Uitspraak

THE HAGUE COURT OF APPEAL Civil law division

Case number Court of Appeal : 200.302.332/01 Case number District Court : C/09/571932 / HA ZA 19-379

Judgment of 12 November 2024

in the case of

Shell Plc, established in London, United Kingdom, appellant, attorney-at-law: mr. D.F. Lunsingh Scheurleer, with an office in Amsterdam,

and

Stichting Milieu en Mens, established in Amsterdam, joint party on the side of Shell, attorney-at-law: mr. D.J.B. Bosscher, with an office in Halfweg,

versus

1 Vereniging Milieudefensie, established in Amsterdam, 2. Stichting Greenpeace Nederland, established in Amsterdam, 3. Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee, established in Harlingen, 4. Stichting ter bevordering van de Fossielvrij-beweging, established in Amsterdam, 5. Stichting Both ENDS, established in Amsterdam, 6. Vereniging Jongeren Milieu Actiefdissolved as of 1 September 2022), established in Amsterdam, the respondents, attorney-at-law: mr. R.H.J. Cox, with an office in Maastricht.

Hereinafter the court refers to the parties as Shell, M&M and Milieudefensie et al.

1 Brief overview of the case

This case revolves around the question whether Shell has the obligation to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels. Milieudefensie et al. have sought a court order to this effect on the basis that Shell acts unlawfully if it fails to reduce its emissions by 45%. In this judgment it is determined on the basis of objective factors that Shell has an obligation to counter dangerous climate change. However, this does not mean that the civil court is able to establish that Shell should reduce its CO2 emissions by 45%, or any other percentage.

2 Course of the proceedings on appeal

2.1 The course of the proceedings on appeal is evidenced by the following documents:

• the summons of 24 August 2021 with which Shell brought its appeal against the judgment given between the parties by The Hague District Court on 26 May 2021;
• Shell’s statement of appeal with appendices (Exhibits S-1 - 121);
• Milieudefensie et al.’s defence on appeal with appendices (Exhibits MD-340 - 478);