Climate Case of Milieudefensie against Shell
In November 2024, the Court of Appeal in The Hague overturned the 2021 judgment of the District Court of The Hague in the case brought by Milieudefensie, other NGOs and a group of individuals against Shell. The Court recognised the concrete steps Shell is already taking to reduce the emissions from its activities. Shell is well on track to halve its own emissions by 2030. The Court also acknowledged that a court order against Shell would not be effective in reducing total global CO₂ emissions, as other companies would take over Shell’s sales of energy products.
Originally published in Dutch: 5 May 2022. Subsequently updated on: 26 Mar 2024, 30 Oct 2024, 19 Nov 2024, 23 Jun 2025, 9 Mar 2026, 12 Mar 2026.
What is the Climate Case about?
What is the Climate Case about?
The case is about whether Shell has a legal obligation to reduce the worldwide aggregate carbon emissions it reports across Scopes 1, 2, and 3 by at least net 45% by 2030, compared to 2019 levels. In May 2021, the District Court of The Hague imposed a “significant duty of effort” on Shell for Scope 2 and 3. On 12 November 2024, the Court of Appeal in The Hague (the Court) dismissed Milieudefensie’s claim against Shell in the appeal. In doing so, the Court annulled the District Court’s earlier judgment in its entirety, with immediate effect.
What was the judgment by the Court of Appeal?
What was the judgment by the Court of Appeal?
The Court stated that the reduction order imposed by the District Court could not be upheld, because:
- with respect to Scope 1 and 2, Milieudefensie was unable to demonstrate that it was unlikely that Shell would reduce its emissions by 45% by 2030 (compared with 2019), since Shell had already largely achieved this target: by the end of 2023 Shell had reduced its Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 31% compared with 2016 (or 29% compared with 2019); and
- with respect to Scope 3, there is insufficient consensus in climate science on a specific reduction percentage that an individual company such as Shell should be required to meet. The Court further determined that a reduction order concerning Scope 3 would not be effective in reducing total CO₂ emissions, as other companies would simply take over the sale of Shell’s energy products.
The full judgment is available in Dutch here, at the website of the courts
What happened after the Court of Appeal judgment?
What happened after the Court of Appeal judgment?
On 11 February 2025, Milieudefensie announced it would appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. The Supreme Court will assess whether the law has been applied correctly and whether the Court of Appeal has rendered a sufficiently reasoned judgment. The process typically takes 18 months.
Timeline and filed documents
November 2025: Shell files Statement of Defence
November 2025: Shell files Statement of Defence
On 7 November 2025, Shell filed its Statement of Defence in response to Milieudefensie’s appeal to the Dutch Supreme Court. This follows last year’s Court of Appeal decision that fully dismissed the climate case against Shell.
February 2025: Milieudefensie announces appeal at the Supreme Court
February 2025: Milieudefensie announces appeal at the Supreme Court
November 2024: Court of Appeal overturns earlier ruling
November 2024: Court of Appeal overturns earlier ruling
On 12 November 2024, the Court of Appeal of The Hague overturned the 2021 judgment of the District Court of The Hague in the case brought against Shell by Milieudefensie, other NGOs, and a group of individuals.
Read Shell's reaction to the Court of Appeal ruling in English
April 2024: Hearings at the Court of Appeal
April 2024: Hearings at the Court of Appeal
The hearings at the Court of Appeal took place on 2, 3, 4 and 12 April 2024. Click here for Shell's Pleading Note Summary.
Below the Talking notes, which are in Dutch only, and the Closing words (English translation) in the Climate Case Appeal.
Day 1
- Spreekaantekeningen Shell plc, 2 april 2024 Dag 1 Deel 1 (PDF, 2 MB)
- Spreekaantekeningen Shell plc, 2 april 2024 Dag 1 Deel 2 (PDF, 755 kB)
Day 2
- Spreekaantekeningen Shell plc, 3 april Dag 2 Deel 1 (PDF, 1 MB)
- Spreekaantekeningen Shell plc, 3 april Dag 2 Deel 2 (PDF, 1 MB)
- Spreekaantekeningen Shell plc, 3 april Dag 2 Deel 3 (PDF, 1 MB)
- Spreekaantekeningen Shell plc, 3 april Dag 2 Deel 4 (PDF, 1 MB)
Day 4
Closing statement
March 2024: Key policy and legislative developments
March 2024: Key policy and legislative developments
April 2023: Two parties attempt to intervene
April 2023: Two parties attempt to intervene
Two parties are attempting to intervene in the appeal proceedings in the Climate Case between Shell and Milieudefensie et al. The Climate Intelligence Foundation (“Clintel”) is seeking to intervene as a third party in order to bring its own claims against Shell. If the Court of Appeal does not allow this, it wishes to join Shell’s appeal and challenge the May 2021 judgment of the District Court of The Hague with respect to the state of climate science.
