Hague Court Rules in Favour of Greenpeace in Biodiversity Litigation Against Dutch State

On 22 January 2025 in a landmark biodiversity litigation case, the Court of The Hague ruled in favour of Greenpeace, declaring that the Dutch state has acted unlawfully by failing to meet nitrogen reduction targets for 2025 and 2030. The Court mandated the state to prioritise the most vulnerable Natura 2000 areas and imposed a penalty of EUR 10 million if the targets are not met by 31 December 2030.

Under the EU Habitats Directive, which was transposed into Dutch law, the Netherlands is obliged to prevent the deterioration of nature in areas designated Natura 2000 and must ensure that the natural environment recovers. The Hague Court found that the Netherlands had not taken sufficient measures to stop the threatened deterioration of these areas and did not meet legal nitrogen targets.

This decision follows Greenpeace's argument that the Netherlands has long neglected its duty to reduce nitrogen emissions, leading to irreversible damage to protected natural habitats. The Court supported Greenpeace's claims with scientific evidence, highlighting the significant role of nitrogen in the degradation of these areas. 

The Court ordered the Netherlands to comply with the statutory nitrogen target for 2030, which means that the state must bring 50% of the area of nitrogen-sensitive nature below the critical deposition value (KDW) no later than 31 December 2030. In doing so, unlike the Netherlands has done so far, the Dutch state must give priority to the most vulnerable parts of nature. If the Netherlands fails to achieve this goal, it must pay a penalty of EUR 10 million. The Court ruled that the Netherlands must implement this ruling immediately, also in anticipation of the decision in a possible appeal.

The ruling also criticised the previous nitrogen programme and the current government's rollback of essential policies and funding, such as the Transition Fund. The Court stressed the necessity of immediate and effective measures to meet statutory nitrogen targets and prevent further environmental harm.

Conclusion and the way forward

Biodiversity litigation is still in its early days, and due to its complexity and the slow development of legislation and scientific evidence proving causality, there has been only about 50 biodiversity cases registered globally in comparison to the 2000 cases related to climate change. (See The new wave in ESG Litigation: biodiversity litigation).

Early in its history, the EU issued the Habitat and Birds Directives, resulting in the EU Natura 2000 Network of protected sites, which covers 18% of the  EU's land and 8% of its maritime territory. 

In recent years, the patchwork of European legal instruments regarding biodiversity increased significantly with the Green Deal (i.e. the Battery Regulation, the Environmental Crime Directive, EU Deforestation Regulation).

To develop biodiversity litigation, the following hurdles need to be overcome: 

• scientific proof (of causation) needs to be established; 
• legislation (with vague targets on biodiversity) must be passed; and
• positive case-law must come from the courts.

The 22 January Hague ruling reveals that these hurdles can be overcome regarding the nitrogen situation in the Netherlands since this decision may trigger further activity in other areas of biodiversity. 

This case may prove to be the Urgenda-case of biodiversity. Only the future will tell whether the Netherlands’ appeals the ruling and whether the judgment is sustained in appeal. 

For the near future, this case can be used in other cases as crowbar or blueprint for moving forward.

For more information on ESG and biodiversity-related litigation in the EU and the Netherlands, contact your CMS client partner or these CMS experts.