Hague court reverses major ruling against Shell, a blow to climate justice

BAKU – As world leaders gathered in Baku for high-stakes UN climate talks, a Court of Appeal in The Hague recently overturned a landmark district court ruling that had sided with environmental groups against the British multinational oil and gas company, Shell.

In a statement to TRT World, Donald Pols, Director of the Dutch NGO Friends of the Earth(FOE), called the ruling a “blow to communities bearing the brunt of climate inaction”.

While the court acknowledged Shell’s “responsibility to reduce its emissions”, the ruling fell short of setting emissions reduction targets or a timeline for action.

FOE campaigner, Peer De Rijk, says "International treaties, such as those focused on human rights, are designed to safeguard us from the catastrophic impacts of climate crisis, which are largely driven by major oil companies."

“Of course this is disappointing, especially for the climate, but the court is always right”

Is the court always right?

The Court of Appeal decision stems from a 2019 case filed by Friends of the Earth, supported by over 17,000 Dutch citizens, who accused Shell of endangering human lives with its high levels of CO2 emissions.

It marked the first time in 2021 that a district court ruled that a corporation has a legal obligation to align its emissions reductions with the targets of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Three years ago, judges ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, and ordered Shell to cut its emissions by 45 percent before 2030. Shell appealed, and the recent judgement marks a significant reversal.

At the heart of the case was the argument that under the European Convention on Human Rights, there’s an “unwritten standard of care” on corporations to protect an individual's “right to life and the right to family.”

And the overturned ruling could set a harmful precedent.

Andy Palmen, director of Greenpeace Netherlands, one of the co-plaintiffs in the case, said, “this is a setback for the climate and all those impacted by the climate crisis”

But he added, “We will not give up the fight—if anything, this motivates us even more to hold major polluters accountable.”

Meanwhile, Shell welcomed the ruling, calling it “the right decision for the global energy transition, for the Netherlands, and for the company.”

CEO Wael Sawan underlined that Shell’s strategy centres on achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, with an interim goal of halving emissions from its operations by 2030.

De Rijk pushed back on Shell’s claims, telling TRT World, "reaching net zero by 2050 is not enough”. To keep the 1.5-2°C target within reach, he says there must be a “dramatic reduction in emissions well before 2030."

The Dutch NGO argues Shell’s plan to expand into nearly 800 new oil and gas fields directly also undermines the conglomerate’s climate goals.

Not sticking to emissions targets is a decades-long, controversial issue, with some scientists and researchers suggesting “we’re already on route for an overshoot, and a potential rise of as much as 3.1°C,” according to the UN’s Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, who issued stern warnings at both the G20 and COP29 summits in the same week.

But surpassing 1.5°C may come as soon as 2030, a year the Paris Agreement has used as a benchmark for climate action and avoiding dangerous tipping points. In June, the World Meteorological Organisation warned there’s a “80 percent likelihood global temperatures will exceed the 1.5°C target” within the next five years.

Rising climate litigation cases globally

With more legal battles being fought over environmental policies, the judicial system is emerging as a critical arena for climate advocacy.

According to the Graham Sustainability Institute, at least 2,666 climate litigation cases have sprung up worldwide since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2016.

In December, the International Court of Justice in The Hague will hold hearings on the obligations of states in respect to climate crisis.

Legal experts warn the court’s ruling could have major implications for how nations are held accountable for their role in global warming, potentially setting a precedent for stronger international legal frameworks around climate action.

But similar warnings foreshadowed the recently-overturned Dutch case, which was won by one of the biggest polluters on the planet. At least, so far.