Three NGOs and the City of Paris allege in the Paris courts that TotalEnergies SE’s vigilance plan fails to address climate risk under France’s 2017 duty of vigilance law. On June 25, 2026, the Paris Judicial Court held the company in breach and ordered it to revise its plan within six months to cover Scope 3 emissions. TotalEnergies has appealed, and the trial court has set a compliance hearing for January 21, 2027.
Latest development Jul 27, 2026
On July 27, 2026, TotalEnergies announced that its board had decided to appeal the June 25, 2026, judgment. The company argues that climate change falls outside the scope of the vigilance law. The Paris Judicial Court has scheduled a compliance hearing for January 21, 2027, while the appeal proceeds before the Paris Court of Appeal.
Why it matters
The appeal will decide whether France’s duty of vigilance law requires an oil and gas company to plan for Scope 3 emissions from its customers. The outcome affects large French companies subject to the law and may inform how the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive is applied.
Background
On January 28, 2020, three NGOs and several French local authorities led by the City of Paris sued TotalEnergies SE before the Nanterre Judicial Court. The NGOs were Notre Affaire à Tous, Sherpa, and France Nature Environnement. The claimants invoked France’s 2017 duty of vigilance law, which requires large French companies to identify and prevent severe risks from their activities, including environmental harm. They argued that TotalEnergies’ vigilance plan failed to account for the climate risks of its oil and gas business. These include the emissions produced when customers burn its fuels, known as Scope 3 emissions.
TotalEnergies unsuccessfully sought to have the dispute heard by the commercial court, and the Versailles Court of Appeal confirmed the judicial court’s jurisdiction on November 18, 2021. Legislative changes then reassigned duty of vigilance cases to the Paris Judicial Court, and the case moved there in February 2022. The City of New York intervened in support of the claimants in July 2022 but later left the case, as did other litigation partners such as Les Eco Maires. A pre-trial judge dismissed the claims as inadmissible on July 6, 2023, but the Paris Court of Appeal partially reversed that dismissal on June 18, 2024. It held that Notre Affaire à Tous, Sherpa, and France Nature Environnement had standing and that the claims could proceed to trial.
After a merits hearing on February 19 and 20, 2026, the Paris Judicial Court found TotalEnergies in breach of its duty of vigilance on June 25, 2026. Its plan mapped Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions but excluded Scope 3 emissions, which account for roughly 90% of its carbon footprint. The court rejected both TotalEnergies’ argument that Scope 3 emissions belong to consumers and the public prosecutor’s argument that climate change falls outside the scope of the vigilance law. It ordered TotalEnergies to revise its vigilance plan within six months to include climate risk mapping and adequate measures on Scope 3 emissions. The court declined to order the company to curb oil and gas production or to fix a specific emissions-reduction target.
On July 27, 2026, TotalEnergies announced that its board had decided to appeal. It argues, among other things, that climate change as a global phenomenon does not fall within the scope of the vigilance law. The Paris Judicial Court has scheduled a hearing on compliance with the June 2026 judgment for January 21, 2027. The appeal proceeds before the Paris Court of Appeal.
Timeline 11 events
-
Scheduled hearingParis Judicial Court sets compliance hearing on June 2026 judgment
The court set the follow-up hearing to review TotalEnergies’ compliance with the judgment.
TotalEnergies condamné pour manquement à son devoir de vigilance
-
AppealTotalEnergies appeals the judgment
The company’s board decided to appeal, arguing climate change falls outside the scope of the vigilance law.
TotalEnergies SE appeals the 25 June 2026 judgment in the duty of vigilance climate case
-
JudgmentParis Judicial Court finds TotalEnergies breached duty of vigilance
The court ordered TotalEnergies to revise its vigilance plan within six months to include Scope 3 emissions in its climate risk mapping.
TotalEnergies condamné pour manquement à son devoir de vigilance
-
HearingParis Judicial Court holds merits hearing
The court heard argument over two days on whether TotalEnergies’ vigilance plan adequately addressed climate risk, including Scope 3 emissions.
