Milieudefensie, other NGOs, and Dutch citizens allege Shell plc breaches a Dutch-law duty of care by failing to align its business with the Paris Agreement. In November 2024, The Hague Court of Appeal confirmed that duty but struck down a 2021 order to cut emissions 45% by 2030. The Supreme Court heard Milieudefensie’s cassation appeal in May 2026, and a second suit over new oil and gas fields is pending in Amsterdam.
Latest development May 22, 2026
On May 22, 2026, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands (Hoge Raad) heard Milieudefensie’s cassation appeal and Shell’s conditional cross-appeal against the 2024 Court of Appeal judgment. Milieudefensie asks the court to reinstate a quantified emissions reduction duty. The parties completed the written phase in July 2026, and Milieudefensie says an advisory opinion is expected by the end of 2026.
Why it matters
The Dutch Supreme Court will decide whether courts can impose a quantified emissions reduction duty on a private company. The answer affects oil majors, other large emitters, and climate litigants bringing similar duty-of-care claims.
Background
In April 2019, Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands), six co-claimant organizations, and roughly 17,000 individual Dutch citizens sued Royal Dutch Shell (now Shell plc) in the District Court of The Hague. They argued Shell’s failure to align its business with the Paris Agreement breached an unwritten duty of care under Dutch tort law and put the claimants’ human rights at risk. In May 2021, the court agreed. It ordered Shell to cut its group-wide Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions by 45% by 2030 against a 2019 baseline.
Shell appealed and replaced its long-standing Dutch counsel, De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, with Clifford Chance. In November 2024, The Hague Court of Appeal partly reversed the ruling. It confirmed that Shell, like other large emitters, owes a duty of care to help prevent dangerous climate change. However, it held that the evidence did not support fixing any specific percentage, whether 45% or otherwise, as a legally binding target for a single company.
Milieudefensie has taken the case to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands (Hoge Raad) by way of cassation. It asks the court to reinstate a quantified reduction duty. Shell has lodged a conditional cross-appeal, and a separate entity, Stichting Milieu en Mens (M&M), was allowed to join the proceedings on Shell’s side. The Supreme Court heard the case on May 22, 2026, and a ruling is pending.
In parallel, Milieudefensie warned Shell in May 2025 that it intended to sue again. On April 21, 2026, it filed a new case in the District Court of Amsterdam. It seeks an order that Shell halt all development of new oil and gas fields and adopt binding, offset-free emissions targets for 2035, 2040, and 2050. Milieudefensie argues that Shell’s plans for dozens of new fields are irreconcilable with the remaining global carbon budget and the duty of care the Court of Appeal recognized. Shell has called the new claims unrealistic and says they largely repeat arguments the appellate court rejected.
Timeline 14 events
-
FilingParties file final written submissions at Supreme Court
Milieudefensie and Shell submitted their reply and rejoinder to the Hoge Raad, completing the written phase of the cassation appeal after the May 2026 hearing.
Shell tries to muddy the waters in Climate Case Supreme Court appeal
-
HearingSupreme Court hears the cassation appeal
The Dutch Supreme Court held the oral hearing on Milieudefensie’s cassation appeal and Shell’s conditional cross-appeal.
Milieudefensie and Shell meet at the Supreme Court for final hearing in Climate CasePress release: Dutch Supreme Court Climate Case Shell
-
FilingMilieudefensie files second suit seeking halt to new oil and gas fields
The claim, filed in the District Court of Amsterdam, also asks the court to order Shell to adopt binding emissions targets for 2035, 2040, and 2050.
Climate campaigners file second climate suit against Shell in the Netherlands
-
OrderMilieudefensie expects advisory opinion by end of 2026
Milieudefensie said the Attorney Procurator General and Advocate General are expected to issue a non-binding advisory opinion (conclusie) by the end of 2026. It expects a Supreme Court ruling in the first half of 2027.
-
OrderShell files statement of defense and conditional cross-appeal in cassation
Shell filed its statement of defense in cassation together with a conditional cross-appeal challenging aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment.
-
FilingMilieudefensie sends Shell notice of liability over new oil and gas fields
Milieudefensie sent Shell a formal notice of liability, the first step toward a second lawsuit, saying it would seek an order to halt new oil and gas field development.
Dutch NGO launches Shell climate case over oil, gas field investments
-
OrderStichting Milieu en Mens seeks to join proceedings on Shell’s side
The foundation filed a motion for leave to join the cassation proceedings in support of Shell. The Supreme Court granted it on October 10, 2025.
