Rb. Den Haag, 18-03-2026, nr. C/09/659832 / HA ZA 24-53 (English Corrected Judgment)

On 2 March 2026, Bacon and Jurjens, on behalf of Greenpeace, requested the court to correct the judgment rendered in this case on 28 January 2026 (hereinafter: the judgment) on two points:

1. In legal consideration 12.2 of the operative part of the judgment, the State is ordered to “within eighteen months after this judgment, in any case incorporate absolute emission reduction targets for the entire economy as referred to in Article 4(1) of the Paris Agreement into national legislation”. Greenpeace argues that it follows from both the considerations of the judgment (including considerations 11.13.1 and 11.13.2) and the respective wordings of Article 4, paragraph 1 and Article 4, paragraph 4 of the Paris Agreement that Article 4 paragraph 4 of the Paris Agreement should have appeared in the operative part, and not paragraph 1. To that extent, according to Greenpeace, there is an obvious clerical error that lends itself to simple correction. Greenpeace requests the court to correct this error pursuant to the provisions of Article 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. In consideration 11.58 of the judgment, the court rules that the order sought by Greenpeace under VI to establish a national carbon budget within six months cannot be granted. The court subsequently grants the lesser demand, by ordering that the State must provide insight into what the (remaining) emission margin for the Netherlands is. Greenpeace believes that the court attached a period of six months following the judgment to this in the second paragraph of consideration 11.58 by considering that the requested period of six months following this judgment appears reasonable to the court, because, according to the State, the underlying information is already available. In consideration 12.2 of the operative part, the court subsequently orders the State to provide insight into the (remaining) emission margin for the Netherlands. In view of the foregoing, Greenpeace believes that it is clear that the State must comply with this part of the order in consideration 12.2 of the operative part of the judgment within six months following the judgment. Greenpeace notes that if the court had (also) intended to order the State in the operative part to provide insight into the (remaining) emission margin for the Netherlands within six months following this judgment, Article 31 paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives the court scope to correct an obvious clerical error in the judgment ex officio.

On 4 March 2026, Brans, on behalf of the State, informed the court that he had no objection to the amendment requested in 1.1 under 1. The State indicated in this regard that it is also his assessment that the court, in consideration 12.2 of the judgment, intended to refer to Article 4 paragraph 4 of the Paris Agreement.

The State does, however, object to the amendment requested in 1.1 under 2. Referring to Article 31, paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the State takes the position that there is no obvious clerical error that lends itself to simple correction. According to the State, this is the case, among other things, because making the (remaining) emission margin for the Netherlands transparent is linked to the reduction targets for the entire economy which, on the basis of legal consideration 12.2, must be established by the State within eighteen months after the judgment. According to the State, adding the six-month timeframe proposed by Greenpeace to legal consideration 12.2 goes further than correcting an obvious clerical error that lends itself to simple correction.

Pursuant to Article 31, paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court shall at all times, at the request of a party or ex officio, correct in its judgment an obvious calculation error, clerical error, or other obvious error that lends itself to simple correction. This is the case when it concerns clear clerical errors or errors where it is immediately clear that a mistake has been made.

With regard to the correction requested in 1.1 under 1, the court considers that in consideration 12.2 of the operative part, it referred to Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Paris Agreement, which contains the general standard applicable to all Member States. In this particular consideration, the court did not wish to refer to Article 4, paragraph 4 of the Paris Agreement, which more specifically contains the standard for developed countries (the so-called ‘fair share’) (in view of what was considered in consideration 11.13.4). The mention of Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Paris Agreement in consideration 12.2 of the operative part of the judgment is therefore not an obvious mistake, so that the request for amendment of the judgment on this point cannot be granted.

With regard to the rectification requested in 1.1 under 2, the court considers that consideration 12.2 of the operative part of the judgment does not contain an error either and that the mention of a period of eighteen months is correct. The Court notes that this consideration and consideration 11.58 of the judgment do not align and that no further reasons have been provided as to why the period for compliance with the order as given in the decision is appropriate. Something went wrong with the text of consideration 11.58 during the finalization of the judgment. However, this does not constitute an obvious error that lends itself to simple correction.

In view of the foregoing, there are no errors in consideration 12.2 of the judgment of 28 January 2026. The Court will therefore reject Greenpeace's request for correction of the judgment.

The Court:

rejects Greenpeace's request for correction of the judgment rendered between the parties on 28 January 2026.

This judgment was rendered by J.L.M. Luiten, P. Dondorp, and C.J-A. Seinen and pronounced in open court on 18 March 2026.

1366