-
AppealParis Court of Appeal partly reverses dismissal, allows case to proceed
The court held that Notre Affaire à Tous, Sherpa, and France Nature Environnement had standing and admitted the City of Paris’s intervention, sending the case to trial.
-
OrderPre-trial judge dismisses claims as inadmissible
The judge found the claims inadmissible over discrepancies between the formal notice and the summons and questions of standing.
-
OrderCity of New York intervenes in support of claimants
New York City cited its interest in climate mitigation and the risks climate change poses to the city.
-
OrderCase transferred to Paris Judicial Court
Legislative changes assigned duty of vigilance cases to the Paris Judicial Court, moving the case from Nanterre.
-
AppealVersailles Court of Appeal confirms judicial court jurisdiction
The appellate court upheld the judicial court’s jurisdiction over the case, rejecting TotalEnergies’ jurisdictional challenge.
-
OrderPre-trial judge rejects TotalEnergies bid to move case to commercial court
-
FilingNGOs and cities sue TotalEnergies before Nanterre court
Notre Affaire à Tous, Sherpa, France Nature Environnement, ZEA, Les Eco Maires and local authorities filed suit under France’s duty of vigilance law.
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeHow will the Paris Court of Appeal rule on TotalEnergies’ appeal of the June 25, 2026, duty of vigilance judgment by September 30, 2028?
- Court of Appeal upholds Scope 3 order44%
- Still pending on September 30, 202825%
- Court of Appeal sides with TotalEnergies17%
- Breach upheld but Scope 3 order vacated10%
- Appeal dropped or case settled4%
- Resolves by
- Sep 30, 2028in 23 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The Paris Court of Appeal is more likely than not to rule within the window, and the most likely result is affirmance of the Scope 3 order (44%). Appellate courts usually uphold civil judgments, and the same court let this case proceed in 2024. A ruling may slip past September 2028, given the case’s history of delay.
How it resolves. Resolves on the Paris Court of Appeal’s merits decision on TotalEnergies’ appeal, as shown by the published decision or reliable reports. “Affirms” means the court upholds the breach finding and keeps an obligation to address Scope 3 emissions in the vigilance plan, even if it changes deadlines, details, or expands relief. “Reverses” means the court finds no breach, holds climate or Scope 3 emissions outside the vigilance law, or dismisses the claims as inadmissible. “Mixed” means the court upholds some vigilance breach but vacates the Scope 3 obligation, or otherwise partly reverses in a way that fits neither category. “Dropped or settled” means the appeal is withdrawn or the case ends by agreement before a ruling. “Still pending” means no appellate merits decision by September 30, 2028. Later cassation proceedings do not affect resolution.
Reasoning
Starting point. French civil appeals from first-instance judgments, and duty of vigilance appeals before the Paris Court of Appeal’s specialized chamber: French courts of appeal fully reverse roughly 20% to 30% of civil judgments, with partial modifications common. The one prior vigilance merits appeal (La Poste) was largely affirmed about 18 months after judgment.
French civil appeals end in full reversal perhaps 20% to 30% of the time, so affirmance is the default. The Paris Court of Appeal now hears vigilance cases in a specialized chamber, and its La Poste appeal ruling came about 18 months after the trial judgment. That pace points to a decision in early to mid 2028, but this case has taken over six years to reach judgment, so 25% sits on still pending. The trial court’s reasoning was measured. It ordered a plan revision and declined to cap production or set targets, which makes it harder to attack as overreach. TotalEnergies and the public prosecutor both argue climate change falls outside the vigilance law. That is a live question of first impression, which supports a meaningful 17% chance of reversal. A split result, keeping a breach finding but dropping the Scope 3 requirement, is plausible at 10%. Settlement or withdrawal is unlikely because TotalEnergies faces precedent risk across its sector and may pursue cassation whatever happens. The January 21, 2027, compliance hearing could reveal suspension efforts or a revised plan, but it will not decide the appeal.
Novel question whether climate falls within the vigilance law · Measured trial remedy limits overreach arguments on appeal · Specialized appellate chamber took about 18 months in La Poste · Prosecutor’s position aligns with TotalEnergies on scope · Case’s long history of procedural delay
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