On December 20, 2019, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands confirmed the judgements of a District Court and an Appeal Court requiring the Dutch Government to achieve a reduction of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions of 25% by 2020 compared to 1990, instead of the 20% reduction that the government had envisioned since 2011. The case was brought by the Urgenda Foundation — a Dutch NGO — and has resulted in a landmark decision that may influence climate change litigation in other countries across Europe, such as the lawsuit filed by NGOs in Germany on January 15, 2020.

Three Striking Conclusions for International Climate Change Law

The Dutch Supreme Court’s decision contains three striking messages:

  1. The decision considers that the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) imposes a positive obligation on countries to take measures to mitigate climate change. On the basis of an expansive interpretation of Articles 2 (right to life) and Article 8 (right to private and family life) of the ECHR, the Court takes the view that climate change poses such a “real and immediate” risk to the citizens of the Netherlands that the ECHR requires the Dutch Government to mitigate climate change.
  2. The decision also takes the view that countries have an obligation to take measures to mitigate climate change even if their share in GHG emissions is minimal. The Court concluded from the UNFCCC and its protocols and principles of international law that each country has an individual responsibility to do its part in resolving a global problem, and can be held accountable in a Court. This is in line with the Paris Agreement, which recognizes that climate change is a global responsibility requiring the “engagement of all levels of government and various actors.”
  3. The decision interprets different open-ended international obligations, “soft law” commitments and scientific reports to conclude that the target of 25% reduction is legally binding on the Dutch Government in light of articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR. This means that in view of the Dutch Supreme Court not only countries are individually responsible to fight climate change, but courts can also determine the “fair share” of climate change mitigation of each state.

Violation of the Principle of Separation of Powers?

The Supreme Court rejected the Dutch Government’s arguments that the order of the District Court requiring it to reduce GHG emissions by 25% instead of 20% constituted an order to legislative and that it is not for the judge to make political assessment on the reduction of emissions. The Supreme Court considered that there is no order to legislate because the government is free to choose the measures that it considers appropriate to attain the 25% reduction. It also argued that climate change is such an exceptional situation and poses such a threat that measures are urgently necessary.

A Precedent for a Trend in Europe?

The Supreme Court’s decision is a landmark decision in climate change litigation, but its full impact on climate change litigation across Europe will depend on at least three issues:

  1. To what extent NGOs will be able to rely on the ECHR in their climate change litigation against governments in other European countries that are contracting parties to the Convention? This will not only depend on the possibility to rely on the direct application of the ECHR in national courts but also on the extent to which those courts will be willing to follow the Supreme Court’s expansive interpretation of Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR.
  2. Related to the first question, would the European Court of Human Rights agree with the Dutch Supreme Court’s interpretation of Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR? The Dutch Court recognized that the European Court has never decided on climate change issues, but did not think it was necessary to request its opinion. While the ECHR establishes the principle of subsidiarity and allows national courts some discretion when applying the Convention, an European Court’s interpretation of the ECHR in light of climate change could have a significant impact across Europe both in term of litigation and policy action.
  3. Last but not least, to what extent might courts extend the conclusion that each country has an individual responsibility to reduce emissions to companies? For example, do companies have an obligation under article 2 ECHR to mitigate climate change?
Photo of Cándido García Molyneux Cándido García Molyneux

Cándido García Molyneux provides clients with regulatory, policy and strategic advice on EU environmental and product safety legislation. He helps clients influence EU legislation and guidance and comply with requirements in an efficient manner, representing them before the EU Courts and institutions.

Cándido…

Cándido García Molyneux provides clients with regulatory, policy and strategic advice on EU environmental and product safety legislation. He helps clients influence EU legislation and guidance and comply with requirements in an efficient manner, representing them before the EU Courts and institutions.

Cándido co-chairs the firm’s Environmental Practice Group.

