Defense of Children & NJCM v the Netherlands, Dunea and PWN [19.03.2024]

The Dutch State and two drinking water companies are acting unlawfully by failing to do everything reasonably possible to prevent underage children from being placed in a situation where they do not have sufficient access to drinking water. This was ruled by the Court of Appeal in The Hague on 19th March 2024.

 

The case was brought by the human rights organisations NJCM and Defence for Children against the State and two drinking water companies, Dunea and PWN. Under current Dutch legislation and policies, families with minor children can be disconnected from the drinking water supply for non-payment. Disconnection is used as a last resort when payment has not been made after several reminders and attempts to agree on a payment plan or debt restructuring programme have failed. Human rights organisations say disconnection is unlawful for children. They want the court to declare this illegality and, in summary, to order the State, Dunea and PWN to put an end to it.

 

 

The right of access to water is a fundamental right. This right is not absolute in the sense that no restrictions may be placed on it. Nevertheless, water is a basic necessity of life and children, in particular, have a compelling interest in water, both for their physical and mental health and for a normal family and social life. Yet current regulations and policies deliberately leave open the possibility that families with children may be disconnected for non-payment, leaving children in a situation where they do not have access to sufficient water. This is even possible indefinitely. The water companies do not actively check for the presence of minors and, in the event of disconnection, only provide 12 litres of water per person. This is far below the amount required to prevent serious health problems, according to the UN World Health Organisation (WHO). By deliberately leaving open the possibility that children may not have sufficient access to water and by failing to take all reasonable steps to prevent this, the state and the water companies are acting "in violation of the social standard of care and Article 3(1) of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child," the court ruled.

 

It is possible to envisage other systems which are less intrusive for children and which retain at least some of the benefits of the current system (including the incentive to pay). It is not for the Court to dictate which system should be chosen. What is important is that, as far as possible, children in the Netherlands should not be able to fall below the WHO minimum level of water supply, and that every effort should be made to prevent this. This is what the strong condemnations are aimed at.