On November 12, 2024, the international community closely followed the Court of Appeal in The Hague as it delivered its much-anticipated judgment in the Shell case. This decision involved proceedings between several environmental organizations and the oil and gas giant, centering on Shell’s responsibility to reduce CO2 emissions.
This article provides a concise overview of the case, highlights five significant decisions made by the Court of Appeal, and outlines key considerations for interpreting the judgment. Notably, the ruling defies simplistic classifications of “victory” or “defeat.”
Subject of the Proceedings
As in the case in first instance, the claimants sought to hold Shell liable if it failed to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45% (or at least 35% or 25%) by 2030, relative to its 2019 emissions levels. They requested the Court to compel Shell to meet these reduction targets effectively. The Court resolved the case based on Dutch law.
Five Key Decisions by the Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal revisited the claims of the environmental groups and issued the following noteworthy decisions:
1) Shell’s Obligation to Reduce Emissions
As a major contributor to the climate crisis with the capacity to support mitigation efforts, Shell has an obligation to reduce its CO2 emissions. According to the Court, this duty exists even in the absence of a specific legal provision explicitly imposing it.
2) General Duty of Care and Human Rights
The Court framed this obligation as part of the general duty of care that applies universally. Its interpretation of this open norm was inspired by human rights, such as the right to life and the right to respect for private life, as well as international and European laws targeting the effects of climate change. The Court considered both binding rules and non-binding “soft law.”
3) Human Rights and Private Entities
Traditionally, human rights apply to relationships between citizens and the state. However, the Court held that, in this case, private companies and individuals could also invoke these rights against one another.
4) Rejection of Shell’s Argument on Exhaustive Legislation
Shell argued that existing CO2 emission regulations were exhaustive and precluded the imposition of additional obligations. The Court rejected this view, affirming that the general duty of care could impose supplementary requirements to reduce CO2 emissions.
5) Lack of a Clear Reduction Percentage
The Court found no legal rule or scientific consensus dictating the exact percentage by which Shell must reduce its CO2 emissions. Consequently, it declined to mandate reductions of 45%, 35%, or 25% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels.
These five decisions highlight the complexity of the judgment, which resists simplistic conclusions about winners and losers. The true impact and scope of the ruling will only become clear over time. It is also worth noting that Shell may still appeal the decision to the Dutch Supreme Court.
Summary
The judgment emphasizes several critical points:
- Companies can, in principle, be held accountable under their general duty of care for the environmental harm caused by their activities.
- The evolution of additional legislative frameworks and scientific research will play a significant role in shaping the scope of this duty of care. For legal certainty, clear and foreseeable sanctions are desirable.
- The implications of specific legal obligations regarding CO2 emissions on the trend of climate litigation against governments and private companies remain uncertain.
