The final hearing in Milieudefensie’s first case against Shell – arguing that Shell should adhere to a specific percentage for emissions reductions – will be held upcoming Friday, on the 22nd of May. For the first time ever, a Supreme Court will consider the interpretation of the duty of care of a private company with respect to climate change. Both Milieudefensie and Shell will present their final argumentation, after which the Supreme Court will affirm or oppose the lower court’s decision, which said that it could not impose a specific percentage on Shell’s obligation to reduce emissions.

Milieudefensie has provided three main arguments in response to the Court of Appeal’s 2024 decision (see below) refusing to impose a specific percentage for emissions reduction (per Milieudefensie’s communication): 

1. Effective legal protection is needed
   By not setting a specific reduction percentage for Shell, the Court of Appeal offers no real protection against dangerous climate change. This is an infringement of the right to effective measures to protect human rights.

2. Climate science consensus is too limited 
   In order to determine the exact percentage by which Shell should reduce its emissions, the Court of Appeal chose to apply the narrow standard of scientific consensus. The Court of Appeal should have applied a broader standard instead. And consider a.o. the legal doctrine on hazardous negligence, international climate agreements and legal principles in order to assess the available science.

3. A specific reduction target for Shell is effective
   The Court of Appeal ruled that Milieudefensie does not have an interest in a specific emission reduction percentage order for Shell, because Shell might implement the court order in such a way that it could be ineffective. But the court should not focus on the ways in which Shell may fail to reach its reduction targets, but on the ways it can demonstrate accountability and take action.