Shell opposes Clintel’s intervention or accession to the Climate Case because Shell does not agree with, and distances itself from, Clintel’s positions on climate science, which run counter to the global scientific consensus. Shell believes that the appeal should not be burdened or delayed by a complex debate about the accuracy or reliability of climate science. This issue is not in dispute between Shell and Milieudefensie et al. in these proceedings.
The Stichting Milieu & Mens (“Milieu & Mens”), which represents concerned energy users, also seeks to join Shell’s appeal, arguing that the judgment in the Climate Case will negatively affect energy security and affordability. Milieu & Mens further argues that civil proceedings are not the appropriate means by which to impose an emissions‑reduction obligation on an individual company. Based on Milieu & Mens’ submissions in the proceedings to date, Shell is of the opinion that its arguments do not fall outside Shell’s own grounds of appeal and that Milieu & Mens’ accession to the Climate Case will not cause unreasonable delay. Shell therefore defers to the Court of Appeal’s judgment to allow the intervention of Milieu & Mens.
July 2021: Shell confirms it appeals against the judgment
July 2021: Shell confirms it appeals against the judgment
May 2021: Judgment in the Climate Case by the District Court
May 2021: Judgment in the Climate Case by the District Court
On 26 May 2021, the District Court of The Hague delivered its judgment. The court ordered Shell to reduce the CO₂ emissions of the Shell group by net 45% by the end of 2030, compared with 2019 levels, through the group’s corporate policy. With regard to suppliers and customers, a significant best-efforts obligation applies, meaning that Royal Dutch Shell must use its influence through the group’s corporate policy, for example by setting requirements for suppliers through its procurement policy.
The full judgment is available in Dutch here at the website of the courts.
Shell's reaction: “There is an urgent need for action to tackle climate change. That is why we have accelerated our efforts to become a net‑zero emissions energy company by 2050, in step with society, with short‑term targets to track our progress.
We are investing billions of dollars in low‑carbon energy, including electric vehicle charging points, hydrogen, renewable energy, and biofuels. We want to increase demand for these products and scale up our new energy businesses even faster.
We will continue to focus on these efforts and expect to appeal today’s disappointing judgment by the court.”
In the conclusion of reply (PDF, 184 kB) (in Dutch only) Shell outlines in details its reaction to the arguments of Milieudefensie e.a..
December 2020: Hearings in Climate Case
December 2020: Hearings in Climate Case
The hearings of the District Court in the Hague take place on 1, 3, 15 and 17 December 2020.
- Read Shell's opening statement (PDF, 588 kB) of this case (in Dutch only)
- Read Shell's plea on the applicable law (PDF, 136 kB) of this case (in Dutch only)
- Read Shell's plea on admissibility (PDF, 122 kB) of this case (in Dutch only)
- Read Shell's plea on facts and questions before the court (PDF, 666 kB) (in Dutch only)
- Read Shell's plea on science (PDF, 835 kB) of this case (in Dutch only)
- Read Shell's plea on the court's law-forming role (PDF, 286 kB) of this case (in Dutch only)
- Read Shell's plea on applicable law (Part II) (PDF, 152 kB) of this case (in Dutch only)
- Read Shell's plea on the substantive assessment of the claims (PDF, 393 kB) of this case (in Dutch only)
- Read Shell's plea on the petitum (PDF, 207 kB) of this case (in Dutch only)
April 2019: Summons
April 2019: Summons
Milieudefensie and several other organisations are summoning Shell. Milieudefensie et al. demand that Shell, as a minimum and with immediate effect, reduce its CO₂ emissions by 45% by 2030 (compared with 2019) and bring them down to net zero by 2050.
