1 / 17

Urgenda v. The Netherlands

Urgenda v. The Netherlands. 10 th AIDA CCWP – Copenhagen Stijn Franken. Urgenda v. The Netherlands. Urgenda : Dutch foundation Writ of summons: 20 November 2013 Court of First Instance ( Rechtbank Den Haag ) Pleadings: 14 April 2015 Judgment: 24 June 2015. Some facts.

anniemartin
Download Presentation

Urgenda v. The Netherlands

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Urgenda v. The Netherlands 10th AIDA CCWP – Copenhagen Stijn Franken

  2. Urgenda v. The Netherlands • Urgenda: Dutch foundation • Writ of summons: 20 November 2013 • Court of First Instance (Rechtbank Den Haag) • Pleadings: 14 April 2015 • Judgment: 24 June 2015

  3. Some facts • International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): • UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) (1992, Rio de Janeiro) • 195 countries (including EU) • IPCC reports: 1990, 1995, 2001, 2007, 2014 • Relation between: • CO2 concentration • World wide temperature

  4. Some facts • CO2 concentration (> 90% certainty): • Before industrial revolution (10.000 years): • Between 260 - 280 parts per million (ppm) • Bandwidth of 20 ppm • 1750: 280 ppm • 1890: 290 ppm • 1910: 303 ppm • 1930: 310 ppm • 1950: 315 ppm • 1980: 340 ppm • 2013: 400 ppm • 2035: 450 ppm • Per decade: 20 ppm

  5. Some facts • Effects of CO2 concentration increase: • Land: 30 to 50 years • Sea (ice): much longer

  6. Some facts • Worldwide average temperature: • Before industrial revolution: app. 14 degrees Celsius • At present: + 0,8 degrees Celsius (increase until 1980, 340 ppm) • Future: + 0,6 degrees Celsius (increase until 2013, 400 ppm) • Inevitable: total of + 1,4 degrees Celsius

  7. Some facts: bad news • If worldwide average temperature: • Increases > 2 degrees Celsius • > 90% certainty: all societies, world wide, will be affected negatively, and ‘point of no return’ will be passed • If concentration of CO2: • > 450 ppm • > 50% risk of an increase in temperature of > 2 degrees Celsius • Critical (UNFCC 2009, Copenhagen): • 2 degrees Celsius (inevitable: 1,4 degrees Celsius) • 450 ppm (2035)

  8. Some facts: good news • Human activity (fossil fuel): • > 95% certainty: cause of increase CO2 concentration and temperature raise • Critical points can be avoided, if: • Industrialized countries (EU) • Will reduce CO2 emission with 25%-40% (cp. to 1990) • By ultimately 2020

  9. Some critical facts • By 2012: • Germany, Denmark: - 21% (cp. 1990) • The Netherlands: - 5,2% (cp. 1990) • By 2020: • EU: - 20% (cp. 1990) • The Netherlands: - 16% (cp. 1990) • ‘Emission gap’: • Eur. Ec. Soc. Committee (2009) • Eur. Commission (2010) • UN Environmental Program (2010) • Ned. Planbureauvoor de Leefomgeving(2010)

  10. Some critical facts • World bank (2012): • + 4 degrees Celsius would be devastating • Int. Energy Agency (2013): • Intensive action is required before 2020 • Otherwise, costs will be 400% more expensive

  11. Claim Urgenda • Declatory relief: • By 2020: CO2 reduction of minimal 25%-40% (cp. to 1990) • Claim based on: • Duty of care • Human rights • Causation • Margin of appreciation/position courts v. politics

  12. Duty of care • Hoge Raad 6 November 1965, NJ 1966, 136 (trapdoor ruling) • Duty of care depends on: • Foreseeability of the risk • Amount of risk • Severity of the risk • Possibility to take preventive measures

  13. Duty of care • Foreseeability of the risk: • IPCC, as accepted by the international community: • Raise of temperature due to human activity (fossil fuel) • CO2 emission of 450 ppm and temperature of + 2 degrees Celsius are critical • Amount of risk: • IPCC, as acceptedby the international community: • > 95% certainty as to the human activity • > 90% certainty as to 450 ppmand + 2 degrees Celsius

  14. Duty of care • Severity of the risk: • + 2 degrees Celsius (2009, Copenhagen): • Point of no return passed • Allsocieties, worldwide, willbeaffectednegatively • + 1,5 degreesCelsius alreadyrisky (2010, Cancun) • USSC Massachusetts v. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (2007) • Possibilityto take preventivemeasures: • By 2020: CO2 reduction of 25%-40% (cp. 1990) • Technicallyandfinanciallyfeasable • IEA (2013): after 2020 costswillraisewith 400%

  15. Human rights • Eur. Convention of Human Rights/ Eur. Charter: • Art. 2/2: right to life • Art. 8/7: family life • Direct effect: • Eur. Convention: Dutch Constitution (artt. 93, 94); • Eur. Charter: EU Court of Justice • Eur. Court of Human Rights: • Positiveobligation on Member States • In case of a threateninginfringement • Particularly, ifindividual have no alternative • Alsoifit concerns generalrisks, interets

  16. Causation • HR 23 September 1988, NJ 1989, 743 (Rhine, potash mines) • Pollution: pro rata liability, “unlessnegligible” • The Netherlands, out of 217 countries (World Bank, 2009): • Per capita: • 1. Australia • 2. SaudiArabia • 3. USA • 4. Canada • 5. the Netherlands • Absolute figures: • 1. China • 2. USA • (…) • 25. the Netherlands

  17. Margin of appreciation/ position courts v. politics • One of the maindefences of the Dutch government • USSC American Electric Power v. Connecticut (2011): • “Certainly, the politicalimplications of anydecisioninvolvingpossiblelimits on carbon emissions are important in the context of global warming, but notevery case withpoliticalovertones is non-justifiable. It is error toequate a political question with a political case (…) Given the checks andbalancesamong the three branches of ourgovernment, the judiciarycan no more usurp executive andlegislatedprerogativesthanitcandeclinetodecide on matterswithinitsjurisdictionsimplybecausesuchmattersmay have politicalramifications” • Rechtbank Den Haag?...

More Related