I think the Dutch SC`s approach would lead to a different result. The international community and climate science agree that global emissions must be significantly reduced. Footnote 117 For the reasons mentioned above, it will be very difficult to get the necessary significant reductions. Advanced countries, especially as their per capita emissions are high, which applies to both Norway and the Netherlands, must take the lead. More oil and gas means increased greenhouse gas emissions. It is counterproductive to the urgent need for a transition to renewable energy and will not reduce global emissions to zero in the near future. If there was room for the exploitation of new oil or gas deposits, priority should be given to the least developed and lower developing countries, which, in my view, is consistent with the common but differentiated characteristic to which the Court of Appeal refers in another context. Footnote 118 See, in agreement, S. Boysen, delimitative- pluralist – reflexive – polycentric -: Transnationality in transnational climate change law, namely 2018, p. 648 and, critically, T. Voland, would the “Urgenda decision” also be expected in German law?, NvWZ 2019, p. 120.
First, the decision means that not only has the State of the Netherlands acted in an “obvious” manner (see. B. points 6.3 and 8.3.4.), but also that the EU has done so. The EU has set a commitment to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020, instead of the 25-40% reduction in emissions, which is the “absolute minimum” and “obvious” needed. Therefore, this decision is a wake-up call for the EU and the Dutch Government, as well as for Parliament. Given that this is the interpretation of a number of international treaties and agreements, including mixed treaties in areas in which the EU has acted as a regulatory body, the question arises as to whether the Court of Justice should have gone to the European Court of Justice in a prejudicial capacity, given that the Supreme Court has opted for an interpretation that in our view, there is no point other than that of the Union violating its obligations under international law. on the validity of different EU legal standards. Given that art. 2 and 8 elect are the basis of the Supreme Court`s decision, the answer to the question of whether an obligation to refer the matter to the Court is not so simple.
Simply saying that these are national objectives and that EU law does not prevent national law from taking a more radical path and therefore has no relevance in this area is not, in our view, an adequate response. Given that the Tribunal has recently ruled out the possibility of EU citizens taking the EU to justice because of its climate policy24, the Urgenda case has long been the only one with the opportunity to ask the European Court of Justice to rule on the EU`s international climate commitments.