Climate litigation: cases against states and companies

Climate litigation covers the proceedings in which climate change forms the core of the dispute. The field has two strands: cases against states and cases against companies. Both turn on the same question. When is a failure to act unlawful, where no specific statutory rule has been breached? Against companies the basis is almost always tort (onrechtmatige daad), often brought as a collective action and alongside proceedings over misleading sustainability claims. The case law has not settled, and it does not always run in claimants’ favour.

The short answer

Against states the basis is usually the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in particular Articles 2 and 8. Against companies it is the unwritten standard of due care under Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek), often through a collective action under Article 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code.
The Court of Appeal of The Hague set aside the Shell judgment on 12 November 2024, and the figure of 45 per cent no longer applies. A company does bear its own responsibility, but that is not the same as an enforceable reduction percentage.
Admissibility and causation remain the biggest hurdles. For companies the risk lies mainly in the substantiation of their own commitments and in the accuracy of their communications.

Strand 1: cases against states

Urgenda

The Urgenda Foundation sought an order requiring the State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25 per cent by the end of 2020 compared with 1990. The Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) dismissed the State’s appeal in cassation on 20 December 2019 (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2006). The basis was the State’s duty of care, given content by the positive obligations under Articles 2 and 8 ECHR. A state cannot hide behind its limited share of global emissions; each state carries its own responsibility.

The judgment also marked the limit. The court prescribed no measures. It reviewed the result alone, against a lower limit that the State had itself endorsed internationally.

KlimaSeniorinnen

On 9 April 2024 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights gave judgment in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v Switzerland. The Court found a violation of Article 8 ECHR and of Article 6(1) ECHR on account of insufficient access to a court. It set out requirements for the national climate framework: timely and coherent action, an adequate legislative and administrative framework, quantification of the remaining emissions budget, and interim targets. The argument that the national contribution is only a drop in the ocean was rejected.

What the Court did not accept matters just as much. The four individual applicants lacked victim status and were declared inadmissible, while the association was admitted. On the same day the Court declared the cases of Carême v France and Duarte Agostinho inadmissible. These obligations of states carry over into the corporate strand, because they help to give content to the open standard of due care. We deal with them separately in our article on the link between human rights and climate change.

The advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice

On 23 July 2025 the International Court of Justice delivered a unanimous advisory opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change. The climate treaties are not the only source of law: customary international law and human rights treaties apply as well. Customary law gives rise to a duty of due diligence to prevent transboundary harm, including the regulation of private emissions.

The Court identified 1.5 degrees as the guiding temperature goal. Striking is its observation that the production and use of fossil fuels, and the granting of licences and subsidies for them, may in certain circumstances constitute an internationally wrongful act. An advisory opinion is not binding and does not bind the Dutch courts either. Its significance lies in its authority when open-textured norms are interpreted, and in the expectation that it will be cited in national proceedings.

Strand 2: cases against companies

We are Always Ready to Assist Our Clients

developing financial processes and procedures

Against companies the human rights basis is absent in any direct sense, because the ECHR is addressed to states. Claimants fall back on tort, and the standard of due care within it is then given content by human rights and by standards of conduct.

Milieudefensie v Shell

On 26 May 2021 the District Court of The Hague held that Shell had to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45 per cent by 2030, across scopes 1, 2 and 3 together and therefore across the entire value chain, measured from 2019.

The Court of Appeal of The Hague set that judgment aside on 12 November 2024 (ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2024:2099) and dismissed the claims. It did confirm the core of the ruling: protection against dangerous climate change is a human right, and Shell is under a duty of care to contribute to limiting warming. That duty flows from the unwritten standard of due care, given content partly by Articles 2 and 8 ECHR and by internationally accepted standards of conduct.

Even so, the Court of Appeal imposed no reduction percentage. For scopes 1 and 2 it did not consider an imminent breach likely, in view of Shell’s commitments. For scope 3 it recognised the responsibility but dismissed the claim: 45 per cent was not sufficiently fine-grained for this company, and there is no scientific consensus on a percentage for an individual company. Nor was it established that lower sales by Shell would lead to lower global emissions, because other suppliers would take over those sales; an order on scope 3 was therefore not effective. On investment in new oil and gas fields the Court observed that such investment may sit uneasily with the goals of the Paris Agreement, but it did not decide the point, because no separate claim had been made on it.

Milieudefensie brought an appeal in cassation. The case is pending before the Supreme Court under case number 25/00497 and the oral hearing took place on 22 May 2026. Until the Supreme Court gives judgment, the ruling of the Court of Appeal is the prevailing line.

Misleading claims: Fossielvrij v KLM

On 20 March 2024 the District Court of Amsterdam held (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:1512) that KLM had misled consumers with sustainability claims, among other things about CO2 offsetting and more sustainable fuels. The basis was the regime on unfair commercial practices in Article 6:193a ff of the Dutch Civil Code.

