Case - France - Total Climate Change

Total Climate Change

Summary of facts

In October 2018 Nigerian local authorities and French NGOs sent a letter to Total’s CEO reminding him of the company’s climate obligations under the French Duty of Vigilance Law due to Total’s greenhouse gas emissions. In June 2019, Total’s CEO met with the plaintiffs. Following the meeting, no substantial changes were evident so 14 local authorities and NGOs sent Total a formal notice under the Duty of Vigilance Law providing it with three months to establish appropriate emissions reduction targets (to meet the legal obligations and 1.5-degree objective) in its vigilance plan. In January 2020, the coalition took TotalEnergies to court. NGOs and local authorities request the judge to order the oil company to take the necessary measures to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions consistently with the objectives of the Paris agreement.

Timeline

2023 Paris Civil Court

Jurisdiction

Yes

Applicable Law

French Duty of Vigilance Law Article 1252 of the French Civil Code on the prevention of environmental harm

Legal issues

The plaintiffs ask the judge to order the multinational to take provisional measures such as the suspension of new oil and gas projects while awaiting the court’s decision on the merits of the case.

Ruling / Outcome

6 July 2023: The pre-trial judge ruled that the action was inadmissible: he ruled that TotalEnergies had not been duly served with formal notice on the grounds that the demands set out in the summons were not strictly identical to those in the formal notice sent to the multinational in June 2019.

2022 Paris Civil Court

Jurisdiction

Yes

Applicable Law

French Duty of Vigilance Law; Article 1252 of the French Civil Code on the prevention of environmental harm

Legal issues

Three new local authorities and Amnesty International France join the coalition.
In February 2023 the associations and local authorities ask the pre-trial judge to order provisional measures including the suspension of new oil and gas projects whilst awaiting a court decision on the merits of the case

Ruling / Outcome

In July 2023 the pre-trial judge declares the legal action inadmissible on the grounds that the claims made in the summons were not strictly identical to those in the letter of formal notice. However, this condition does not exist under the duty of vigilance law.

2022 Paris Civil Court

Jurisdiction

Yes

Applicable Law

Law of December 22, 2021 which gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Paris civil court over cases based on the Duty of vigilance law.

Legal issues

Ruling / Outcome

The case is transferred to the Paris civil court

2021 Versailles Court of Appeal

Jurisdiction

Yes

Applicable Law

French Duty of Vigilance Law; Article 1252 of the French Civil Code on the prevention of environmental harm

Legal issues

The defendant challenged the Nanterre Civil Court’s decision on jurisdiction.

Ruling / Outcome

18 November 2021: The Court confirmed the Nanterre's civil court ruling.
Ongoing.

2021 Nanterre Civil Court

Jurisdiction

Yes

Applicable Law

French Duty of Vigilance Law; Article 1252 of the French Civil Code on the prevention of environmental harm

Legal issues

Concerns the parent company’s global operations.
Civil proceeding seeking injunctive relief.
The plaintiffs request the Court to order Total to take all necessary measures to reduce its measures, citing the Duty of Vigilance Law, Article 1252 of the Civil Code on the prevention of environmental harm, and the Environmental Charter.
The plaintiffs also allege that instead of mitigating climate change through a vigilance plan, Total is planning to increase its oil and gas operations.
The plaintiffs request the Court to order Total to issue a corporate strategy that identifies risks from emissions, risks of serious climate-related harms and actions to ensure compatibility with the Paris Agreement.
Total challenged the Court’s jurisdiction, arguing a commercial court is the appropriate forum to raise the claim

Ruling / Outcome

11 February 2021: a pre-trial decision rejected Total’s objection to jurisdiction and ruled a judicial tribunal shall hear the merits: claimants have a right to option to bring a claim; legislators’ intended society to allow for judicial review of vigilance measures and concluded that the development and implementation of a vigilance play directly affects the activity of Total and must integrate human rights and environmental infringements.

Court case