Cándido has a deep knowledge of EU requirements on chemicals, circular economy and waste management, climate change, energy efficiency, renewable energies as well as their interrelationship with specific product categories and industries, such as electronics, cosmetics, healthcare products, and more general consumer products. He has worked on energy consumption and energy efficiency requirements of AI models under the EU AI Act.

In addition, Cándido has particular expertise on EU institutional and trade law, and the import of food products into the EU. Cándido also regularly advises clients on Spanish food and drug law.

Cándido is described by Chambers Europe as being “creative and frighteningly smart.” His clients note that “he has a very measured, considered, deliberative manner,” and that “he has superb analytical and writing skills.”

Read more about Cándido García Molyneux
Show more Show less
Photo of Bart Van Vooren Bart Van Vooren

Bart Van Vooren, partner leads a dynamic practice at the intersection of EU regulatory law, global health, and biodiversity law. In these fields, he advises innovative pharmaceutical, food, cosmetic and technology companies on complex EU and global regulatory, compliance and policy assignments.

Bart…

Bart Van Vooren, partner leads a dynamic practice at the intersection of EU regulatory law, global health, and biodiversity law. In these fields, he advises innovative pharmaceutical, food, cosmetic and technology companies on complex EU and global regulatory, compliance and policy assignments.

Bart holds a Ph.D. in EU and International Law and was a professor of EU law until 2013. During that time, he wrote the first-ever handbook with Cambridge University Press on “EU External Relations Law” (2014). He then transitioned to private practice, and frequently acted for the Belgian government before the EU Court of Justice (e.g. C-16/16P Belgium vs Commission). Bart joined Covington in 2016, leading some of our most consequential EU litigation proceedings (e.g. C-311/18 “Schrems II”) over the years.  Having handled nearly 50 cases before the EU Court, he’s uniquely qualified to support our corporate clients in our most high-stakes disputes. Recent examples include T-189/21 Aloe Vera of Europe v Commission (which we won, so the Commission decided to appeal); as well as T-201/21 Covington & Burling and Van Vooren v Commission (which we also won, and hence is also on appeal).

As a pioneer in biodiversity law, over the past 15 years Bart has built a unique, global practice on Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) laws under the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Nagoya Protocol, the Plant Treaty, the High Seas Treaty and the WHO Pandemic Agreement. ABS compliance is critical when sourcing biological materials for life sciences R&D and I work with many of the world’s innovative life sciences companies on the whole range of e.g. transactional, contractual, compliance, IP, (EU) regulatory and litigation work relating to ABS. As biodiversity has increasingly become identified as a major commercial and financial risk to companies, so has the practice expanded to e.g. biodiversity credit markets, biodiversity insurance, biodiversity claims and advertising, and so on. Since April 2025, Bart has been appointed as the industry representative to the Steering Committee of the UN Biodiversity Fund that seeks funding from the private sector for biodiversity conservation and restoration.

Bart also pioneered our global health practice. He has advised pharmaceutical clients on seasonal and pandemic influenza since 2016. Since then, this practice area expanded to cover all matters relating to infectious diseases, and as of 2020, emergency preparedness and response (eg. WHO prequalification, International Coordination Group negotiations, Emergency Use Listing, International Health Regulations Rev 2024). He has been the pharmaceutical industry’s lead lawyer advising on the WHO Pandemic Treaty negotiations, adopted on 14 May 2025. Currently, he continues to advise on the work of the Intergovernmental Working Group (“IGWG”) teasing out the technical details of the “Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System” intended to create legally binding obligations on companies to commit vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics in case of a new global health emergency.

In Chambers rankings, clients have kindly described Bart as “very knowledgeable, action-focused and service-focused lawyer”, adding that he “really tries to find a way of working through challenges”, am “customer-oriented” and provide “sound advice and reasonable options for our business with pros and cons.”

Finally, Bart has an active pro bono practice assisting NGOs defending the human rights of persons with a disability through strategic litigation before the EU Court.

Read more about Bart Van Vooren
Show more Show less