Climate Change Litigation in Nederland: terugblik op 2025 en vooruitblik 2026

In this article: 

1. Increase in number of climate litigation: An increase in climate cases against individual companies (Shell, ING and possibly more) and progress in the Greenpeace/State climate case 
2. Proceedings revolve around new as well as more elaborate climate commitments: Proceedings against companies are not just about generic climate policy, but more focus on (i) detailed reduction obligations and (ii) obligations around concrete investments
3. Practical implications: An increase in litigation risk around the company’s own sustainability policy and actual sustainability efforts 

1. Introduction

A recent report by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) shows that the number of climate change litigation cases is still on the rise.1 In mid-June 2025, the total number of climate-related proceedings initiated in 55 different jurisdictions stood at 3,099.2  

 The Netherlands is no exception. The Supreme Court made global headlines with its Urgenda ruling in 2019, a case in which the Dutch state was ordered to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the end of 2020.3 Although the District Court of The Hague shortly afterwards imposed a similar reduction obligation on an individual company (Shell plc),4 the Court of Appeal in The Hague rejected such a reduction obligation at the end of 2024.5 According to the Court of Appeal, although large companies are obliged to reduce their direct and indirect CO2 emissions, there is no scientific consensus on a specific reduction percentage that an individual company such as Shell should adhere to. Moreover, according to the Court of Appeal, the specific reduction obligation claim regarding Shell was also ineffective. In its judgment, the court provided further food for discussion with an obiter dictum, in which it considered that investments in new oil and gas sources may be at odds with the duty of care. 

 Developments in the field of climate change litigation will continue in the Netherlands in 2025. Time for an update on the most important proceedings in 2025 and the expected proceedings in 2026 (and beyond).  

2. Climate change litigation: highlights of 2025

2.1 Greenpeace v the Dutch State (Bonaire Climate Case) 

On 11 January 2024, Greenpeace, together with eight residents of Bonaire, initiated civil proceedings against the Dutch state.6 According to Greenpeace et al., the government is violating human rights by failing to provide adequate protection against the effects of climate change. Research shows that, because of climate change, parts of the island are at risk of permanent flooding and that extreme weather events will have a more frequent and severe impact on Bonaire. The primary aim of the proceedings is to ensure that the Dutch state takes further mitigation measures, including interim reduction targets for 2030 and 2040 that go beyond the current national climate targets. In addition, Greenpeace et al. demand that the Dutch state take sufficient adaptation measures, namely measures to protect the inhabitants of Bonaire from the consequences of climate change. An obligation for the state to take sufficient adaptation measures was not yet at issue in the Urgenda case and is therefore new in this respect.  

In these proceedings, the hearing took place at the District Court of The Hague on 7 and 8 October 2025. The court is expected to deliver its judgment at the end of 2025 or beginning of 2026.  

2.2 Milieudefensie v Shell cassation proceedings

We have already discussed the ruling of the Court of Appeal in The Hague in the Milieudefensie/Shell case. At the beginning of 2025, Milieudefensie lodged an appeal against this ruling with the Supreme Court. Milieudefensie’s complaints focus on the following two key points, among others:7  

• Firstly, according to Milieudefensie, the court should have imposed a specific reduction percentage. Milieudefensie argues that the court failed to provide effective protection against dangerous climate change by not imposing a specific reduction percentage. Furthermore, in assessing the reduction percentage to be imposed, the court wrongly failed to consider international agreements and legal obligations.  

• Secondly, according to Milieudefensie, the court wrongly ruled that the requested reduction order (for scope 3) would not be effective. Milieudefensie argued that the court should not have looked at ways in which Shell could fulfil its reduction obligation in an ineffective manner (such as ceasing its activities as an intermediary), but rather at how Shell could do so effectively.

Shell submitted its statement of defence in November 2025. Shell also lodged several conditional appeals against the judgment, in case Milieudefensie’s appeals are successful.8  

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in the autumn of 2026 at the earliest. If the Supreme Court finds that the Court of Appeal’s ruling cannot be upheld, it may refer the case back to a (different) Court of Appeal for further assessment. The Supreme Court may also settle the case itself.   

2.3 Milieudefensie v ING

Following on from the proceedings against Shell, Milieudefensie summoned ING Bank to appear before the Amsterdam District Court on 28 March 2025.9 According to Milieudefensie, banks have considerable power in the economy because they can determine which companies or sectors are financed and which are not. This gives banks a central role in the greenhouse gas emissions of the activities they finance. However, according to Milieudefensie, banks are not taking their responsibility or are taking it insufficiently.   

In the summons, Milieudefensie states that ING is acting in violation of its duty of care to combat dangerous climate change and protect human rights. Milieudefensie is therefore demanding that ING reduce its emissions from 2030 onwards in line with the global reduction path for (a 50% chance of) limiting global warming to 1.5C. Milieudefensie also demands that ING reduce its emissions in eight polluting sectors that it finances (such as steel and aviation) in line with the International Energy Agency’s NZE reduction pathways. Milieudefensie also demands – partly in response to the aforementioned obiter dictum in Shell/Milieudefensie – that ING stop financing companies that are still starting new fossil fuel projects and that ING require a sound climate plan from the large companies it finances. It can be inferred from the summons that Milieudefensie has partly based its claim on the court’s ruling in the Shell case. 

ING is expected to submit its written defence against the claim soon (early 2026). A ruling in these proceedings is not expected before 2027.  

