Notre Affaire à Tous et al. v. TotalEnergies SE

On January 28, 2020, French NGOs Notre Affaire à Tous, Sherpa, Zéa, Les Eco Maires, and France Nature Environnement, together with several French local governments, filed a lawsuit against TotalEnergies before the Nanterre Judicial Court under France’s Duty of Vigilance Law. The claimants alleged that TotalEnergies’ vigilance plan failed to adequately identify and address climate-related risks arising from its activities, including greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the use of the oil and gas products it sells, known as Scope 3 emissions.

The case followed a formal notice sent to TotalEnergies on June 19, 2019, after exchanges between the parties failed to resolve the dispute. The claimants argued that TotalEnergies was required, under Article L.225-102-4 of the French Commercial Code, now Articles L.225-102-1 and L.225-102-2, to publish a vigilance plan identifying risks to human rights, health and safety, and the environment, and to adopt appropriate measures to prevent or mitigate those risks. They sought an order requiring TotalEnergies to publish a new vigilance plan that would identify the climate risks associated with its activities, including Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions; assess risks linked to warming beyond 1.5°C; account for the depletion of the global carbon budget and the continued development of oil and gas projects; and adopt measures aligned with the Paris Agreement and scientific pathways for limiting warming to 1.5°C.

The claimants also sought more specific remedial measures. They asked the court to order TotalEnergies to reduce oil and gas production or emissions in line with IPCC and International Energy Agency pathways, cease certain new hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation projects, explain and quantify the investments and financing needed to implement its mitigation targets, and pay a daily penalty in the event of non-compliance. In the alternative, they relied on provisions of the French Civil Code concerning the prevention of ecological damage.

TotalEnergies contested the claims. It argued, among other things, that climate change is a global and multifactorial phenomenon that falls outside the scope of the Duty of Vigilance Law; that climate-related information belongs instead in sustainability reporting; that Scope 3 emissions result from the activities of customers and other economic actors rather than from TotalEnergies’ own activities; and that the court could not prescribe specific corporate climate measures without interfering with the company’s management and broader public energy policy choices.

The proceedings initially focused on jurisdiction and admissibility. TotalEnergies sought to have the case heard by the commercial court, but the pre-trial judge rejected that objection on February 11, 2021, and the Versailles Court of Appeal confirmed the jurisdiction of the judicial court on November 18, 2021. Following legislative changes assigning duty of vigilance cases to the Paris Judicial Court, the case was transferred from Nanterre to Paris in February 2022. On July 21, 2022, the City of New York intervened in support of the claimants, citing its interest in climate mitigation and the harms and risks climate change poses to the city.

On July 6, 2023, the Paris Judicial Court’s pre-trial judge dismissed the case on procedural grounds. The judge found the claims inadmissible, including because of perceived discrepancies between the formal notice and the summons and because the claimants allegedly lacked standing to bring climate-related claims. The claimants appealed.

On June 18, 2024, the Paris Court of Appeal partially reversed the pre-trial dismissal and allowed the case to proceed. The Court of Appeal held that the formal notice did not need to reproduce all claims later raised in the summons, provided the claims had the same object. It also held that claims based on ecological damage were not inadmissible merely because they overlapped with the duty of vigilance claims, since the two legal bases pursue different purposes. On standing, the Court of Appeal recognized standing for Notre Affaire à Tous, Sherpa, Zéa, and France Nature Environnement, and admitted the voluntary intervention of the City of Paris. It rejected standing for several other municipalities and organizations, including Les Eco Maires and the City of New York.

On June 25, 2026, the Paris Judicial Court issued its first merits decision. The court held that TotalEnergies’ vigilance plan was incomplete because it included Scope 1 and 2 emissions in its risk mapping but excluded Scope 3 emissions. The court found that Scope 3 emissions form part of the climate-related risks and impacts arising from the group’s activities and therefore must be addressed in the vigilance plan. The court ordered TotalEnergies to supplement its current vigilance plan within six months by including Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions in the risk mapping and in the related vigilance measures.

The court did not grant the broader remedies requested by the claimants. It declined to order TotalEnergies to adopt specific emissions reduction targets, align its business strategy with a particular 1.5°C pathway, or cease new hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation projects. The court reasoned that the Duty of Vigilance Law allows judges to require a company to comply with its vigilance obligations and correct an incomplete plan, but does not authorize the court to prescribe the specific content of the company’s climate strategy or the particular measures it must adopt.

The court dismissed the claims brought under Article L.225-102-2 of the Commercial Code, reserved judgment on the remaining claims pending submission of the revised vigilance plan, referred the case for further proceedings in January 2027, and declined to impose a penalty payment at this stage. It ordered TotalEnergies to pay €20,000 to each of the remaining claimants—Notre Affaire à Tous, Sherpa, Zéa, France Nature Environnement, and the City of Paris—under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.