The group of climate activists Friends of the Earth Netherlands He refers to the Dutch Supreme Court of the case against the oil shell, as it continues to seek a specific goal of reducing carbon for the company and its products.

Shell won an appeal against a 2021 milestone decision in the case in November, requiring the company to speed up efforts to reduce gas emissions.

The Court of Appeal said Shell had indeed a responsibility to reduce emissions to protect people from global warming, but said it could not set a specific reduction target for the company.

The Friends of the Earthhowever, they said they still see ‘More than several’ options for a particular goal.

“Judges have already confirmed that Shell is responsible for reducing broadcasts and for its own contribution to the Paris Agreement on the climate.”said the lawyer of the Roger Cox Group.

“There is enough legal basis to make the decision more specific and stronger.”

The original decision of 2021 had ordered Shell to decrease Absolute carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels, including those caused by the use of its products.

However, the Court of Appeal agreed with Shell that an absolute mandate to reduce emissions from its products could have negative impacts worldwide, as it could lead customers to switch from the use of Shell’s natural gas to more polluting carbon.

Shell’s CEO, Wael Sawanthen said Shell believed that the decision was “The right thing for the global energy transition, the Netherlands and the company”.

The Supreme Court will not review the facts and evidence submitted to the lower courts, but It will decide whether the procedures were followed correctly and whether the decision was duly justified.

It may then either be validated or annulled the ruling, after which the case could be re -entrusted to another court.

The decision is expected in 2026.