Amsterdam, May 20th 2026 – The hearing in Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) climate case against Shell kicks off this Friday at the Dutch Supreme Court.
Milieudefensie argues that Shell's legal duty to reduce its emissions must come with a specific figure: 45% by 2030. The hearing will be the first time a country's top court has considered a company's civil duty of care to reduce emissions in order to tackle dangerous climate change. They take place amidst a growing public anger over fossil fuel companies' windfall profits; with Shell announcing $6.9 billion
profits in Q1.
In 2024, the Court of Appeal ruled that Shell must indeed reduce its CO₂ emissions, but that it could not determine by what percentage. “During this hearing, we will show that there is indeed a solid legal basis for imposing a specific reduction percentage on Shell. It's time for Shell to take responsibility for its climate harms,” says Winnie Oussoren, spokesperson of Milieudefensie.
In the Climate Case, Milieudefensie is demanding that Shell reduce its CO₂ emissions by 45% by 2030, compared to 2019, in line with the Paris Climate Agreement. Oussoren: "Shell is one of the world's biggest polluters, if it were a country, only four other countries would emit more CO₂. In 2024 the Court of Appeal ruled that Shell has a special responsibility to cut its emissions to prevent public harm. We're back in court to hold Shell accountable."
In the appeal ruling, the court underlined three key points: namely that Shell has its own obligation and responsibility to reduce its CO2 emissions, to protect human rights and to make a fair contribution to the Paris Climate Agreement. Oussoren: "Without a concretereduction target, these obligations remain too open ended. A concrete percentage helps to truly protect people worldwide from dangerous climate change which Shell is contributing to."
According to the Court of Appeal, there is currently insufficient climate scientific consensus regarding a specific reduction percentage for individual companies such as Shell. Milieudefensie emphasises that, with this ruling, the court has taken too narrow a view of the case. Attorney Roger Cox: “All the scientific evidence in this case points in the same direction: Shell must reduce its CO2 emissions. The court should not have viewed the various options offered by science as a reason not to set a reduction target, but rather as a basis for a reasonable range within which the reduction target applicable to Shell could have been determined.”
In the court case that Urgenda won against the State, a reduction percentage within a range was also chosen. In the case of the Swiss KlimaSeniorinnen, the European Court of Human Rights also emphasised that the court must intervene in the event of an imminent violation of human rights.
Shell still lacks adequate climate targets. Oussoren: "‘The company hasn’t even drawn up a concrete plan to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Shell’s so-called 'target' for 2050 is, in fact, nothing more than a marketing slogan." During the appeal hearings, Shell admitted that its emissions will not have been reduced by 2030. Since the court's ruling in 2024, Shell has actually ramped up its fossil fuel activities. For instance, in 2025 the oil giant announced it would continue on the same path of fossil fuel energy and even increase the production of liquefied natural gas (LNG) beyond 2030. In April 2026, Shell acquired another major Canadian shale gas and oil company for around $14 billion. In addition, Shell has a stake in 700 new oil and gas fields that could be drilled. Milieudefensie recently launched a second Climate Case demanding that Shell stop drilling new oil and gas fields, and reduce its emissions step-by-step between 2030 and 2050.
Oussoren: "Shell is keeping the world hooked on the fossil fuel system that we urgently need to move away from. Its ongoing investments in oil and gas are exacerbating the climate crisis, reinforcing a carbon lock-in and contravening Shell’s obligations to, amongst other things, make an appropriate contribution to the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement. That is why a specific reduction target is essential."
Alongside Paulussen Advocaten, the appeal lawyers at BarentsKrans are representing Milieudefensie and the co-claimants during the appeal proceedings. Milieudefensie initiated the legal proceedings in 2018 along side six co-claimant organisations: Greenpeace, the Waddenvereniging, ActionAid, BothENDS, Fossielvrij NL and Milieudefensie Jong.
Milieudefensie will be present well before the hearing begins and will be available for interviews and photos, as well as after the hearing. Given the limited number of press seats, we advise media outlets to register here. There will be an English livestream available on the homepage of de Hoge Raad.
For further information and interviews, please contact Matthijs Kettelerij, acting press officer at Milieudefensie 0618512891, matthijs.kettelerij@milieudefensie.nl
Our website uses cookies to ensure the use and functionality of this website. Read more about our cookie policy
