Milieudefensie vs. Shell - Summary of the ruling on appeal

On 12 November 2024, the Court of Appeal in The Hague ruled that Shell has an obligation to combat dangerous climate change. Download the summary of the ruling on appeal below.

Unlike the District Court in 2021, the Court of Appeal ruled that it cannot determine by what percentage Shell must reduce its emissions. Nevertheless, the ruling provides a solid basis for new climate lawsuits and policy action.

Here are the key points we can build on

• Protection from dangerous climate change is a human right; [7.17]
• Shell and other large polluting companies have a duty to protect human rights; [7.17 & 7.27]
• Shell and other companies must make an adequate contribution to achieving the Paris climate goals; [7.9]
• New oil and gas fields could conflict with the Paris Climate Agreement; [7.61]
• The Court of Appeal recognises that Shell is aware of the importance of preventing (further) carbon lock-in [7.59, 7.60]
• It is plausible that the supply of fossil fuels should be limited. Companies that produce fossil fuels have a responsibility in this respect that is independent of the demand for their products; [7.61]
• Large companies bear responsibility not only for reducing their operational CO₂ emissions and those of their suppliers (Scope 1 and 2), but also for reducing the CO₂ emissions of their products (Scope 3); [7.99]
• Large companies that have contributed to causing dangerous climate change have a special duty to others on this planet to help combat it; [7.26]
• The court upholds the right of Milieudefensie and the co-plaintiffs to stand up for the interests of present and future generations in The Netherlands; [6.2]
• The court can intervene if a company fails to fulfil its duty of care to limit CO₂ emissions. There is no reason for the court to hesitate to do so; [7.10/7.11]
• Large companies cannot hide behind regulations; [7.53]
• Existing (EU) legislation does not prevent individual companies from having a more far-reaching obligation to reduce their emissions; [7.53]
• International human rights and soft law play a role  in the interpretation of social due diligence (horizontal application or reflexive effect; [7.18, 7.24]
• The Court of Appeal recognises the possibility that if Shell restricts its oil and gas production, the gap will not be completely filled by other companies [7.106]

Photo above: Court of appeal © Frank van Beek / Milieudefensie

Download publication

Summary of the ruling on appeal Milieudefensie vs Shell-def.pdf — 155 KB