The Hague, 22 May 2026 – Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) and Shell faced each other today at the Supreme Court in The Hague during the appeal hearing of the Climate Case. Shell already has a duty to reduce its CO2 emissions following an earlier ruling by the Court of Appeal.
“Today we demonstrated to the highest court that there is indeed a solid legal basis for imposing a specific reduction percentage on Shell. This is necessary to truly protect people worldwide from dangerous climate change, which Shell is contributing to,” says Winnie Oussoren, spokesperson for Milieudefensie.
In the Climate Case, Milieudefensie demands that Shell reduces its CO₂ emissions by 45% by 2030, compared to 2019, in line with the Paris Climate Agreement. It is the first time ever that a country’s Supreme Court is considering a company’s civil law obligation to reduce CO2 emissions related to dangerous climate change.
Milieudefensie’s lawyers were clear: the climate crisis is a fossil fuel crisis. No less than 81% of global CO2 emissions come from oil, gas and coal. Oil and gas together account for 48% of global emissions. Oussoren: “As one of the world’s biggest polluters, Shell has a major responsibility. With its massive emissions, the oil and gas company is contributing to dangerous climate change. If Shell were a country, only four countries would emit more CO2.”
In the earlier appeal ruling, the Court of Appeal emphasised three key points: Shell has a duty and responsibility to reduce its CO2 emissions, to protect human rights and to make an fair contribution to the Paris Climate Agreement. Oussoren: “The Court of Appeal took a wrong turn, because without a concrete target for Shell to reduce its emissions, these obligations remain too open- ended.”
During the hearing at the Supreme Court in the landmark Climate Case, Milieudefensie’s lawyers argued that the Court of Appeal had taken too narrow a view of the case.
Lawyer Roger Cox: "The Court of Appeal ruled that Shell has a duty of care and must reduce its emissions. In doing so, the court applied a broad standard. When it came to the question of what Shell must do to comply with that duty, the Court of Appeal suddenly narrowed its standard and looked only at whether there is scientific consensus on a specific reduction percentage for a company such as Shell. Here, the Court of Appeal takes an inexplicable turn. Whether a party has a duty of care and what it must do to fulfil that duty are two sides of the same normative coin. The same broad standard therefore should apply to both."
At the end of his plea, lawyer Roger Cox emphasised that it is essential that companies such as Shell can no longer unrestrictedly continue to contribute to dangerous climate change. "If Shell is allowed to continue unhinderedly, we must conclude that modern society and the choices made within it have created private-law entities that are more destructive than states, yet which no one can control any longer. Not through politics, nor through the law. In that case, the democratic rule of law and the international legal order will have proved more vulnerable than we thought, and we will collectively have to pay the price for that. That price will be high, unimaginably high.”
Milieudefensie responded by saying it was unimpressed by Shell’s plea and had heard nothing new. Oussoren: "Shell presented its usual excuses to avoid fulfilling its obligation to combat dangerous climate change. It is abundantly clear: Shell continues to invest heavily in polluting fossil fuels and keeps the world addicted to oil and gas, which we urgently need to move away from."
Following the hearing at the Supreme Court, there will be one more round of written submissions in which the parties respond to each other, followed by the opinion of the Attorney General (an independent advisor to the Supreme Court), after which the Supreme Court will issue its ruling. The date is yet to be confirmed.
Our website uses cookies to ensure the use and functionality of this website. Read more about our cookie policy