-
AppealMilieudefensie announces cassation appeal to the Supreme Court
Milieudefensie said it would lodge a final appeal (cassation) with the Dutch Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal’s ruling.
Landmark climate case against Shell goes to Dutch Supreme Court
-
JudgmentCourt of Appeal confirms duty of care but strikes the 45% order
The Hague Court of Appeal held that Shell owes a social duty of care to help prevent dangerous climate change. It ruled that it could not fix any specific reduction percentage and quashed the 2021 order.
Dutch appeals court overturns watershed climate ruling against Shell
-
HearingCourt of Appeal hearings open, with Clifford Chance now acting for Shell
Oral hearings ran on April 2, 3, 4, and 12, 2024. Clifford Chance appeared for Shell in place of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, and Roger Cox, Reij, and Van Diem of Paulussen Advocaten appeared for Milieudefensie et al.
Shell verwisselt De Brauw voor Clifford Chance bij hoger beroep tegen MilieudefensieHague Court of Appeal judgment, 12 Nov 2024
-
AppealShell files notice of appeal
Shell lodged its appeal against the 2021 District Court judgment with The Hague Court of Appeal.
-
JudgmentDistrict Court orders Shell to cut emissions 45% by 2030
The District Court of The Hague ruled that Shell must reduce the group’s Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions by net 45% by 2030 against a 2019 baseline.
-
HearingOral hearings begin at The Hague District Court
Lawyers for Milieudefensie and Shell appeared before presiding judge Larisa Alwin as the first of several December hearing days got underway.
-
FilingMilieudefensie and co-claimants file suit against Royal Dutch Shell
Filed in the District Court of The Hague with six other NGOs and about 17,000 citizens, the claim sought an order that Shell cut its group-wide emissions in line with the Paris Agreement.
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeHow will the Supreme Court of the Netherlands rule on Milieudefensie’s cassation appeal against the November 2024 Court of Appeal judgment by December 31, 2027?
- Hoge Raad rejects Milieudefensie appeal64%
- Still pending on December 31, 202717%
- Hoge Raad quashes for Milieudefensie16%
- Appeal withdrawn or settled3%
- Resolves by
- Dec 31, 2027in 15 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The Hoge Raad is most likely to reject Milieudefensie’s cassation appeal and leave the Court of Appeal judgment standing (64%) by December 31, 2027. The strongest reason is that the appellate court refused a fixed percentage on the evidence, and cassation review does not revisit factual findings.
How it resolves. Resolves on the Hoge Raad’s judgment in case 25/00497 as published on rechtspraak.nl or reported by the parties. “Rejects appeal” means the court dismisses Milieudefensie’s cassation appeal and leaves the Court of Appeal judgment standing, including without reaching Shell’s conditional cross-appeal. “Quashes in Milieudefensie’s favor” means the court sets aside all or part of the Court of Appeal judgment on Milieudefensie’s grounds, whether it refers the case back or decides the case itself. “Withdrawn or settled” means the cassation appeal is withdrawn or ended by agreement before judgment. “Still pending” applies if none of these has occurred by December 31, 2027, including where the court has referred questions to the Court of Justice of the EU.
Reasoning
Starting point. Civil cassation appeals to the Dutch Supreme Court that proceed to full judgment after an Advocate General opinion: Roughly 30% to 40% of fully argued Dutch civil cassation appeals lead to at least partial quashing. The rate is lower where the challenged ruling rests on the lower court’s assessment of evidence.
Fully argued Dutch civil cassation appeals succeed at least partly in roughly a third of cases. The Hoge Raad reviews only questions of law and adequacy of reasoning. The Court of Appeal accepted Shell’s duty of care but found the evidence did not support fixing any single-company percentage. That factual assessment is hard to attack in cassation, so I adjust below the base rate. Milieudefensie can still argue the court misapplied the legal standard or reasoned inadequately, which keeps a quashing plausible at 16%. Shell’s cross-appeal is conditional and matters only if the main appeal succeeds. Timing is the main uncertainty. The Advocate General opinion is expected by the end of 2026, and Milieudefensie expects a ruling in the first half of 2027. The December 31, 2027, date leaves about a year of margin, but slippage or an EU law reference could push the ruling later. A settlement is unlikely while the parallel Amsterdam suit over new oil and gas fields is active.
Court of Appeal refusal rested on assessment of evidence · Cassation review limited to law and adequacy of reasoning · Advocate General opinion expected by end of 2026 · Ruling expected first half of 2027, with slippage risk · Parallel Amsterdam suit reduces incentive to settle
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Sep 26, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made