Climate case against Shell: Milieudefensie goes to the Supreme Court

In 2021, the court decided that the multinational had to adhere to an “unwritten due care standard” and his net emissions of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases had to be reduced by 45 percent compared to the level of 2019. For the emissions within the company itself it was about A result obligation. For the emission of customers, it was a “heavy effort obligation”.

Shell appealed. The Court of Appeal in The Hague rejected the claims of Milieudefensie against Shell in November. According to the Court, although the company has a “care obligation” to combat dangerous climate change, Shell cannot be obliged to reduce its emissions from CO₂ and other greenhouse gases with concrete percentages. In climate science, the judges saw “insufficient guidance” for such percentages. They were also not convinced that the climate gets along with it, because other companies can take over part of the trade.

“Never address anyone for error”

That assessment is not correct, says Sjoukje van Oosterhout, lead researcher of Milieudefensie. “Shell also has its own responsibility. With this reasoning you could never address anyone about wrong behavior, “says Van Oosterhout. Moreover, Shell activities cannot be easily taken over by competitors.

“The judge ruled that Shell should reduce his emissions, but not with what percentage. To brake the climate crisis, such a percentage is essential, “explains Donald Pols, director of Milieudefensie.

Read too. “This hurts”: oil giant Shell should not reduce emissions considerably

In cassation, the entire case is not being dealt with again, but the Supreme Court assesses whether the law has been applied correctly. If the highest judges judge that the Court of Appeal has made mistakes, they can destroy the ruling or parts thereof. They can make a different decision themselves or refer the case to another court.

“We hope that the Supreme Court will give clear frameworks, which also designate the right direction for other companies,” says Chief Researcher Van Oosterhout. She also hopes for indirect effects. “The risk profile of the fossil industry can be increased with it.”

“Good on the way”

Shell trusts that the Supreme Court will also not force the company to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with a specific percentage. “We believe that the decision of the Court of Appeal to reject the claim of Milieudefensie in its entirety is the right one. We are convinced that we will also be upheld at the Supreme Court, “says Frans Everts, director of Shell Nederland.

According to Shell, the Court of Appeal in The Hague was clear in November “that there is no fixed route for reducing global emissions that can or must be applied to one company”. The company points out that the Court has also acknowledged that Shell is “well on its way” to halve the emissions within the company itself by 2030.

“Shell is in favor of a balanced energy transition, a transition that maintains a reliable and affordable energy supply, while the world is on its way to net zero emissions,” the company summarizes its own philosophy. “We want to become a stronger company with fewer emissions,” said Everts.