Thread by @LRoordaLaw

Milieudefensie/Shell climate case has now started. Judgment will be online, in Dutch, and with English summary later. #shellclimatecase

To reiterate, claimants have instituted proceedings against Royal Dutch Shell (RDS), the Anglo-Dutch parent company of the Shell group, for failing to take sufficient measures to reduce emissions in Shell corporate group.

Court notes parties agree that emissions need to be reduced, but disagree whether there is an individual, enforceable obligation for RDS to reduce emissions through group-wide policies.

RDS has disputed that court has jurisdiction to adjudicate case, but court rejects that objection.

Court now discusses standing of claimant NGOs, both public interest claims and individual claims. Question is whether NGOs have standing to represent relevant public interests.

Court only accepts standing of NGOs that represent public interests relating to effects in the Netherlands; no standing for ActionAid, no standing for individual claimants (because part of collective claim).

First material question: does Shell have an individual obligation to reduce emissions?

Court has answered this question according to unwritten duty of care, 6:162 BW (Civil Code). Should be interpreted according to social norms and conventions.

Court notes Shell group has enormous impact on climate change through its emissions, larger than most individual countries. Highlights harmful effects of climate change.

Creates risks for individuals, and for enjoyment of human rights. RDS not directly subject to HR, but indirect responsibility - court cites OECD Guidelines and UNGPs.

(Short break - wow. First UNGP citation I've ever heard in a domestic court)

Court concludes that pursuant to UNGPs and OECD Guidelines, corporations have a responsibility to respect human rights independently from whether or not states take action.

To what extent this creates an obligation depends on size of the company, causal links to the impact, etc. Court pretty much reiterates UNGPs in the context of assessing whether corps should respond to creation of risks.

RDS has direct responsibility, both through its own corporate policies and through offering 'energy packages'.

Court concludes RDS has obligation of result with regard to reduction of emissions of corps within the group, and obligation of conduct to try to get business relations/consumers to reduce emissions.

(Wow II)

Next question: how much should Shell reduce? Court refers to IPCC reports and Paris Agreement to make this assessment.

Following IPCC reports, reduction should be 45% in 2030. Claimants argued that this should be 'absolute' reduction (no compensation), but court notes this does not have general agreement.

Court: general worldwide agreement that 45% net reduction in 2030 is necessary. 'This applies to the entire world, so also to Shell'.

RDS has means and knowledge to make this reduction. Should implement policies to reduce emissions by 45% in 2030, compared to 2019.

RDS had argued that Shell is not the only actor that should reduce emissions. Court: that is correct, but that does not reduce own responsibilities. Just 'following' is not sufficient.

Also argued that if RDS reduces sales of fossil fuels, others will step in. Court: no, they also have the same responsibilities.

Yes, this will limit growth of Shell corporate group. But according to court, that is 'an offer that does not outweigh the fundamental interest of reducing the risks of climate change'

Did RDS violate this obligation? Not yet, says court, and not in the process of violating it. Corporate policies are currently being adjusted.

But: new policies are vague, full of exceptions, non-specific. Risk of non-compliance. So court hands out court order to reduce by 45%.

This is an unexpectedly massive victory for the claimants. Earth-shattering. I'm stunned.