BLOOM and Others v. TotalEnergies - Other

Litigation

Sabin

press release

BLOOM and Others v. TotalEnergies - press release

Filing Year For Action

On May 21, 2024, the NGOs BLOOM, Alliance Santé Planétaire, Nuestro Futuro, and eight individuals filed a criminal complaint in Paris Criminal Court against the board of directors and main shareholders of TotalEnergies. According to the plaintiffs' press release, the complaint alleges that the board of directors and main shareholders should be held criminally liable for their decisions that contributed to climate change, which they took despite knowing they would cause significant casualties and environmental damage. The alleged offences include deliberately endangering the lives of others, involuntary manslaughter, neglecting to address a disaster, and damaging biodiversity. According to the press release, the public prosecutor has discretion to decide whether to dismiss the case or open a judicial investigation.

On February 7, 2025, the French public prosecutor dismissed the complaint due to a lack of sufficiently established offenses.

Regarding the offense of endangerment, the prosecutor emphasized that criminal liability requires proof of a deliberate violation of a specific legal or regulatory safety obligation. BLOOM cited various legal texts, including Article 2 of the Paris Agreement (which aims to limit global temperature rise below 2°C), Article 4 of EU Regulation 2021/1119 (which establishes the framework for achieving climate neutrality), and Article L100-4 of the French Energy Code (which mandates a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2050). However, the prosecutor determined that these provisions represent objectives rather than legally enforceable obligations under criminal law. Additionally, the Prosecutor stated that while greenhouse gas emissions are a recognized driver of climate change, such activities are not inherently unlawful. Establishing an environmental offense would require demonstrating a direct causal link between a wrongful act and specific environmental harm, a standard that, according to the prosecutor, was not met in this case.

Similarly, the prosecutor noted that the offense of willful failure to combat a disaster requires clear knowledge of an ongoing disaster, its precise identification, and an intentional decision not to intervene. The evidence presented did not establish that TotalEnergies deliberately failed to address the natural disasters referenced in the complaint, such as floods, wildfires, storms, and cyclones.

Lastly, regarding involuntary manslaughter, the prosecutor stated that the complexity and multiplicity of factors contributing to severe climate events make it impossible to prove a direct causal link between TotalEnergies' activities and any specific fatality resulting from a climate disaster.