CIVILIAN

Urgenda judgment remains in force, it is the turn of the Dutch State

The HR rejects the appeal in cassation against the judgment of the Court of Appeal ruling that the State is under an obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020 compared to 1990. This - positive - obligation for the State to in accordance with its share, to take measures to protect against the risk of climate change based on art. 2 and 8 ECHR, which also serve to protect society and the population as a whole. The judge can give the State an order to that effect. It is then up to the State to determine with which concrete measures it will comply. If legislative measures are required for this, it is up to the State to assess which specific legislation is desirable and necessary.

ECLI: NL: HR: 2019: 2006 

CIVILIAN

Elaboration of measures in the event of an incident until declaration of non-enforceability in stock

According to the HR, the starting point is that a pronounced conviction must be enforceable and can be enforced without the condition of a guarantee. This starting point can be deviated from if the interests of the convicted person in maintaining the existing situation as long as the legal remedy he has brought has not been decided, or if his interest in providing a guarantee, also given this starting point, outweighs the interests of the person sentencing the conviction. in the judgment to be enforced. This balancing of interests must be based on the decisions in the judgment to be enforced and on the underlying findings and judgments, and the chances of success of the legal remedy used or to be used against that decision are disregarded, on the understanding that the court may include in its judgment whether the decision (s) to be enforced is based on a manifest error. If the decision on enforceability in stock is justified in the judgment to be enforced, the claimant or applicant must, apart from the case that this decision is based on a manifest error, base his claim or request on facts and circumstances underlying occurred after the decision in question. These rules apply both in an incident and in summary proceedings about the declaration of enforceability in stock. the claimant or applicant must, apart from the fact that this decision is based on a manifest error, base his claim or request on facts and circumstances that occurred only after the judgment in question. These rules apply both in an incident and in summary proceedings about the declaration of enforceability in stock. the claimant or applicant must, apart from the fact that this decision is based on a manifest error, base his claim or request on facts and circumstances that occurred only after the judgment in question. These rules apply both in an incident and in summary proceedings about the declaration of enforceability in stock.

ECLI: NL: HR: 2019: 2026  

Sign up for the Supreme News Update