The Dutch Supreme Court held hearings on June 19 on a case demanding Royal Dutch Shell reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 45% from 2019 levels by 2030, brought by the Dutch branch of Friends of the Earth, Milieudefensie [1]. Milieudefensie argues there is a strong legal basis for courts to impose binding climate obligations on Shell and is optimistic about winning. "We think we have a good chance of winning. The days of non-commitment are over," spokeswoman Winnie Oussoren said [1].
The case dates back to 2021 when a Dutch court ordered Shell to reach this emissions reduction target. However, an appellate court overturned the ruling in 2024, declaring Shell had met its obligations and that courts should not impose specific emissions targets, leaving this to lawmakers [1, 2]. Shell opposes judicially mandated CO2 cuts, saying such decisions risk legal uncertainty and should be coordinated at the national or European level. Shell lawyer Freerk Vermeulen told the court that imposing individual company targets is ineffective and raises energy security and affordability concerns [2].
Environmental lawyers maintain courts have a crucial role in enforcing climate commitments. Roger Cox, representing the environmental groups, said the courts must ensure large companies are held accountable to protect human rights and the environment [2].
The case is viewed as a landmark test of judicial authority over fossil fuel emissions. It pits environmental groups pressing courts to enforce climate action against Shell and authorities who argue regulatory frameworks should set targets rather than courts [1].
The Supreme Court is expected to deliver its final ruling in the first half of 2027 [2]. Until then, the 2021 and 2024 rulings remain key reference points in this ongoing legal dispute over Shell’s climate obligations.
