Greenpeace Netherlands and 8 citizens of Bonaire v. The Netherlands

On January 11, 2024, Greenpeace Netherlands and eight Dutch citizens of the island of Bonaire sued the Dutch State concerning insufficient climate adaptation and mitigation measures to protect the residents of Bonaire from the impacts of climate change. Bonaire is a Caribbean island and a special municipality of the Netherlands. The claim was brought following a warning letter sent in 2023, in which the plaintiffs requested consultations with Dutch ministries regarding stronger climate adaptation policies and increased resources for the island. Greenpeace argued that the Dutch State failed to take adequate mitigation and adaptation measures to protect the human rights of Bonaire’s inhabitants, in violation of its obligations under international and domestic law. The claim relied on Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code, alleging an unlawful act due to insufficient climate action. The plaintiffs invoked the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the prohibition of discrimination under Article 14 ECHR, the right to culture under Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and procedural rights under the Aarhus Convention. They also referred to the Netherlands’ climate obligations under the Paris Agreement. The plaintiffs emphasized that Bonaire faces heightened vulnerability to climate change, including increased heat stress, sea level rise, water scarcity, ecosystem degradation, and associated health impacts. They argued that Bonaire’s residents are treated differently from residents of the European Netherlands without adequate justification, noting that large-scale and long-term adaptation planning and investment exist in the European Netherlands but not in Bonaire. The claim also highlighted structural inequalities, including high poverty levels on the island, and argued that these factors require heightened state attention under principles of equality and non-discrimination. With respect to mitigation, Greenpeace relied on the reasoning developed by the Dutch Supreme Court in Urgenda Foundation v. The Netherlands, arguing that Articles 2 and 8 ECHR impose positive obligations on the State to contribute its fair share to preventing dangerous climate change. The plaintiffs asserted that the Netherlands’ current mitigation trajectory was insufficient and inconsistent with its human rights obligations. They extended this reasoning to adaptation, arguing that due diligence requires timely and effective adaptation measures tailored to the specific risks faced by Bonaire’s population, including impacts on health, housing, livelihoods, and cultural life. The plaintiffs extend their legal reasoning on mitigation also to adaptation. They note that there is ‘widespread consensus’ in international climate policy and law, as well as amongst human rights bodies, that there is a need to ‘rapidly accelerate’ the implementation of adaptation measures. Plaintiffs argue that the State has a legal obligation to take all appropriate measures that may be reasonably necessary, in a timely and consistent manner. This obligation is based on due diligence, and must take into account the special needs and disproportionate vulnerability of the inhabitants of Bonaire, and the complex historical and political context of the islands. They also point to other successful climate litigation on adaptation in this regard, such as the Torres Straight Islanders case at the UN Human Rights Committee. On September 25, 2024, the District Court of The Hague issued an interim judgment on admissibility. The court found Greenpeace Netherlands admissible under Article 3:305a of the Civil Code as a representative organization acting in the collective interest. The individual claims brought by eight residents of Bonaire were declared inadmissible, as Greenpeace’s claim already encompassed their interests and the individuals had not demonstrated that they were personally and directly affected in a manner justifying separate claims. On January 29, 2026, the District Court of The Hague issued its final judgment on the merits. The court held that the Dutch State had failed to take sufficient climate mitigation and adaptation measures to protect the residents of Bonaire and that this failure violated Articles 8 and 14 ECHR. The court found that Bonaire’s inhabitants face disproportionate climate risks, including serious risks to health and well-being, and that the State had not adequately justified treating Bonaire differently from the European Netherlands in its climate policies. The court ordered the Dutch State, within 18 months, to incorporate binding interim greenhouse gas reduction targets into national legislation covering the entire economy. The court also ordered the State to ensure that, by 2030, a detailed and implemented climate adaptation plan is in place for Bonaire to increase the island’s resilience to climate impacts. The decision is notable for its reliance on human rights law, its emphasis on equality and non-discrimination within a state’s own territory, and its engagement with international and regional climate jurisprudence. It also represents a significant development in climate litigation concerning state obligations to protect particularly vulnerable territories from the impacts of climate change.