Friends of the Earth Netherlands has taken its climate case against Shell to the Dutch Supreme Court after a partial win at The Hague Court of Appeal.The group seeks a binding emissions reduction target, which the appellate court denied. It argues that a clear legal mandate is crucial for real climate action.
On November 12, 2024, the appellate court ruled that Shell can’t be legally forced to set emission targets, overturning a 2021 ruling.In 2021, The Hague District Court ordered Shell to cut CO₂ emissions by 45% by 2030. The Court of Appeal upheld climate protection enforcement but found no legal basis for the 45% target.Shell aims to cut Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 50% by 2030 (vs. 2016) and customer emissions by 15–20% (vs. 2021).
Milieudefensie argued the court should have set a clear reduction target under human rights law. It criticized the ruling for relying only on scientific consensus, urging consideration of climate agreements and legal principles.Plaintiffs acknowledged Shell’s Scope 1 and 2 target aligns with a 48% emissions cut by 2030 but argued it lacks a guarantee of lasting reductions.
The court ruled that assuming a legal violation requires proof that Shell is unlikely to meet its 45% reduction goal despite its plans and actions.The court ruled it couldn’t impose a Scope 3 target for a 45% overall reduction but said Shell must make an “appropriate contribution” to climate action.It noted that short-term Scope 3 emissions growth could still lower global emissions overall. The court also acknowledged broad agreement on cutting CO₂ by 45% by 2030 and 100% by 2050 to meet the Paris Agreement.
The court noted that global CO₂ cuts of 45% by 2030 mean some sectors must reduce more than others. It said it couldn’t set a specific reduction target for Shell.However, the court disagreed with Shell’s interpretation of an ECtHR ruling on states’ discretion in meeting rights obligations.
The court rejected Shell’s claim that civil courts should avoid managing climate change, stating that ECtHR’s discretion for states doesn’t prevent courts from imposing legal obligations on Shell while allowing flexibility in how it meets them.
The court said national courts aren’t bound by ECtHR’s restraint on fundamental rights protection.Shell welcomed the ruling, emphasizing the need to balance energy demand with climate action. It argued that court orders wouldn’t cut emissions, as customers would simply switch suppliers.