2.4 Other court rulings in 2025

In addition, other court rulings were handed down in climate-related proceedings in 2025. Here are a few examples: 

• Uniper/State and RWE/State:10 The forced closure of coal-fired power stations in the Netherlands has led to various arbitration and national proceedings, particularly on the question of whether the State is obliged to pay compensation to Uniper and RWE based on Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR (the right to property). On 24 June 2025, the Court of Appeal in The Hague – just as the District Court – dismissed the claims. According to the Court of Appeal, there was a ‘fair balance’. An important factor in this regard was that, when Uniper and RWE made their investment decision in 2009, they could foresee that the government might take measures during the lifetime of the power stations to drastically reduce CO2 emissions from the use of coal. At that time, there was already increasing global pressure to reduce CO2 emissions, and it was common knowledge that coal combustion is one of the most polluting economic activities. The fact that the State intended to change this in the near future was therefore a factor that Uniper and RWE could and should have considered at the time of the investment decision. Although RWE has accepted this ruling, Uniper has appealed to the Court of Cassation. A ruling in these proceedings is expected at the earliest at the end of 2026. 

• ANVR et al. v Municipality of The Hague:11 On 25 April 2025, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of The Hague ruled in summary proceedings initiated by ANVR and TUI against the ban issued by the Municipality of The Hague on advertising fossil fuels, flying holidays, airline tickets, grey electricity contracts, gas contracts, cruise holidays or cars with fossil fuel or hybrid engines. According to ANVR and TUI, this advertising ban could not be upheld on various grounds. However, the preliminary relief judge ruled that the advertising ban could remain in place because it did not conflict with the Constitution, the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, the TFEU, the ECHR or the European Charter. Nor, according to the preliminary relief judge, did the ban conflict with the general principles of good governance.  

• Greenpeace/State (Nitrogen ruling):12 On 22 January 2025, in civil proceedings initiated by Greenpeace, the court ruled that the State was acting unlawfully because it (i) had failed to halt the deterioration of vulnerable habitats in a timely manner, (ii) it will not achieve the statutory nitrogen target for 2025 and is very unlikely to achieve the target for 2030, and (iii) by failing to give priority in its nitrogen policy to tackling nitrogen deposition in habitats and living areas where a reduction in nitrogen deposition is most urgent from an ecological point of view. The court issued several orders, subject to a penalty of EUR 10 million if the State fails to comply with the ruling by 31 December 2030 at the latest. This ruling is also relevant to climate change litigation proceedings, as the court addresses the feasibility of the legal reduction targets and the question of whether a penalty against the State is appropriate. See also our other blogs on the nitrogen crisis.13  
• NAM extraction plan:14 Finally, we would like to draw your attention to a ruling by the Council of State on 19 February 2025 in a case concerning the NAM’s Rotterdam extraction plan. Although the original extraction plan provided for the NAM to continue oil extraction until 2050, the extraction plan approved by the Minister provided for oil extraction until 2035. The municipality of Rotterdam and local residents believed that the oil extraction should stop before 2035 and therefore took the matter to the administrative court. The Council of State ruled against them. Insofar as the grounds revolved around the impact of the extraction plan on the energy transition, the Council of State considered that the Minister was able to agree to oil extraction until 2035 instead of until 2050. The Minister explained that allowing oil extraction until 2050 raises questions in relation to the energy transition and the need for fossil fuels in the longer term, but that fossil fuels still play an essential role in the Dutch energy supply at present. Once Dutch oil demand has disappeared, oil extraction may no longer be in line with systematic management of the subsurface. 

3. Climate Change litigation: Outlook for 2026 

We have already referred to several ongoing proceedings in 2025. Many of these proceedings will continue into 2026 (and possibly later). In addition, a number of new proceedings have been announced. We will mention the most important ones.  

Firstly, Milieudefensie has announced new proceedings against Shell. These proceedings follow on from the aforementioned obiter dictum, in which the Court of Appeal in The Hague considered that investments in new oil and gas sources may be at odds with the social duty of care incumbent on companies. According to Milieudefensie, Shell’s corporate policy (which places greater emphasis on the extraction of fossil fuels) is in breach of this social duty of care. Milieudefensie demands that Shell stops investing in new oil and gas fields. Milieudefensie also demands that Shell (still) meets specific reduction commitments in the period from 2035 (to 2050). Milieudefensie has not yet issued a summon. 

In addition, several new climate cases are looming. For example, the NOS wrote that the Dutch government is preparing for new climate lawsuits, particularly for failing to meet climate targets for 2030.15 Furthermore, there are various known initiatives by NGOs targeting several large companies operating in the Netherlands. For example, in December 2025, Advocates for the Future announced that it would initiate proceedings to challenge the license granted by the State to Eni Energy for the development of new gas fields.16 It is to be expected that several initiatives will lead to new proceedings in the Netherlands, partly in view of the attractive collective action regime in the Netherlands.  

We would also like to point out the anti-SLAPP proceedings initiated by Greenpeace against Energy Transfer in the Amsterdam District Court in July 2025.17 The background to these proceedings is a number of proceedings initiated by Energy Transfer against Greenpeace in the United States concerning protests against oil and gas pipelines, which could jeopardize Greenpeace’s continued existence due to their potential financial impact. Greenpeace is therefore seeking a declaration of law and damages in the Netherlands for Energy Transfer’s (in Greenpeace’s view: unlawful) initiation of proceedings and making false statements about Greenpeace. To our knowledge, this is the first and only anti-SLAPP proceeding in the Netherlands. We estimate that an (interim) ruling in this proceeding will not be issued before the end of 2026.  

4. Concluding remarks

The Dutch civil courts are an important arena for climate change litigation, and this is likely to increase in the coming years. Part of the debate in proceedings against private companies is (the lack of) public law regulations on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is certainly not out of the question that developments at European level – including the Omnibus Proposal, which is likely to simplify and weaken the obligations under the CSDDD and CSRD – will further fuel this debate.