In 2021, the Dutch district court had ordered Shell to cut its global emissions by 45% by the end of 2030 relative to its 2019 levels. The claim, based on the European Convention on Human Rights, Art 2 right to life and Art 8 right to family life, as well as domestic Dutch law, was brought by the Friends of the Earth Netherlands (Milieudefensie) along with more than 17,000 claimants.
The Netherlands Court of Appeal quashed the ruling this week, in Shell v Milieudefensie ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2024:2099.
The court agreed ‘there can be no doubt that protection from dangerous climate change is a human right’ and that ‘companies like Shell… have an obligation to limit CO2 emissions’.
However, it concluded: ‘Shell cannot be bound by a 45% reduction standard (or any other percentage) agreed by climate science because this percentage does not apply to every country and every business sector individually.’
ClientEarth senior lawyer Paul Benson said: ‘Of course the result of this judgment is disappointing. But this is unlikely to be the end of the road for the claim.
‘Importantly, the court highlighted that new oil and gas may be at odds with Shell’s legal obligations. And, crucially, the court was definitive on Shell’s “Scope 3” emissions, throwing out Shell’s argument that it is not ultimately responsible for the emissions from the products it sells.’
In April, a pioneering climate decision was handed down by the European Court of Human Rights, in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland (application no 53600/20). A group of more than 2,000 older Swiss women successfully argued that their government’s inaction breached their Art 2 rights as their age and gender made them particularly susceptible to dying during heatwaves.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b21f1aaf_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=754d0e82_1)