Shell states that it would prefer to engage in dialogue and work together on the energy transition rather than meet each other in court. “After all, tackling climate change — such a major challenge — requires a joint, society-wide approach.”
In its statement of defence Shell addresses the points raised by Milieudefensie et al.
Frequently asked questions about the Climate Case
What was the Court of Appeal’s ruling?
What was the Court of Appeal’s ruling?
On 12 November 2024, The Hague Court of Appeal (the Court) dismissed Milieudefensie’s claim against Shell. In doing so, the Court of Appeal annulled the earlier judgment of the District Court in its entirety with immediate effect. The full judgment can be found here.
The Court ruled that the reduction order imposed by the District Court could not be upheld because:
- in respect of Scopes 1 and 2, MD could not demonstrate that Shell was unlikely to reduce its emissions by 45% by 2030 (relative to 2019), given Shell has already largely achieved this target: by the end of 2023, Shell had reduced its Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 31% compared to 2016 (or 29% compared to 2019); and
- in respect of Scope 3, there was insufficient consensus in climate science on a specific reduction percentage to which an individual company like Shell should adhere. Further, the Court of Appeal determined that any reduction order in respect of Scope 3 would be ineffective in reducing overall CO2 emissions, as other companies would take over Shell’s energy product sales.
What are the next legal steps after the Court of Appeal’s decision?
What are the next legal steps after the Court of Appeal’s decision?
Either party can appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands within three months of the judgment. On appeal, the Supreme Court will assess whether the law has been applied correctly and whether the Court of Appeal has rendered a sufficiently reasoned judgment. The process typically takes 18 months.
Why do you believe litigation against companies does little to help tackle climate change?
Why do you believe litigation against companies does little to help tackle climate change?
The energy transition requires collaboration between governments, businesses and consumers. Litigation does not enable the global cooperation required to change both the supply and demand for energy. Effective policy from government and action from all sectors is the appropriate way to reach solutions and drive progress.
Will Shell maintain its strategy and emissions reduction targets?
Will Shell maintain its strategy and emissions reduction targets?
Yes. We are focused on delivering our strategy and our strategy is unchanged. We remain committed to the targets we set out in June 2023 and March 2024, and continue to prioritise shareholder value including our focus on performance, discipline and simplification, as we work to deliver more value with less emissions.
We have remained focused on delivering our Energy Transition Strategy while pursuing this appeal. This includes making significant investments in the energy transition. The Court of Appeal’s judgment does not change this and in fact recognised the progress that Shell has made against its own targets.
Globally, Shell is investing US$10-15 billion between 2023 and the end of 2025 in low-carbon energy solutions, including charging for electric vehicles, biofuels, renewable power, hydrogen and carbon capture and storage. In 2023, we invested US$5.6 billion on low-carbon solutions, 23% of our total capital spending. Read more about our efforts in our latest Energy Transition Strategy.
Importantly, we have already delivered results: By the end of 2023, Shell had reduced its Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 31% when compared with our 2016 base year, which is more than 60% of our target to halve Scope 1 and 2 emissions from our operations by 2030 (against 2016 levels). We achieved our target to reduce the net carbon intensity of the energy products we sell, with a 6.3% reduction compared with 2016 – the third consecutive year we hit our target. We continued to keep our methane emissions intensity well below 0.2%.
What was Shell's reaction to the Court of Appeal overturning the earlier ruling?
What was Shell's reaction to the Court of Appeal overturning the earlier ruling?
Shell's reaction to Climate Case to the Supreme Court
Shell's reaction to Climate Case to the Supreme Court
What was the District Court’s ruling in 2021?
What was the District Court’s ruling in 2021?
The court found that Shell is not currently acting unlawfully, however it ruled that Shell must reduce the aggregate CO2 emissions of Shell Group operations and energy-carrying products sold by 45% (net) by the end of 2030 compared to its emissions in 2019. In respect of Scopes 2 and 3, the court imposed a ‘significant best efforts’ obligation.
The court referred to Shell’s worldwide emissions, not only emissions within the Netherlands, and it referred to emissions reduction in absolute terms, not carbon intensity.
