The Court of Appeal ruled that human rights can have an indirect effect on civil law obligations between private parties and that the effects of dangerous climate change can infringe the rights under Articles 2 and 8 ECHR. On this basis, the Court of Appeal held that a standard of due care can oblige companies like Shell to limit CO2 emissions, even if this obligation is not explicitly laid down in hard law norms.
However, the Court of Appeal denied all of Milieudefensie’s claims. In relation to Shell’s scope 1 and 2 emissions, it could not establish an impending breach of a reduction obligation. In relation to Shell’s scope 3 emissions, the Court of Appeal ruled that it could not formulate a specific reduction norm that can be applied to Shell. In addition, the Court of Appeal held that it could not establish that an obligation for Shell to reduce its scope 3 emissions by a certain percentage would be effective.
