The Urgenda Climate Case in the Netherlands: Separation of Powers and the Rule of Law   全文下載

荷蘭之Urgenda氣候案件：權力分立及法律原則

由荷蘭最高法院於2019年就Urgenda氣候案件作成的判決，不論在荷蘭或國外，皆引起了大量的關注。這是歐盟成員國中的最高法院第一次強制政府採取應對氣候變遷之措施。該最高法院的裁決與權力分立及法律原則之觀點特別相關。在Urgenda案中，最高法院特別考慮到其在法治下的角色，但忽略政府及國會等有利害關係之國家機構，而創造法律之法庭命令，並不符合憲法有關國會獨立性及其成員在權力分立之定位；更甚者，該裁決亦與合法性原則有所衝突。最高法院已悖離法院應在法條之文義及目的下尋求正義之原則，而未適用法律，反而將己身置於政治及科學之觀點，並使其在政治領域亦有定位。

The judgement issued by the Dutch Supreme Court in the Urgenda Climate Case (2019) attracted considerable attention, both in the Netherlands and abroad. For the first time, a supreme court in one of EU member states forced the government to take measures to combat climate change. The verdict by the Supreme Court is particularly relevant from the viewpoint of separation of powers and the rule of law. In the Urgenda ruling, the Supreme Court especially considers its own role in the rule of law, while ignoring the interests that are at stake regarding other state authorities, Government and Parliament. The judicial order to create legislation is not compatible with constitutional arrangements regarding the independence of Parliament and its members in the context of the separation of powers. The ruling furthermore clashes with the legality principle in the rule of law. The Supreme Court departs from the principle that a court dispenses justice in accordance with the wording and intention of the law. The Supreme Court does not apply the law but instead bases itself on political and scientific insights. In that way, the Supreme Court assigns itself a role in the political domain.