The initial ruling, issued in 2021 by a district court in The Hague, was viewed as groundbreaking and had the potential to inspire similar legal actions globally. It received substantial attention as Shell was one of the most prominent companies in the Netherlands at the time. Subsequently, Shell relocated its headquarters to London.
Following the appeal verdict, Shell expressed satisfaction. "We are pleased with the court’s decision, which we believe is the right one for the global energy transition, the Netherlands, and our company," stated CEO Wael Sawan.
This ruling coincides with a gathering of approximately 200 countries in Azerbaijan to discuss climate change strategies, and follows the recent U.S. presidential election victory of Donald J. Trump, known for his skepticism regarding climate issues.
Milieudefensie, the Dutch branch of the environmental organization Friends of the Earth that initiated the original lawsuit, contended that Shell had a responsibility to expedite emissions reductions to safeguard people both in the Netherlands and worldwide.
Shell contested the initial ruling, arguing that placing the burden on a single company to lower emissions would not diminish the demand for oil products and would therefore be ineffective.
On Tuesday, the Court of Appeal in The Hague largely dismissed Milieudefensie’s claims, acknowledging that Shell had "an obligation toward citizens to reduce CO2 emissions," which is a significant legal point, but emphasized that the primary responsibility lies with the government.
“It is primarily up to the government to ensure the protection of human rights,” the court stated in a press release.
The court acknowledged that Shell was already in the process of developing a strategy to decrease emissions associated with its oil and natural gas production. It further indicated that if Shell ceased fuel sales to consumers, other companies would likely fill the gap in demand. The court concluded, “On balance, no reduction in CO2 emissions would be achieved.”
Milieudefensie, which was ordered to cover the legal costs, described the ruling as “a setback for us, for the climate movement, and for millions of people globally.”
However, the impact of this decision, which is subject to appeal in the Dutch Supreme Court, remains uncertain.
Mijke Sinninghe Damsté, a partner at the law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Amsterdam, remarked that following this ruling, “it will be challenging to pursue a broad claim like this,” although the court’s determination that Shell has a duty to limit emissions is noteworthy.
Meanwhile, other significant legal actions against major energy firms are ongoing. This week, Greenpeace is expected to commence a hearing in Scotland aimed at halting the development of two substantial oil fields, Rosebank and Jackdaw, located in British waters, with the Jackdaw project being spearheaded by Shell.