Amsterdam, 17 July 2026 – Shell is employing a deflection strategy in the Climate Case, according to Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands). Following the hearing in May at the Supreme Court in The Hague, both parties are today submitting their final legal documents in the appeal of this long-running Climate Case. “In its written submission, Shell does not address the legal responsibilities at the heart of this case. Its submission is a string of inaccurate scare tactics and contradictions. With this deflection strategy, Shell aims to muddy the waters and divert attention from the central question in this Climate Case: can the court set limits on Shell’s destructive course?”, says Maaike Baan, climate case researcher at Milieudefensie.
In November 2024, the Court of Appeal in The Hague ruled that Shell has a duty to combat dangerous climate change and to make an appropriate contribution to the Paris Agreement. According to Milieudefensie, the law is crystal clear: Shell must do its part to combat dangerous climate change, and there is sufficient legal basis to determine by what percentage Shell must reduce its CO₂ emissions.
In Milieudefensie’s legal submissions, the climate organisation raises key points in which it challenges the oil and gas giant. Baan: “Shell hides behind other companies and points the finger at governments; it shirks its own responsibility and pretends to be a minor player, when in fact it wields enormous power and influence.”
Baan: “In the recent ruling in the climate case brought by Notre Affaire à Tous against TotalEnergies, the French court rejected this attempt to shift responsibility.” Just like Shell, Total attempted to evade a climate obligation by claiming that the company has no influence over the emissions caused by the burning of its products and that such an obligation would be ineffective. The French court rejected both arguments."
Without the contribution of large companies, we cannot achieve the targets of the Paris Climate Agreement. Shell’s responsibility is particularly important because its emissions exceed those of most countries. If Shell were a country, only four countries would emit more CO₂: China, the US, India and Russia. Roger Cox, lawyer for Milieudefensie:
“Shell wields exceptional economic and political influence worldwide. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change makes it clear that oil and gas companies are a major barrier to the sustainable energy transition. Shell is not going to change of its own accord. That is why this legal case is so important.”
Milieudefensie emphasises that Shell must stop hiding behind others. Baan: “Shell must take responsibility and stop contributing to dangerous climate change. If everyone keeps pointing the finger at each other, we will never solve the climate crisis. Shell acts as if the company can only change once demand for oil and gas falls, but Shell is actively creating that demand. It is crucial to reduce the supply of oil and gas in order to combat dangerous climate change, safeguard energy security, and give sustainable alternatives such as solar and wind energy the space they need."
According to Milieudefensie, Shell is evading the legal rules at the heart of this Climate Case, whilst at the same time putting forward as many arguments as possible to defend its own dominant market position. Furthermore, according to Milieudefensie, Shell’s written statement is riddled with contradictions.
For instance, Shell claims, on the one hand, that energy security would be seriously jeopardised if Shell were required to reduce its CO₂ emissions. On the other hand, it claims that a reduction obligation would have no effect on emissions because oil and gas would then be supplied to the market by other companies. Shell argues, on the one hand, that a reduction obligation would be detrimental to Shell’s competitive position, as it would apply only to Shell. On the other hand, it argues that a reduction obligation would be highly far-reaching, as it would also apply to other companies. Furthermore, Shell argues, on the one hand, that only the legislator may impose a reduction obligation because, unlike the courts, the legislator would be able to weigh up all relevant interests. On the other hand, it argues that the global pace at which CO₂ emissions are being reduced is too slow, which therefore means that governments cannot solve the climate problem on their own.
In its legal documents, Shell further argues that the court would be interfering too much in how the energy transition should take shape. According to Shell, imposing a reduction target could even lead to energy shortages or a lack of fuel for the armed forces. Baan: “These are false scare tactics that Shell is using to make people wary of obliging Shell to reduce its emissions. Shell does not back up these false scare tactics with figures, and if you look at the facts, it is clear why. CO₂ emissions from the entire European military apparatus account for just 1 per cent of Europe’s total emissions.”
Milieudefensie emphasises that if Shell were obliged to reduce its emissions in line with the Paris Climate Agreement, the entire military apparatus could continue to be co-supplied by Shell without any problem. Furthermore, national and international security experts warn that it is climate change itself that poses major security risks .
Baan: “Whilst Shell is peddling false scare stories, it is ignoring the frightening reality of the present moment: the society-disrupting consequences of climate change that we are currently witnessing in Europe too, such as wildfires, water scarcity and heatwaves. The more fossil fuels we continue to emit, the more extreme these will become.
Now that the very last written submissions (reply and rejoinder) have been filed with the Supreme Court, the next step is an opinion from the Attorney-General and Advocate-General. This is expected by the end of 2026. The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected in the first half of 2027.
In April 2026, Milieudefensie filed the summons for the second Climate Case against Shell. In this Climate Case, Milieudefensie is demanding that Shell stop drilling for new oil and gas fields and that it reduce its CO₂ emissions step-by-step between 2030 and 2050. This new case builds on the first Climate Case against Shell.
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.
Note to editors
For further information and interviews, please contact:
Matthijs Kettelerij, Acting Press Officer, Milieudefensie
0618512891
Our website uses cookies to ensure the use and functionality of this website. Read more about our cookie policy
