Onder 6.5 Gerechtshof Den Haag 18 december 2015

The District Court has answered the question raised here about the obligation to prevent sabotage with an implicit no as regards the parent company and with an explicit no as regards SPDC. The correctness of the considerations not (yet) contested by appeal grounds are not under assessment here; they may be in a later stage, if, that is, sabotage is found to be the cause of the damage. It may then be of interest how many times such sabotage had occurred to this and possibly other subterraneous pipelines in Ogoniland. The parties may then express a further opinion in the matter; Shell on the basis of the underlying documents (for example the Significant Incidents / High Potential Incidents referred to by Milieudefensie et al. under d .) At the moment there is insufficient reason for an order to produce (other) documents as referred to by Milieudefensie et al. in this context, including: j the surveillance contracts, k helicopter logs, and the other documents specified under l , m and n ; quite apart from the fact that Shell claims that it has not (or no longer) the documents in its possession (the forms referred to under o have been produced by Shell as exhibit 53).

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/de8feb9f0194be3387388a193625674a6efa5f71b1f8db026b54aca27981e24c | shasum -a 256