Greenpeace Netherlands, representing the interests of the people of Bonaire, brought claims against the Netherlands for violating the fundamental rights of the inhabitants of Bonaire by failing to take timely appropriate measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The Hague District Court agreed with most of Greenpeace\u2019s claims, holding that the Netherlands failed to fulfill positive human rights obligations towards inhabitants of Bonaire, because the mitigation and adaptation measures taken do not meet the obligations that the state has assumed in a UN context. Id.<\/em> at para. 1.4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bonaire is the largest island in the Caribbean Netherlands, with 26,000 inhabitants on 288 km2 of land. Id.<\/em> at para. 4.2. Bonaire is a public body of the Netherlands, with a governance structure similar to a municipality. Id.<\/em> at paras. 7.6, 7.14. Fishing and agriculture are important to Bonairean culture, and the economy is driven primarily by tourism, especially diving in the surrounding coral reefs. Id.<\/em> at paras. 4.4 and 4.5. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The original petition included both Greenpeace Netherlands, and eight individual claimants. The Hague District Court made an initial decision on admissibility on 25 September 2024, where it found that Greenpeace Netherlands was admissible, and the individual claimants were not. Decision on admissibility, available in Dutch at: https:\/\/cdn.climatepolicyradar.org\/navigator\/NLD\/2024\/greenpeace-netherlands-and-8-citizens-of-bonaire-v-the-netherlands_29896f529c1eb8cbc5e7b9d6060db5a0.pdf<\/a>. The lawsuit was brought as a class action, and the court found that Greenpeace sufficiently represented the interests of the class and met all requirements for the claims to be admissible. For the individual claimants, the court found that the class action procedure does not apply to identical claims from individuals whose interests are represented by a non-profit. Id.<\/em> at para. 3.18. Though individual claimants may be permitted additional claims in a class action, in this case the individual plaintiffs did not file their own claims and did not have their own lawyers, which the court considered an indication that they expected their interests to be represented by Greenpeace. Id.<\/em> at paras. 3.19 & 3.20. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Greenpeace claims that the Netherlands is violating the fundamental rights of the inhabitants of Bonaire under Articles 2, 8, and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to take timely appropriate adaptation measures. Decision on the merits, at para. 8.1. Greenpeace also makes a mitigation claim: that the state is violating fundamental rights by continuing to pursue a climate policy that does not meet minimum requirements for the state\u2019s equitable contribution to limit global warming. Id.<\/em> at para. 8.1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Before proceeding to an analysis of the specific claims, the Hague District Court makes a few general remarks. On the state\u2019s argument that it cannot be blamed because it is not a major contributor to GHG emissions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n states have a shared responsibility in this regard and . . . partly in view of the serious consequences of dangerous climate change, the defence that a state does not need to take responsibility because other countries are not fulfilling their shared responsibility cannot be accepted. Nor can the defence be accepted that a country\u2019s own share of global greenhouse gas emissions is minor and that a reduction in emissions from its own territory makes little difference on a global scale. Acceptance of these defences would mean that a country could simply shirk its shared responsibility by pointing to other countries or to its small share in global emissions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The ECHR confirmed this in 2024: every state bears its own responsibility to take measures against climate change. That responsibility does not depend on what other states do or not do. Under treaty law, States are obliged to take measures against climate change and its consequences, even if the exact effect of those measures is not yet clear. The court therefore rejects the State\u2019s arguments in this case, which boil down to the fact that it is not sufficiently clear what impact the further reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by the Netherlands will have on climate change and its consequences for Bonaire.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Id.<\/em> at paras 9.4-9.5 (citing Urgenda<\/em><\/a> and KlimaSeniorinnen<\/em><\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n In preparing to assess state obligations under the ECHR in the context of climate cases, the court looks to the legal framework set out in the KlimaSeniorinnen<\/em> judgment as a starting point. Id. <\/em>at para. 10.7 et seq<\/em>. Article 2 of the ECHR protects the right to life, and Article 8 protects the right to respect for private and family life. The court also reviews state obligations under the UN climate treaties. Id.<\/em> at paras. 5.1-5.36.3. