1. International Law Firm | Amsterdam · Brussels · London · Luxembourg · New York · Rotterdam Urgenda v. The Netherlands 10 th AIDA CCWP – Copenhagen Stijn Franken

2. International Law Firm | Amsterdam · Brussels · London · Luxembourg · New York · Rotterdam 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. International Law Firm | Amsterdam · Brussels · London · Luxembourg · New York · Rotterdam 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. International Law Firm | Amsterdam · Brussels · London · Luxembourg · New York · Rotterdam 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. International Law Firm | Amsterdam · Brussels · London · Luxembourg · New York · Rotterdam Some facts -Effects of CO2 concentration increase: *Land: 30 to 50 years *Sea (ice): much longer

6. International Law Firm | Amsterdam · Brussels · London · Luxembourg · New York · Rotterdam 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. International Law Firm | Amsterdam · Brussels · London · Luxembourg · New York · Rotterdam 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. International Law Firm | Amsterdam · Brussels · London · Luxembourg · New York · Rotterdam 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. International Law Firm | Amsterdam · Brussels · London · Luxembourg · New York · Rotterdam 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. Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving (2010)

10. International Law Firm | Amsterdam · Brussels · London · Luxembourg · New York · Rotterdam 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. International Law Firm | Amsterdam · Brussels · London · Luxembourg · New York · Rotterdam 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. International Law Firm | Amsterdam · Brussels · London · Luxembourg · New York · Rotterdam 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. International Law Firm | Amsterdam · Brussels · London · Luxembourg · New York · Rotterdam 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 accepted by the international community: -> 95% certainty as to the human activity -> 90% certainty as to 450 ppm and + 2 degrees Celsius

14. International Law Firm | Amsterdam · Brussels · London · Luxembourg · New York · Rotterdam Duty of care -Severity of the risk: *+ 2 degrees Celsius (2009, Copenhagen): -Point of no return passed -All societies, world wide, will be affected negatively *+ 1,5 degrees Celsius already risky (2010, Cancun) *USSC Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007) -Possibility to take preventive measures: *By 2020: CO2 reduction of 25%-40% (cp. 1990) *Technically and financially feasable *IEA (2013): after 2020 costs will raise with 400%

15. International Law Firm | Amsterdam · Brussels · London · Luxembourg · New York · Rotterdam 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: *Positive obligation on Member States *In case of a threatening infringement *Particularly, if individual have no alternative *Also if it concerns general risks, interets

16. International Law Firm | Amsterdam · Brussels · London · Luxembourg · New York · Rotterdam Causation -HR 23 September 1988, NJ 1989, 743 (Rhine, potash mines) *Pollution: pro rata liability, “unless negligible” *The Netherlands, out of 217 countries (World Bank, 2009): -Per capita: -1. Australia -2. Saudi Arabia -3. USA -4. Canada -5. the Netherlands -Absolute figures: -1. China -2. USA -(…) -25. the Netherlands

17. International Law Firm | Amsterdam · Brussels · London · Luxembourg · New York · Rotterdam Margin of appreciation/ position courts v. politics -One of the main defences of the Dutch government -USSC American Electric Power v. Connecticut (2011): *“Certainly, the political implications of any decision involving possible limits on carbon emissions are important in the context of global warming, but not every case with political overtones is non- justifiable. It is error to equate a political question with a political case (…) Given the checks and balances among the three branches of our government, the judiciary can no more usurp executive and legislated prerogatives than it can decline to decide on matters within its jurisdiction simply because such matters may have political ramifications” -Rechtbank Den Haag?...