Thread by @rubiera_rubiese

[EN] Yesterday a Dutch court once again gave us a landmark climate ruling. 🥳
This is: Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc.
Let's talk about it 👇

First of all let's talk about the parties; on the one hand there's Royal Dutch Shell plc., maybe you know them from the @shellmustfall campaign or because they are literally everywhere. A hydrocarbon company with 470,171 billion in revenue. They are the bad guys, to sum it up.

On the other is @milieudefensie, the Dutch branch of @foeeurope, an environmental NGO focused on political incidence and legal advocacy. Good people. Their lawyer is @CoxRoger (the one who won the Urgenda case, a rockstar).

Ok, so in 2018, Milieudefensie threatens Shell with taking the company to court if they don't commit to drastically reduce their emissions. Specifically, they are calling for Shell to comply with the Paris Agreement.

In the meantime, the NGO does some truly spectacular mobilisation work and by March 24th 2019, more than 17,000 Dutch citizens have signed up to be co-plaintiffs in the case.
Shell obviously does not reduce its emissions, and on April 5th, the NGO files the lawsuit against Shell.

Shell then prepares a 253-page response explaining why they are not going to reduce their emissions and saying that the facts set out in the lawsuit are "oversimplified" and that there is no legal basis for Milieudefensie's lawsuit.

In fact, in the midst of all this, in 2019, the company's CEO makes a statement explicitly announcing that they plan to continue betting on oil because "they have no other choice" and "it's perfectly legitimate". Yeah, for real.

The case goes to court (specifically to the District Court in The Hague) and there are four days of oral hearings, on 1, 3, 15 and 17 December 2020.

Five months after the hearing, on 26 May 2021 (yesterday) the Court rules in favour of Milieudefensie and says the following:
1. That Shell must reduce its emissions by 45% by 2030.
2. That Shell is responsible for the emissions of its consumers and suppliers (!!!).

3. That Shell is a threat to the fundamental right to life and undisturbed family life.
4. That Shell must comply with this sentence immediately.

Pretty espectacular, right? This is the first case in which a court has recognised a private company as the cause of the climate crisis, and undoubtedly marks a before and after in climate litigation against private entities.

It is not the first case to try this argument, but it is the first to obtain a ruling in favour of the plaintiffs. This is a full-on gamechanger 🧑‍⚖️🎉

You have all the documentation of the case here: en.milieudefensie.nl/news/overview-…

And the judgment here: uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument…

And some sources:
en.milieudefensie.nl/news/friends-o…
en.milieudefensie.nl/climate-case-s…
en.milieudefensie.nl/news/shell2019…
reuters.com/article/us-she…