OREANDA-NEWS. A court case heard today in the Dutch supreme court marked the first time that legal proceedings were brought against an EU government over the inadequacy of its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction plans. It could set a precedent for similar court cases in other EU member states, according to the Dutch campaign group that initiated the proceedings, Urgenda.

The government today defended itself in the country's top court in the Hague against a charge of harmful negligence towards its citizens in failing to adequately address climate change. A comparable lawsuit was launched against the Belgian government on 1 December.

The plaintiffs' lawyer Roger Cox argues that an inadequate emission reduction policy constitutes a tort of negligence by the government against its citizens and infringes their human rights. This makes EU governments liable for dangerous climate change and gives European citizens and nongovernmental organisations the right to compel their governments to implement stricter emission reductions, he said.

Urgenda initiated proceedings on 12 November 2012, when it sent a letter calling on the government to take urgent action to halt climate change. In response, the government acknowledged the seriousness of climate change, but undertook no additional action. Urgenda along with 900 citizens filed a lawsuit against the Dutch state on 20 November 2013. The court will make a final ruling on 24 June.

Urgenda is seeking a ruling that the government is acting unlawfully if it fails to achieve a 25-40pc reduction in GHG emissions below 1990 levels in the Netherlands by 2020. The country currently has a GHG reduction target of 16pc below 1990 levels by 2020.

A 25-40pc cut is the scale of reduction required from industrialised countries to prevent a 2°C rise in the global temperature that will result in dangerous climate change, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Urgenda also wants the court to issue a mandatory injunction that will compel the government to achieve the GHG emissions cuts deemed necessary by science. There is no justification for the "breach of its statutory obligations, its negligence and socially improper conduct", because economically feasible alternatives such as energy efficiency and renewable energy are available to help avert the dangers of fossil energy use, Urgenda said.

The case comes only a few weeks after a panel of eminent judges and legal experts from countries such as the US, China, Brazil and India, released the so-called Oslo principles, which states that countries have an obligation to avert climate change and its catastrophic effects. "While all people share the moral duty to avert climate change, the critical legal responsibility rests with states and [business] enterprises," according to the document released on 1 March.

The right to life, health, water, food, a clean environment, and other social, economic and cultural rights, and the rights of children, women, minorities and indigenous peoples are some of the human rights that are threatened by climate change, according to the principles. "International law recognises that each state is legally responsible for the deleterious transborder effects that human activities in its territory have on other states," it said.