The court stated that Shell has “total freedom to comply with its reduction obligation as it sees fit”. The court allows for compensation of CO2 emissions, for example through carbon capture and storage or nature-based solutions, such as planting trees and protecting nature.
What was the legal basis of the District Court’s 2021 ruling?
What was the legal basis of the District Court’s 2021 ruling?
The court based its findings on an ‘unwritten standard of care’ under Dutch law. In addition, the court regarded climate change as a human rights issue and stated it is universally accepted that all companies must respect human rights and must assess any actual or potential negative impacts on human rights from their own activities or as a result of their business relationships. The court said that the consequences of climate change in the Netherlands and the Wadden region (islands and a body of water near the North Sea) pose a threat to the (human) rights of Dutch residents and the inhabitants of the Wadden region.
What reason did the District Court give for specifying a net 45% reduction by 2030 as compared to the 2019 level?
What reason did the District Court give for specifying a net 45% reduction by 2030 as compared to the 2019 level?
The court decided that to limit global warming to 1.5˚C, the world should choose reduction pathways that reduce CO2 emissions by net 45% by 2030 relative to 2010 levels. The court specifically referred to the IPCC, UNEP, Paris Agreement, IEA and other international bodies, agreements and policies. The court chose 2019 rather than 2010 levels as the basis for this decision because Milieudefensie had specifically requested the 2019 date.
Did the District Court introduce any financial penalties to enforce compliance with its ruling?
Did the District Court introduce any financial penalties to enforce compliance with its ruling?
The court found that Shell was not currently acting unlawfully and there was no ruling on potential liability in relation to future actions. The court did not order any potential sanctions against the company in relation to compliance with the judgment.
Why did Shell appeal the District Court’s ruling?
Why did Shell appeal the District Court’s ruling?
Our appeal of the 2021 District Court ruling was not about whether there is an urgent need to address climate change; Shell supports the goal of the Paris Agreement and is a significant investor in the global energy transition. We appealed the District Court’s ruling as we believe the ruling had no basis in Dutch law, and by focusing only on the supply of energy rather than the demand for it, that it was ineffective and could even be counterproductive in tackling climate change. It is the role of government to create policies that drive consumer choices for energy. Smart policy from government and action from all sectors is the appropriate way to reach solutions and drive progress.
Cautionary note
Cautionary note
The companies in which Shell plc directly and indirectly owns investments are separate legal entities. In this announcement “Shell”, “Shell Group” and “Group” are sometimes used for convenience to reference Shell plc and its subsidiaries in general. Likewise, the words “we”, “us” and “our” are also used to refer to Shell plc and its subsidiaries in general or to those who work for them. These terms are also used where no useful purpose is served by identifying the particular entity or entities. ‘‘Subsidiaries’’, “Shell subsidiaries” and “Shell companies” as used in this announcement refer to entities over which Shell plc either directly or indirectly has control. The terms “joint venture”, “joint operations”, “joint arrangements”, and “associates” may also be used to refer to a commercial arrangement in which Shell has a direct or indirect ownership interest with one or more parties. The term “Shell interest” is used for convenience to indicate the direct and/or indirect ownership interest held by Shell in an entity or unincorporated joint arrangement, after exclusion of all third-party interest.