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Assessment of Greenpeace\u2019s claims<\/p>\n\n\n\n While Greenpeace sought separate declaratory decisions for mitigation and adaptation measures taken by the state, the court decided that it must assess all the climate measures as a whole, and that mitigation and adaptation measures cannot be viewed separately. Id.<\/em> at para. 11.1. The court also decides to only assess measures against Article 8 of the ECHR, deciding that Greenpeace had not sufficiently argued that there was an acute threat, at the collective level, to the right to life of the inhabitants of Bonaire as would be needed for an Article 2 claim. Id.<\/em> at para. 11.3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mitigation<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Greenpeace argues that Dutch targets do not meet the requirements of the UN climate treaties, because the Dutch climate policy does not meet the lower limit of the Dutch fair share, and does not meet requirements necessary to ensure that climate targets are actually achieved. Id.<\/em> at para. 11.5-11.5.2. The court begins its analysis by recalling the obligations under the climate agreements that the state must meet to fulfill its positive obligations under Article 8 of the ECHR. Id.<\/em> at para. 11.7. Although the UN Climate Convention and the agreements based on it do not directly apply to Bonaire, the court decides to assess Greenpeace\u2019s claims against these regulations because they \u201creflect the international consensus on the obligations that states have towards their citizens in the context of climate change.\u201d Id.<\/em> at para. 11.8. The court analyzed in detail the Dutch Climate Act, finding that its first version did not contain any absolute reduction targets and therefore did not comply with the Paris Agreement, and that amendments to the act still did not meet the UN requirements. Id.<\/em> at paras. 11.13.1-13.3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court notes that \u201cnot every shortcoming in a national climate policy constitutes a violation of the positive obligations on the State under Article 8 of the ECHR,\u201d but on the implementation of climate measures, the court finds:<\/p>\n\n\n\n [F]or the period from 2030 to 2050, there are still no concrete, coherent instruments aimed at achieving the reduction targets agreed within the UN context. The Netherlands therefore does not meet the requirement referred to in 11.7 that there must be a binding regulatory framework with intermediate targets and pathways for the agreed reduction of carbon emissions for the entire period until climate neutrality is achieved.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Id.<\/em> at para. 11.14.2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court also criticizes the Netherlands for not clearly quantifying how much emission allowance the state still has of the global remaining emission allowance. Id.<\/em> at para. 11.15. The court notes that the Netherlands cannot point to EU climate objectives, as \u201cit is not clear that the climate objectives at EU level meet the UN minimum standards.\u201d Id.<\/em> at para. 11.15.4. As such, \u201cif the EU\u2019s contribution does not meet UN standards \u2013 which appears to be the case on at least two important points \u2013 the Netherlands must submit its own NDC in accordance with Article 4(16) to (18) of the Paris Agreement.\u201d Id.<\/em> at para. 11.16. The court therefore concludes on the issue of mitigation that Dutch legislation has failed and continues to fail to meet the minimum standards agreed within the UN context. Id.<\/em> at para. 11.17.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Adaptation<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Greenpeace argues that the Netherlands is not treating the inhabitants of Bonaire with the necessary standard of care. Id.<\/em> at para. 11.18. Greenpeace points to the fact that the state has developed and implemented adaptation policies for the European Netherlands since 2010, and yet has failed to do so for Bonaire, especially when the island \u201cfalls under the categories of vulnerable areas that are \u2018particularly affected\u2019 by climate change and therefore have \u2018specific needs and concerns,\u2019\u201d which under the UN Climate Convention require special attention (\u2018full consideration\u2019) from states. Id. <\/em>at para. 11.18.4-5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court looks at the UNFCCC as the relevant legal framework, requiring<\/p>\n\n\n\n member states to draw up national programmes for \u2018measures to facilitate adequate adaptation to climate change\u2019. Member states must then implement, publish and regularly update these programmes. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Id.<\/em> at para. 11.20.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court first notes that there is no climate adaptation plan or integrated climate adaptation policy for Bonaire, \u201ceven though it has been known for three decades that the island is particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of climate change.\u201d Id.