Milieudefensie v Royal Dutch Shell

Following the global adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015, which aimed to limit the rise in the global average temperature to under 1.5 °C through various milestones at 2050, large corporations operating in signatory countries began evaluating if they could alter operations to meet the targets of the Agreement. The British multinational Shell is one of the largest oil and gas companies in the world; its headquarters are in the United Kingdom since 2022. Shell is the ninth-largest corporate contributor to global pollution, producing about 2.5% of global emissions. By failing to change, the plaintiffs argued, Shell had failed to uphold the unwritten duty of care laid down in Book 6 Section 162 of the Burgerlijk Wetboek (Dutch Civil Code) as well as articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Shell stated in response to the summons that it was doing its part to address climate change, and that "What will accelerate the energy transition is effective policy, investment in technology and changing customer behaviour. None of which will be achieved with this court action. Addressing a challenge this big requires a collaborative and global approach." Plaintiffs considered Shell's pledge to be inadequate as the company would still fail to meet the Paris Agreement goals. ==Judgment==

The Hague District Court ordered that Shell's current sustainability policy was insufficiently "concrete", and that its emissions were greater than that of most countries. The court declared the order provisionally enforceable, meaning that the order has immediate effect, even if one of the parties appeals the ruling. The Court said the following: ==Significance==

The case was considered a landmark ruling in environmental law related to climate change: while previous lawsuits against governments have prevailed for enforcing a more effective climate policy, this was considered the first major lawsuit to hold a corporation to the tenets of the Paris Agreement. although pertaining to Shell's global operations, it could set a precedent for other environmental lawsuits against other large companies with high emissions that have not taken sufficient steps to reduce their emissions. The impact of the court's decision was considered by legal experts to be strengthened due to its reliance on human rights standards and international measures on climate change. The ruling was regarded as a "rare and therefore significant success against a carbon major". However, Dutch courts have refused to consider the impacts of climate change beyond the Netherlands. It said the choice was not due to losing the case. == Appeal and reversal ==

Shell appealed the ruling. The hearings of the appeal case took place in April 2024. On 12 November 2024, a Dutch appeals court dismissed a 2021 ruling that had required Shell to cut its absolute carbon emissions by 45% by 2030, relative to 2019 levels, including emissions resulting from the use of its products. The Hague's appeals court ruled that Shell, while obligated to limit emissions to protect citizens, was not bound by a specific reduction target. The court found no "social standard of care" requiring Shell to reduce emissions by an exact percentage, though it acknowledged Shell’s responsibility under human rights to help prevent dangerous climate change. Although the court in The Hague acknowledged Shell’s responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it found that imposing a broad reduction target was unwarranted. Shell argued that targeting a single company for a global issue was unrealistic, stressing that emissions policy should be directed at governments. == See also ==