Forward-Looking statements
This announcement contains forward-looking statements (within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995) concerning the financial condition, results of operations and businesses of Shell. All statements other than statements of historical fact are, or may be deemed to be, forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements of future expectations that are based on management’s current expectations and assumptions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied in these statements. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements concerning the potential exposure of Shell to market risks and statements expressing management’s expectations, beliefs, estimates, forecasts, projections and assumptions. These forward-looking statements are identified by their use of terms and phrases such as “aim”; “ambition”; ‘‘anticipate’’; “aspire”, “aspiration”, ‘‘believe’’; “commit”; “commitment”; ‘‘could’’; “desire”; ‘‘estimate’’; ‘‘expect’’; ‘‘goals’’; ‘‘intend’’; ‘‘may’’; “milestones”; ‘‘objectives’’; ‘‘outlook’’; ‘‘plan’’; ‘‘probably’’; ‘‘project’’; ‘‘risks’’; “schedule”; ‘‘seek’’; ‘‘should’’; ‘‘target’’; “vision”; ‘‘will’’; “would” and similar terms and phrases. There are a number of factors that could affect the future operations of Shell and could cause those results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements included in this announcement, including (without limitation): (a) price fluctuations in crude oil and natural gas; (b) changes in demand for Shell’s products; (c) currency fluctuations; (d) drilling and production results; (e) reserves estimates; (f) loss of market share and industry competition; (g) environmental and physical risks, including climate change; (h) risks associated with the identification of suitable potential acquisition properties and targets, and successful negotiation and completion of such transactions; (i) the risk of doing business in developing countries and countries subject to international sanctions; (j) legislative, judicial, fiscal and regulatory developments including tariffs and regulatory measures addressing climate change; (k) economic and financial market conditions in various countries and regions; (l) political risks, including the risks of expropriation and renegotiation of the terms of contracts with governmental entities, delays or advancements in the approval of projects and delays in the reimbursement for shared costs; (m) risks associated with the impact of pandemics, regional conflicts, such as the Russia-Ukraine war and the conflict in the Middle East, and a significant cyber security, data privacy or IT incident; (n) the pace of the energy transition; and (o) changes in trading conditions. No assurance is provided that future dividend payments will match or exceed previous dividend payments. All forward-looking statements contained in this announcement are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Additional risk factors that may affect future results are contained in Shell plc’s Form 20-F and amendment thereto for the year ended December 31, 2024 (available at www.shell.com/investors/news-and-filings/sec-filings.html and www.sec.gov). These risk factors also expressly qualify all forward-looking statements contained in this announcement and should be considered by the reader. Each forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date of this announcement, March9, 2026. Neither Shell plc nor any of its subsidiaries undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or other information. In light of these risks, results could differ materially from those stated, implied or inferred from the forward-looking statements contained in this announcement.
Shell’s net carbon intensity
Also, in this announcement we may refer to Shell’s “net carbon intensity” (NCI), which includes Shell’s carbon emissions from the production of our energy products, our suppliers’ carbon emissions in supplying energy for that production and our customers’ carbon emissions associated with their use of the energy products we sell. Shell’s NCI also includes the emissions associated with the production and use of energy products produced by others which Shell purchases for resale. Shell only controls its own emissions. The use of the terms Shell’s “net carbon intensity” or NCI is for convenience only and not intended to suggest these emissions are those of Shell plc or its subsidiaries.
Shell’s net-zero emissions target
Shell’s operating plan and outlook are forecasted for a three-year period and ten-year period, respectively, and are updated every year. They reflect the current economic environment and what we can reasonably expect to see over the next three and ten years. Accordingly, the outlook reflects our Scope 1, Scope 2 and NCI targets over the next ten years. However, Shell’s operating plan and outlook cannot reflect our 2050 net-zero emissions target, as this target is outside our planning period. Such future operating plans and outlooks could include changes to our portfolio, efficiency improvements and the use of carbon capture and storage and carbon credits. In the future, as society moves towards net-zero emissions, we expect Shell’s operating plans and outlooks to reflect this movement. However, if society is not net zero in 2050, as of today, there would be significant risk that Shell may not meet this target.
Forward-Looking non-GAAP measures
This announcement may contain certain forward-looking non-GAAP measures such as adjusted earnings and divestments. We are unable to provide a reconciliation of these forward-looking non-GAAP measures to the most comparable GAAP financial measures because certain information needed to reconcile those non-GAAP measures to the most comparable GAAP financial measures is dependent on future events some of which are outside the control of Shell, such as oil and gas prices, interest rates and exchange rates. Moreover, estimating such GAAP measures with the required precision necessary to provide a meaningful reconciliation is extremely difficult and could not be accomplished without unreasonable effort. Non-GAAP measures in respect of future periods which cannot be reconciled to the most comparable GAAP financial measure are calculated in a manner which is consistent with the accounting policies applied in Shell plc’s consolidated financial statements.
The contents of websites referred to in this announcement do not form part of this announcement.
We may have used certain terms, such as resources, in this announcement that the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) strictly prohibits us from including in our filings with the SEC. Investors are urged to consider closely the disclosure in our Form 20-F and any amendment thereto, File No 1-32575, available on the SEC website www.sec.gov.
