Milieudefensie, inter alia, against Royal Dutch Shell

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Milieudefensie, inter alia, against Royal Dutch Shell is a ruling issued by the Rechtbank Den Haag on May 26, 2021 under file number C / 09/571932 / HA ZA 19-379 in response to the action brought by the environmental protection organizations Mileudefensie and Greenpeace as well as a large number of other plaintiffs the company Royal Dutch Shell is obliged to reduce its CO 2 emissions in the future .

background

Climate change poses a serious threat to all people worldwide. Younger generations and people in third world countries are particularly hard hit by the consequences. Climate change is increasing and the foreseeable consequences for younger generations mean that many are politically committed to averting the climate catastrophe. Companies, governments and authorities in particular are being sued for not doing enough to combat climate change.

In the past three years, the number of lawsuits has increased from 884 to 1,550 in 2020, according to a United Nations report. In 2021, France and Germany were already convicted by high courts for not doing enough to avert the disaster. Holland was also sued.

legal action

A climate change court case against Shell has been pending since December 1, 2020 . The claimants (seven environmental and human rights organizations and 17,379 citizens) want Shell to comply with the goals of the Paris Agreement . In the first instance, the District Court in The Hague dismissed the claims of individual citizens on May 26, 2021, but granted the claims of the environmental organizations representing the common good and obliged Shell to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 45 percent net by the year 2030 compared to 2019 to lower. The Group's own climate protection strategy, according to which 55 percent of the CO₂ savings planned to achieve climate neutrality in 2050 should only be made after 2035, is too vague and full of reservations. According to the ruling, both the companies belonging to the group are obliged to protect the climate, as are suppliers and end users. In contrast to lawsuits filed in other legal systems such as the USA, which want companies to compensate for damage that has already occurred, this judgment is the first that obliges an energy company to act in such a way that assumed future damage does not arise in the first place. Under Dutch law, this is possible due to the landmark Kellerluken case of 1965, where the defendant was convicted of negligent behavior.

The plaintiffs were represented by lawyer Roger Cox. He had already achieved a similar judicial success in 2015: at that time he represented the environmental organization Urgenda , which had successfully sued the Dutch state for compliance with its self-imposed climate targets .

Pronouncement of judgment

Various environmental groups, along with 17,000 Dutch citizens, have supported a case against Shell. The verdict was announced on May 26, 2021. The court:

  1. rejected the claims of ActionAid and the individual plaintiffs on procedural grounds
  2. declared the other class actions inadmissible insofar as they served the interests of the entire world population in curbing the dangerous climate change caused by CO 2 emissions
  3. instructed RDS, both directly and through the companies and legal entities that they typically include in their consolidated financial statements and with whom they jointly form the Shell Group, the total annual volume of all CO 2 emissions to the atmosphere that affect its business and the energy-bearing products sold by the Shell Group are to be limited or to have limited in such a way that this volume is reduced by at least 45% net by the end of 2030, based on the 2019 level
  4. instructed RDS to bear the costs of the proceedings by Milieudefensie et al., which until this judgment is estimated at € 22,732.51, plus statutory interest from two weeks from the date of this judgment
  5. ActionAid bore the costs of the proceedings on the part of RDS, which up to this judgment have been estimated at € 1,126 plus statutory interest for two weeks from the date of this judgment
  6. wore Milieudefensie et al. to pay the costs of the proceedings on the part of RDS, which until this judgment is estimated at € 1,126 plus statutory interest from two weeks from the date of this judgment
  7. estimated the following costs by Milieudefensie et al. and RDS to € 163 without delivery and increased by € 85 in the case of delivery
  8. declared the resolutions mentioned in points 3 and 6 to be provisionally enforceable
  9. rejected other requests

This judgment was drafted by the judges L. Alwin, IAM Kroft and ML Harmsen and announced in public on May 26, 2021.

criticism

Professors Bent Ole Mortensen and Peter Pagh criticized the judgment. No company was convicted of violating the law, but was obliged to reduce emissions in the future. A court would take on parliamentary tasks.

Web links

swell

  1. ↑ Surge in court cases over climate change shows increasing role of litigation in addressing the climate crisis. UNEP, May 26, 2021, accessed May 27, 2021 .
  2. ↑ a b law professor om klimadom mod Shell: 'Det er dybt problematisk'. May 27, 2021, accessed May 27, 2021 (Danish).
  3. ↑ Deutsche Welle (www.dw.com): Shell ordered to reduce CO2 emissions in watershed ruling | DW | 05/26/2021. Retrieved May 27, 2021 (UK English).
  4. ↑ Joachim Wille: Shell should really save the climate. Climate reporter, December 1, 2020, accessed on December 19, 2020 .
  5. ↑ https://www.rnd.de/politik/shell-zu-klimaschutz-verpfliziert-gericht-faellt-wegweisendes- Judgment- 3RAFEWDSTRH7LNBLLU5TMCMMME.html
  6. ↑ https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article231383993/Gericht-in-Den-Haag-ogle-fuer-Shell-schaerfere-CO2-Ziele-an.html
  7. ↑ Joachim Wille: Shell is at the "basement hatch". Climate reporter, December 19, 2020, accessed on December 19, 2020 .
  8. ↑ SPON: Court obliges oil company Shell to protect the climate. May 26, 2021
  9. ↑ ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2021: 5339, Rechtbank Den Haag, C / 09/571932 / HA ZA 19-379 (engelse versie). Rechtbank Den Haag, May 26, 2021, accessed May 27, 2021 (Dutch).