Shell’s contradictions and our response

Following the hearing at the Supreme Court, we are submitting our final legal documents, in which we refute Shell’s latest arguments. What stands out: Shell is diverting attention, sowing fear and contradicting itself. All to avoid the real question: can the court set limits on Shell's destructive course of action?

Shell is acting as if this Climate Case is not about its liability. The company is employing a deliberate strategy to sow confusion. Shell’s legal documents are riddled with problems, contradictions and scare-mongering. In our reply, we explain that this strategy by Shell is a ploy . And we show that the law points in one direction: Shell must do its part in combating dangerous climate change, and there is sufficient legal basis to determine by what percentage Shell must reduce its CO₂ emissions.

The Shell Climate Case: what’s the situation again?

In November 2024, the Court of Appeal in The Hague ruled that Shell has a duty to combat dangerous climate change. Unlike the district court in 2021, however, the Court of Appeal stated that it was unable to determine the exact percentage by which Shell must reduce its emissions. The fact that the Court of Appeal did rule that Shell has a duty of care is of great significance. But to truly protect people from the danger caused by Shell, the company must also be required to meet a specific reduction target. That is why Milieudefensie appealed to the Supreme Court.

“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,” says Maaike Baan, climate case researcher at Milieudefensie.

The key responses to Shell’s arguments:

Shell must stop hiding behind others. If companies fail to fulfil their duty of care, everyone can keep pointing the finger at one another and carry on emitting. With disastrous consequences.
Shell’s portrayal of the division of roles between countries and companies in tackling dangerous climate change is inaccurate. Shell acts as if only countries are responsible. But large companies must also do their part. Otherwise, we will not be able to meet the climate targets.
Shell pretends that the company can only change once demand for oil and gas falls, but Shell is actively creating that demand by continuing to invest heavily in oil and gas. Therefore too, it is crucial that the supply of oil and gas is reduced, both for the climate and for energy security.Because phasing out oil and gas and accelerating the energy transition are exactly waht improve our energy security.

Read a detailed summary of our key rebuttals to Shell's arguments here.

What is a reply?
This is the very last legal document that Milieudefensie submitted to the Supreme Court following the hearing. In it, Milieudefensie responds to Shell’s written submission. In the summary below, you can read what it contains and our four main rebuttals. Shell itself has also submitted a final response to our written statement; this is called a rejoinder.

What happens next?

Now that the very last written submissions (reply and rejoinder) have been filed with the Supreme Court, the next step is an advisory opinion from the Attorney Procurator General and the Advocate General. This is expected by the end of 2026. The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected in the first half of 2027.

>> Read our full reply here
>> Read an overview of all the legal documents in the first Climate Case against Shell here

_{Picture: Winnie Oussoren and Maaike Baan at the Supreme Court. Picture by Edo Landwehr}

Published 2026-07-17

Share

The key responses to Shell’s arguments:

What happens next?