita among members of the European Union, according to the World Bank, and only 7% of its energy comes from renewable sources.

The country is also very vulnerable to the consequences of global warming, almost a third of its territory being below sea level.

"We are very very happy, of course, because justice has recognized that climate change is a reality and a human rights issue," Marjan Minnesma, director of the environmental NGO Urgenda, told France 24. the origin, with 900 Dutch, of this legal action in 2015. "This decision gives us hope for other parts of the world, where this violation of human rights is sometimes more serious than here", she added.

"It's a historic decision," said Nigel Brook, environmental expert for Clyde & Co. "Not only because of its legal basis, but because of the principle that government must protect the citizens of a country. against the dangers of climate change, "he said in an interview with Reuters.

History is written @climatecase @Urgenda pic.twitter.com/yByIgDOElW

No sanction stipulated in the event of non-compliance

During his weekly press conference, Prime Minister Mark Rutte acknowledged that the obligation stipulated by the courts was "complicated" because his government "must complete what remains to be done in a very short time". However, he said he would do "everything possible to achieve this goal".

However, the Supreme Court did not set out a penalty for non-compliance with this decision. "We have not asked, because we consider that there is no reason that the government does not respect the decision of the highest court of justice in the Netherlands", justified to France 24 Dennis Van Berkel, the lawyer for the Urgenda association.

The French State regularly called to order

What if the government does not respect this decision? "What do you mean? It would create a state of imminent danger, with very serious consequences for the lives of citizens. And that would mean that we are no longer in a state governed by the rule of law," added Dennis Van Berkel, astonished that a government can ignore court decisions.

The president of the French NGO Marie Toussaint, everyone, is not surprised by such a question. "In France, just on air pollution, environmental associations and the justice system must call the state to order every time," she explains to France 24.

Towards similar decisions across Europe?

However, it is an "extremely important decision", sums up Marie Toussaint, herself at the origin of a similar complaint in France, with three other associations, including Greenpeace, called the Affair of the century. "Now all the constitutional courts of the countries signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights should be forced to adopt similar decisions".

In France, "we hope that the administrative court recognizes that global warming leads to the violation of human rights," she said while awaiting the judgment, scheduled for 2020. "If ever the state does not respect this possible decision, we will come back before the judges for reparation measures, "she said.

In a statement, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, also welcomed a "historic decision" intended to "protect human rights".

"We will continue to force states to take responsibility"

While Dennis Van Berkel "hopes that this decision will force other countries to take the same measures", other similar procedures have not met with the same success. In 2018, three German families sued the government of Angela Merkel, judging that their crops were victims of droughts and bad weather due to global warming and the inaction of the German government. Their request was deemed "unacceptable", the German environmental objectives not being "binding". They decided in December not to appeal.

Marjan Minnesma remains optimistic, however: "If the States continue not to assume their responsibilities, as they did in Madrid during COP25, we will continue to force them through justice."

Newsletter Don't miss anything from international news

subscribe