Greenpeace Netherlands v. State of the Netherlands

In Greenpeace Netherlands v. State of the Netherlands, Greenpeace brought suit against the Netherlands after its government bailed out the airline KLM. The organization argued that the Netherlands had violated the European Convention on Human Rights, the Paris Agreement, and the 2015 Urgenda decision.

Background
After the Covid-19 pandemic caused a dramatic drop in customers, the Netherlands gave €3.4 billion in aid to the KLM airline, €1 billion of which was directly from the state and the rest from banks guaranteed by the state. With the bailout, the government ordered KLM to cut its greenhouse gas emissions per passenger in half by 2030 relative to their 2005 levels. However, Greenpeace believed this did not do enough to reduce emissions and demanded the Netherlands withdraw the aid or change the conditions. The Netherlands did not meet Greenpeace's demand of attaching sufficient climate conditions to the bailout, so Greenpeace filed suit in October of 2020 against the Netherlands' government. Greenpeace argued that the bailout violates the European Convention on Human Rights, the Paris Agreement, and the Urgenda decision. The former two establish a duty of care by the government and the Urgenda case upholds that duty.

Relevant Laws and Principles

 * European Convention on Human Rights
 * Paris Agreement
 * Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands

Ruling
Ultimately, the Hague District Court rejected the claim, ruling the government has no legal obligation to attach climate conditions to bailouts. International climate laws don't include cross-border aviation emission reductions and the conditions that were contained in the aid were in line with the Netherlands' international climate obligations.

Takeaways
This ruling showed there is only so much the court can do in enforcing climate laws and using their discretion. It's noteworthy that there are no mentions of cross-border aviation emissions within international climate laws yet air travel accounts for a huge percentage of overall emissions. Even though there were climate conditions attached to the aid, Greenpeace argued it was not stringent enough so the government was still allowed to provide high-emission businesses with a monetary incentive not to change.

Links

 * Greenpeace
 * KLM Arilines Sustainable Travel Announcement