This route is the most tangible short-term risk. It requires no debate about reduction pathways, only about whether a claim is accurate and substantiated. There is more on this in our article on greenwashing and sustainability claims.

The financial sector: Milieudefensie v ING

In 2025 Milieudefensie issued proceedings against ING over the emissions associated with its financing. On 9 September 2026 the District Court of Amsterdam declared Milieudefensie admissible in the collective action (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:9098). That is a procedural decision, not a ruling on the substance; the substantive hearing will follow later. The case shows that the financial sector is also in scope.

What these cases have in common

Courts do not ask whether the company broke the law, but whether it acted as is proper in society; a permit or a compliance statement is therefore not a complete defence. The causation defence has worked so far, and a company’s own commitments are the first piece of evidence in every set of proceedings.

Which legal bases are used against companies?

Tort, Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code. Breach of the unwritten standard of due care, given content by the best available climate science, human rights and international standards of conduct.
Collective action, Article 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code. Interest groups seek an injunction or a declaratory judgment; admissibility is a battleground in its own right.
Unfair commercial practices, Article 6:193a ff of the Dutch Civil Code. Misleading sustainability claims addressed to consumers.
Contract and financing terms. Commitments in supply contracts, covenants and credit documentation may be enforceable in their own right.
Disclosure duties. Incorrect or incomplete sustainability information in reporting may itself provide a cause of action.

The role of voluntary CSR instruments

The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the UN Global Compact are not binding, yet they carry legal weight in climate cases.

Giving content to the open norm. The standard of due care is by its nature indeterminate; widely supported standards of conduct make concrete what is proper in society.
Your own endorsement. If your company has publicly endorsed an instrument, the other side can hold you to it.
The consistency test. A gap between policy on paper and conduct in practice is the most frequently used hook in writs of summons.

The converse holds as well: a well-documented and consistently implemented approach strengthens your defence. That connects to corporate social responsibility.

The hurdles: admissibility and causation

Many cases founder before the court reaches the substance.

Interest and victim status. Individuals must show that they are affected personally and in a particular way; collective actions through a foundation or association often stand a better chance in the Netherlands.
Access to the EU courts. In the People’s Climate Case the Court of Justice declared the action against EU climate legislation inadmissible in 2021: the claimants were not individually concerned within the meaning of Article 263 TFEU.
Causation. The contribution of a single state or a single company to global warming is small. Courts therefore look not at the harm itself, but at the contribution to the risk.
Effectiveness. The Shell judgment shows that an order must actually help: a prohibition that merely shifts emissions elsewhere is not an effective measure.

Defence: how do you order your position?

A defence starts with the file that already exists before the writ of summons arrives.

Step	What you do
1. Take stock of commitments	Collect all public targets, covenants, labels and contractual promises, and record who made them and when.
2. Test the substantiation	Can every claim be supported by a method, a base year and verifiable data?
3. Align policy and practice	Correct targets that are not achievable, rather than leaving them untouched.
4. Control the communication	Have marketing material reviewed before it is published and avoid absolute terms without explanation.
5. Connect reporting and defence	Make sure your CSRD reporting and ESG reporting present the same picture as your external communications.
6. Record the file	Document the considerations and decisions; in proceedings, what counts is what you knew and did at the time.

What this means for the standard of due care

The duty of care itself is no longer contested: both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal of The Hague accept that climate change gives rise to an obligation, even without a specific statutory rule. The dispute is shifting to content, and that content is sharper for states than for companies.

Hard documentation therefore matters more. Transition plans, targets and their substantiation acquire legal relevance, and obligations under the CSRD and the ESG reporting built on it supply the material against which a court can later review conduct.

Frequently asked questions

Does the 45 per cent requirement from the Shell judgment still apply, and can a court impose a percentage on my company?
No. The Court of Appeal of The Hague set that judgment aside on 12 November 2024 and imposed no percentage: any figure must be finely tailored to the company concerned. Shell does remain under a duty of care. The case is in cassation, so the line may still change.

Does this apply only to large companies?
No, the standard of due care has no size threshold. Size and influence do weigh in the assessment of what can be required of you, and the claim route via unfair commercial practices affects companies of every size.

Is it safer not to publish any climate targets?
Silence offers no protection: it does not remove the standard of due care, and reporting may be mandatory in its own right. The better course is targets you can substantiate and meet.

Can a foundation bring a climate case on behalf of citizens?
In the Netherlands it can, by way of a collective action under Article 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code. The foundation must meet statutory requirements as to its objects, its governance and its representativeness.

Contact

Is your organisation being challenged over its climate policy, or would you like your commitments and communications reviewed in advance? Our environmental law solicitors advise on duty of care, litigation risk and environmental law. Please contact Law & More in Eindhoven or Amsterdam.

Sustainability Law

Contacts

Address

De Zaale 11
5612 AJ Eindhoven
The Netherlands

Climate litigation: cases against states and companies