<\/em> at para. 11.24. Although there is now a process in progress to develop a plan, the court noted with concern that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The fact that nothing concrete can yet be said about the timeline is difficult to reconcile with the urgency of implementing a coherent and comprehensive adaptation policy for Bonaire. Since the early 1990s, it has been clear that the inhabitants of small islands worldwide are at above-average risk of experiencing serious negative consequences of climate change in the relatively short term. For more than a decade, it has been clear that climate change no longer only poses future risks for small islands in the Caribbean, but that their inhabitants are already suffering actual damage to their health, material damage and immaterial damage as a result of climate change. It was also clear . . . that Caribbean government institutions did not have sufficient knowledge and resources to tackle complex and far-reaching problems such as climate change.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Id.<\/em> at para. 11.24.4 (internal parenthetical omitted). <\/p>\n\n\n\n The court also critiques the state\u2019s insufficient scientific research on the impacts of climate change on Bonaire, and lack of financial resources for implementation of any adaptation-related policies. Id.<\/em> at para. 11.25 & 26. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The court concludes that though future climate targets may still be met, \u201cthe State failed to sufficiently (and timely) fulfil its duty of care to take appropriate adaptation measures in a timely manner to reduce the vulnerability of Bonaire and its inhabitants to climate change.\u201d Id.<\/em> at para. 11.28.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Procedural safeguards<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The court finds that historically the lack of binding national standards and concrete policy instruments make it more difficult for citizens to participate in combating climate change, and the lack of a clear policy framework makes it difficult for citizens and civil society organizations to hold the government accountable. Id.<\/em> at para. 11.35.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Unequal treatment<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Greenpeace also bases claims on Article 14 of the ECHR and the Twelfth Protocol to the ECHR, which protect against discrimination. Id.<\/em> at para. 11.37. The court finds that there has been a violation of these provisions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The circumstances on Bonaire and in the Netherlands are different in the sense that Bonaire is at greater risk from climate change more quickly than the European Netherlands and that the inhabitants of Bonaire have already been suffering actual damage from the negative effects of climate change for some time, while it has also been known for a long time that the local authorities lack the resources and executive power to adequately protect the inhabitants from the negative effects of climate change. The differences that have emerged in these proceedings therefore indicate an even greater urgency in drawing up and implementing a coherent and integrated climate adaptation policy for Bonaire than existed for the European Netherlands. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Why a coherent and integrated climate adaptation policy was already implemented in the European Netherlands in 2016, but now a decade later there is still no climate adaptation plan available for the island of Bonaire, and it is also unclear when this will be available, therefore requires further explanation.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Id. <\/em>at para. 11.46.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Allowability of claimed declaratory decisions<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The court decides that on the basis of Article 8 of the ECHR, the state has a legal obligation to protect the right of Bonaire\u2019s inhabitants to life, health, well-being and the enjoyment of their own culture against the negative effects of climate change, and that the state has failed to fulfill this legal obligation, in violation of the prohibition against discrimination. Id.<\/em> at para. 11.50. The state can be ordered by the court to fulfill these obligations, unless certain exceptions are met. Id.<\/em> at para. 11.51. Case law of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands provides two considerations: the court may not interfere in the political decision-making process involved in the enactment of legislation, and a legislative order must create a regulation that also applies to parties other than those involved in the proceedings. Id.<\/em> at para. 11.53. <\/p>\n\n\n\n On the first consideration:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The consideration that the court may not interfere in the political decision-making process involved in the creation of legislation does not mean that the court may not enter the field of political decisionmaking at all. After all, the court must, on the basis of Article 94 of the Constitution, not apply legislation if so required by provisions of treaties that are binding on everyone. However, the court may not, by issuing a legislative order, interfere in political decision-making on the appropriateness of enacting legislation with a specific, concretely defined content.