Shell Climate Case Comes Before The Netherlands’ Highest Court

The Dutch environmental group that won a landmark 2021 climate change verdict against oil major Shell will be facing off once more against the company on Friday in the Netherlands’ highest court. Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) is asking the Dutch Supreme Court to reinstate the district court’s order for Shell to reduce its entire supply chain CO2 emissions by 45 percent by 2030. The order was overturned on an appeal by Shell in 2024.

The May 22 hearing marks an important moment in corporate climate accountability litigation.

“This is the first time in the world that a country’s highest court will consider a company’s civil law [emissions] reduction obligation with regards to dangerous climate change,” said Winnie Oussoren, spokesperson for Milieudefensie. She said the court’s ruling will be “decisively guiding,” and if Milieudefensie prevails it could have ripple effects far beyond the Netherlands.

“We expect a big impact. It will be the first time that a highest court on a national level confirms this obligation. And it will no doubt be an inspiration to other courts and other cases,” Mieke Reij, a lawyer with the firm Paulussen Advocaten that is working with Milieudefensie on the case, said during a press briefing earlier this week. “A ruling in favor of Milieudefensie will ensure that Shell has to adjust its global corporate climate policy and reduce its global emissions.”

The case against Shell, filed in 2019, was one of the first in the world to challenge a major oil and gas company over its role in driving climate change and to force it to reduce its carbon emissions in line with the Paris Climate Agreement. Milieudefensie argued that Shell, as one of the world’s largest generators of CO2 emissions that are causing dangerous climate change, was in breach of its duty of care under Dutch civil law.

The district court agreed with that position when it ruled in 2021 that Shell must take robust action to reduce its emissions, ordering the company to slash them by 45 percent by 2030 – including the emissions associated with its products (scope 3 emissions), which account for the vast majority of Shell’s attributable CO2 emissions. The ruling was the first time that a court anywhere in the world had imposed a specific emissions reduction obligation on a major polluting company.

Shell succeeded in getting the ruling overturned on appeal. But the Court of Appeal still confirmed that major emitters like Shell have an obligation to contribute to climate mitigation efforts.

Milieudefensie argues that without a specific emissions reduction obligation in place, Shell will not act in good faith to contribute to these efforts, noting that the oil major has plans to increase its fossil fuel production particularly when it comes to liquified natural gas (LNG).

“Shell is keeping the world hooked on the fossil fuel system that we urgently need to move away from,” said Oussoren. “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."

Last month Milieudefensie filed a second lawsuit against Shell challenging its oil and gas expansion plans. The case demands that Shell stop investing in new oil and gas projects and that it set concrete emissions reduction targets through midcentury.

The case coming before the Supreme Court is important for holding Shell accountable to its duty to reduce emissions, Milieudefensie says.  

“In 2024 the Court of Appeal ruled that Shell has a special responsibility to cut its emissions to prevent public harm,” Oussoren said. “We’re back in court to hold Shell accountable.”

Shell said that it was pleased with the court’s 2024 decision dismissing the case and that heading into the Supreme Court hearing, it is “confident in the strength of our legal position.” The company argues, as detailed in its statement of defense, that “what Milieudefensie wants has no basis in the law, is not effective and interferes with European energy transition policy and regulation.”

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in early 2027.