The District Court of The Hague has ruled that Dutch climate policy is inadequate and that the Dutch State does not sufficiently protect the inhabitants of Bonaire against the consequences of climate change. According to the court, the current climate policy violates both the right to protection of private life and the prohibition of discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The State must therefore take additional measures and set binding emission reduction targets.

The ruling (District Court of The Hague, January 28, 2026, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2026:1344) is an important new development in Dutch climate law.

Background to the case

The proceedings were brought by Greenpeace Netherlands on behalf of the inhabitants of Bonaire. Greenpeace argues that the State is not taking sufficient measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (so-called mitigation measures) and to adapt the environment and society to the consequences of climate change (so-called adaptation measures). According to Greenpeace, this violates the fundamental rights of the inhabitants of Bonaire.

Greenpeace argues that the State is violating the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life, as laid down in Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR. In addition, Greenpeace claims that there is unequal treatment, because residents of Bonaire receive less protection against climate risks than residents of the European Netherlands.

The State argues that various measures are already being taken and that the climate policy for the Caribbean Netherlands necessarily differs from that for the European Netherlands.

What was the court’s ruling?

The court stated first and foremost that states are obliged to protect their residents against serious risks of climate change. This requires not only emission reduction (mitigation), but also measures to protect citizens against the consequences of climate change (adaptation).

According to the court, the Dutch State’s climate policy does not make a fair contribution to the mitigation measures that must be taken worldwide to limit global warming to a maximum of 1.5°C. The Dutch Climate Act wrongly does not contain a binding emission reduction target for 2030, and the (non-binding) emission reduction proposed by the Dutch State is likely to be too limited to meet the Netherlands’ international obligations. In addition, the Netherlands is very unlikely to achieve even the (presumably) too low emission reduction target for 2030.

Furthermore, the court ruled that the Dutch State had failed to adequately fulfill its duty of care towards the inhabitants of Bonaire. The State is failing to take timely and appropriate measures to protect the inhabitants of Bonaire from the consequences of climate change, is failing to adequately inform the inhabitants of Bonaire about the consequences of climate change, and is failing to adequately involve the inhabitants of Bonaire in decision-making on measures. Furthermore, the inhabitants of Bonaire are treated unequally in relation to the inhabitants of the European Netherlands when it comes to adaptation measures, without sufficient justification.

According to the court, the State is therefore acting in violation of Article 8 of the ECHR and the prohibition of discrimination in Article 14 of the ECHR and Article 1 of the Twelfth Protocol to the ECHR. The State is also acting unlawfully towards the inhabitants of Bonaire as referred to in Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code.

Obligations for the State

The court imposes various obligations on the State. For example, the State must:

• within 18 months, lay down binding targets in national legislation for the absolute reduction of greenhouse gas emissions for the entire Dutch economy, including interim targets for the entire period up to 2050;
• provide insight into the remaining national scope for greenhouse gas emissions;
• draw up and implement a national adaptation plan in good time that also covers Bonaire.

An important and interesting development in Dutch climate law

Following on from Urgenda, KlimaSeniorinnen and various other international court cases, with this ruling the District Court of The Hague has once again confirmed that the State has an obligation to provide protection against climate change. In addition to taking adequate emission reduction measures, this also means that adaptation measures must be taken. This applies all the more to the particularly vulnerable inhabitants of Bonaire. This is a huge victory for the interests of the inhabitants of Bonaire and a very important ruling. At the same time, the outcome may come as little surprise to those familiar with (the shortcomings of) Dutch climate policy. Above all, it is sad that such intervention by the court was necessary once again. It is to be hoped that the State will learn from this and now work on a sound climate policy.

It is particularly interesting that the State must now disclose how much national emission space remains for the Netherlands within the global 1.5°C carbon budget. The existence of this obligation was already apparent from KlimaSeniorinnen, but so far the State has not sufficiently incorporated this necessity into its climate policy. The current climate plans therefore do not indicate how much greenhouse gases the Netherlands will still emit and how this relates to the target of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

Given that the Ministry of Finance warned as early as September 2023 that the Netherlands’ remaining carbon budget would be exceeded within two years (see paragraph 11.13.5 of the judgment), this exercise will probably have to lead to a significant tightening of Dutch climate policy. After all, a climate policy based on per capita emissions that are significantly higher than the global average per capita carbon budget is difficult to reconcile with the obligation under the Paris Agreement to make a fair contribution to achieving the 1.5°C target, whereby that contribution must also represent the highest possible ambition and be in line with the pioneering role that developed countries such as the Netherlands have to play. Whether the State will implement this much-needed tightening remains to be seen. The State has not yet decided whether or not to appeal the court’s ruling. To be continued, therefore.

This article was written by Funs van Diem of the Energy and Climate team. The Paulussen Advocaten team represents Milieudefensie and other social (environmental) organizations in climate cases, including the cases against Shell and ING. If you have any questions, please contact us at climatelitigation@paulussen.nl.

Nieuws Overzicht