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Id.<\/em> at para. 11.53.1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the second consideration:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court does not have the power to decide in a manner that is binding on everyone how a legal regulation should be worded. A legislative order therefore has the disadvantage that third parties who are not involved in the proceedings and who are therefore not bound by the judgment are nevertheless (indirectly) bound by that order because the legislation will also apply to them.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Id.<\/em> at para. 11.53.2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court therefore is not permitted to enact legislation with specific content, but can order the state to take measures to achieve a specific objective. Id.<\/em> at para. 11.53.3. The court dismisses the orders sought by Greenpeace that amounted to orders to enact legislation with specific content, but retains those that do not. Id.<\/em> at para. 11.55-58.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Provisional enforceability<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Netherlands requested that the claims be found not provisionally enforceable. Id.<\/em> at para. 11.59. The court disagrees, finding that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n [T]he interest of Greenpeace (and the inhabitants of Bonaire) in the requested provisional enforceability outweighs that of the State in maintaining the existing situation. After all, in this judgment, the State is only ordered to comply with obligations it had already undertaken. Compliance with this order can be achieved in part by (effectively) implementing already applicable rules and policies and by carrying out ongoing or planned projects.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Id.<\/em> at para. 11.62.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Conclusion<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The state was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings. Id.<\/em> at para. 11.63.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court rules that the Netherlands violated and continues to violate the fundamental rights of the inhabitants of Bonaire under Article 8 of the ECHR by pursuing a climate policy that does not make an equitable contribution to worldwide measures to limit climate change, and that the Netherlands has failed to take timely and appropriate measures to protect Bonaire inhabitants from effects of climate change and failing to involve them in decision-making measures. Id.<\/em> at para. 12.1. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The court orders the state to incorporate absolute emission reduction targets for the entire economy into national legislation within eighteen months of the judgment. Id.<\/em> at para. 12.2. The court finds that the Netherlands violated Article 14 and the Twelfth Protocol of the ECHR by treating the inhabitants of Bonaire differently from the European Netherlands when taking adaptation measures, and orders that targets for implementation of the national adaptation plan cover Bonaire. Id.<\/em> at 12.3-4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Greenpeace Netherlands v. The State of the Netherlands, Case number: C\/09\/659832 \/ HA ZA 24-53 (28 January 2026), ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2026:1344 Greenpeace Netherlands, representing the interests of the people of Bonaire, brought claims against the Netherlands for violating the fundamental rights of the inhabitants of Bonaire by failing to take timely appropriate measures to mitigate and adapt […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","resource-topic":[35,30492,122,43,159,44,30493,2052],"resource-type":[528],"resource-category":[30097],"content-for-websites":[30100,30101],"region":[533,549],"class_list":["post-58570","resource","type-resource","status-publish","hentry","resource-topic-access-to-justice","resource-topic-adaptation","resource-topic-attorney-fees-and-costs","resource-topic-climate-change","resource-topic-coral-reefs","resource-topic-marine-and-coastal","resource-topic-mitigation","resource-topic-pivotal-cases","resource-type-cases","resource-category-legal","content-for-websites-caribbean","content-for-websites-climate","region-caribbean","region-caribbean-netherlands"],"blocksy_meta":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource\/58570","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/resource"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=58570"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58570"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"resource-topic","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-topic?post=58570"},{"taxonomy":"resource-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-type?post=58570"},{"taxonomy":"resource-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-category?post=58570"},{"taxonomy":"content-for-websites","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/content-for-websites?post=58570"},{"taxonomy":"region","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/region?post=58570"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n