Amid an unprecedented European heatwave, a Paris court ruled today that France’s biggest fossil fuel firm TotalEnergies has not fully accounted for its contribution to climate change or identified all the ways it could limit it.
A group of non-profit organisations and local authorities filed the claim in 2020 under France’s then-new duty of vigilance law. This requires all large businesses headquartered in France and international corporations with a significant presence there to set out a clear plan to prevent human rights violations and environmental damage – even among their subsidiaries.
“It’s a very big win for the whole climate movement,” said Justine Ripoll, head of campaigns for Notre Affaire à Tous, one of the NGOs that brought the claim.
She said the judges made clear that companies have climate obligations reflecting their impact on global emissions, and added that the ruling shows “lobbying to undermine legislation won’t have the impact corporations could expect.”
The ruling marks another legal victory for climate activists, after the International Court of Justice issued a landmark advisory opinion last year finding that countries can be held responsible under international law for breaching their climate obligations, including by expanding fossil fuel production. In May, the UN General Assembly backed the ruling and called on countries to comply with it.
Already have an account?
Log in here →
For 15 years we’ve rigorously reported on the decisions shaping our climate. Upgrading to a paid subscription is how readers like you help keep this work going.
Subscribe for £40/quarter →
Or £130/year — best value.
Amid an unprecedented European heatwave, a Paris court ruled today that France’s biggest fossil fuel firm TotalEnergies has not fully accounted for its contribution to climate change or identified all the ways it could limit it.
A group of non-profit organisations and local authorities filed the claim in 2020 under France’s then-new duty of vigilance law. This requires all large businesses headquartered in France and international corporations with a significant presence there to set out a clear plan to prevent human rights violations and environmental damage – even among their subsidiaries.
“It’s a very big win for the whole climate movement,” said Justine Ripoll, head of campaigns for Notre Affaire à Tous, one of the NGOs that brought the claim.
She said the judges made clear that companies have climate obligations reflecting their impact on global emissions, and added that the ruling shows “lobbying to undermine legislation won’t have the impact corporations could expect.”
The ruling marks another legal victory for climate activists, after the International Court of Justice issued a landmark advisory opinion last year finding that countries can be held responsible under international law for breaching their climate obligations, including by expanding fossil fuel production. In May, the UN General Assembly backed the ruling and called on countries to comply with it.
Total’s climate lawsuit
As part of their claim, climate activists and local authorities wanted the court to force TotalEnergies to take stronger action aligning with the 1.5°C warming threshold in the Paris Agreement, including by stopping new fossil fuel projects and reducing production levels.
The lawsuit claim was ruled inadmissible in 2023, but this was overturned the following year. However no public bodies except the city of Paris were allowed to join. A court in Paris finally heard the claim on its merits in March.
Two weeks before the hearing, the French public prosecutor’s office said it agreed with TotalEnergies that the scope of duty of vigilance law did not extend to climate change. But the court had a different view, saying climate risks and impacts do fall within the law’s scope.
As Nigeria rails at loss and damage “mirage”, fund boss assures money is coming
Coming two days after France recorded its hottest-ever day, the court said the law is not intended to make the companies concerned responsible for all climate risks – resulting from all human activity since the industrial revolution – but they must “act according to their situation”.
In TotalEnergies’ case, its oil and gas activities release greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere with resulting negative climate impacts, which must be properly identified in its vigilance plan.
The court also explicitly said that the plan must include scope 3 emissions from the use of products and services by customers, “due in particular to the inherent link between oil and gas production and the combustion of products by users”. This is in line with domestic and international court rulings across the world in recent years.
TotalEnergies was given six months to update the plan. After that, the court will scrutinise whether the measures are adequate, with a hearing already scheduled for 21 January 2027.
Milestone for climate accountability
Théa Bonfour, senior advocacy and litigation officer at NGO Sherpa, which was also involved in the case, said it was a “first important milestone” but she warned that the tribunal will still have to exercise its power to analyse the plan’s details.
However, the court did not agree to a request by the NGOs and the City of Paris for TotalEnergies to completely stop all of its new fossil fuel projects or to cut production by 37% for oil and 25% for gas by 2030.
TotalEnergies was approached for comment but did not respond by the time of publication.
The company could still appeal the decision but, even if it does, it still has to comply with the ruling while the process is ongoing.
COP31 presidency ‘open’ to reflecting Santa Marta in UN climate process, ministers say
Sébastien Duyck, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, said the ruling is a “key step towards stronger corporate climate accountability”.
“The inclusion of the whole range of emissions attributable to TotalEnergies’ activities in the sphere of responsibility of the company is a critical legal step validating other recent judicial decisions,” said Duyck. “This constitutes a stringent rebuttal of the argument that the responsibility lies solely with consumers.”
Christina Eckes, professor of European law at the University of Amsterdam, said the ruling had increased pressure on polluting companies to justify their business decisions.
“It’s not just TotalEnergies. When you look at the sustainability plans of fossil fuel industries in Europe, they’re mostly scope 1 and 2; you can’t claim to have a sustainability plan if you’re only talking about 10% of your emissions.”
Influential ruling
The Total decision has significant implications for other ongoing lawsuits.
The most important is that brought by a Belgian farmer who is bringing a climate damages claim against TotalEnergies. A decision on the merits was postponed until 9 September so that judges could see the outcome of the French ruling.
A separate duty of vigilance case against TotalEnergies in relation to the East African Crude Oil Pipeline in Uganda is still ongoing at the Paris Judicial Court, after a similar earlier claim was dismissed in 2023. The $4-billion project has been controversial due to its social and environmental impacts.
