Dutch Court Weighs Shell’s 45% Cut

The Dutch Supreme Court heard oral arguments on 22 May in Milieudefensie v. Shell, the case that may decide how far European judges can go in forcing a company to cut carbon emissions by a fixed amount. Courts in five European jurisdictions have now accepted, in different ways, that fossil fuel companies have a legal duty to respond to climate change. None has yet turned that duty into a binding emissions target.

The order that started it all

In 2021, a district court in The Hague ordered Shell to cut its worldwide CO₂ emissions by 45% by 2030. That included indirect emissions from customers burning Shell fuel. The legal hook was the unwritten duty of care in Dutch civil law, under Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code. It was the first time any court had imposed a concrete climate target on a corporation.

The Court of Appeal overturned the order in November 2024. The judges kept the principle that Shell owes a climate duty of care, but said there was no scientific consensus allowing a court to assign one specific reduction percentage to one company. If Shell alone were ordered to cut sales, production could simply move to competitors. The Hoge Raad, the Dutch Supreme Court, reviews whether the lower courts applied the law correctly. It is expected to issue an advisory opinion by late 2026 and a final ruling in early 2027.

Courts across Europe accept the duty, then stop short

The Dutch deadlock is part of a broader European pattern. In Germany, the Higher Regional Court of Hamm confirmed in May 2025 that energy company RWE can, in principle, be held liable for climate harm thousands of kilometres away. It then dismissed the specific claim on the facts.

In France, courts will rule on 25 June on whether TotalEnergies must align its production strategy with the Paris Agreement under France's 2017 duty-of-vigilance law, after a trial that began in February 2026. Courts in Italy and Switzerland have also accepted jurisdiction over corporate climate cases (Lexxion, Morgan Lewis), without making concrete orders.

So the legal duty is taking shape, but the operational meaning remains missing. Courts are prepared to say that companies must act on climate. They are much less willing to say exactly how much oil and gas a company must leave out of its business plan.

This matters because EU legislation has not filled the gap. The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, the EU's 2024 law requiring large companies to address environmental harm in their supply chains, was severely weakened in February 2026. Its mandatory climate transition plan was deleted. Civil liability rules were removed. Its scope was narrowed to companies with more than 5,000 employees and €1.5 billion in turnover, covering fewer than 1,000 firms across the EU.

For smaller member states such as Malta, that shift is not an abstract Brussels drafting point. When EU rules are diluted, the burden moves from common legislation to national litigation, national regulators and private enforcement. That is a weaker and more uneven system, especially for countries without the institutional weight of Germany, France or the Netherlands.

What Shell does while it litigates

Shell says it takes climate seriously and argues that courts should not micromanage corporate strategy. Its spending points to a different set of priorities. In 2024, Shell spent roughly $12.7 billion on upstream oil and gas, $2.5 billion on renewables, and returned $22.5 billion to shareholders. In February 2026, its CEO publicly questioned the company's 2050 net-zero commitment.

Milieudefensie, Friends of the Earth Netherlands, has not waited for the Supreme Court. In April 2026 it filed a new lawsuit demanding that Shell stop investing in new oil and gas fields. The legal strategy has moved away from percentage targets and towards the boardroom decision that matters first: whether the company keeps putting money into new fossil fuel production.

What comes next

The TotalEnergies ruling on 25 June could come before the Dutch Supreme Court decides. It could also become the first binding judicial order linking corporate production strategy to climate targets.

The LSE Grantham Research Institute counted 226 new climate cases filed globally in 2024, with companies forming a growing share of defendants. Across all five European jurisdictions, the legal duty to act on climate now exists on paper. No court or legislature has yet defined what that duty requires a company to do.