Onder 6.9 Gerechtshof Den Haag 18 december 2015

The assertion by Shell that the parent company did not know about the spillage and the condition and maintenance of the pipeline locally does not seem to be an adequate defence in all cases, particularly not if sabotage ceases to be a cause of damage. Considering, inter alia , (i) that Shell sets itself goals and ambitions with regard to, for instance, the environment, and has defined a group policy to achieve these goals and ambitions in a coordinated and uniform way, and (ii) that RDS (like the former parent company) monitors compliance with these group standards and this group policy, such questions arise as: (a) which (maintenance) standards applied to an old pipeline whose insides were no longer monitored like the one in question; (b) were these maintenance standards complied with; (c) if so, what is this evidenced by, and if not, shouldn’t this have been noted within the context of the supervision performed by the parent company (the audits); (d) shouldn’t it have been noted with an adequate reporting system in place and (e) why was it not. Another question is (f) whether the parent company -considering the autonomy and individual responsibility of (the management of) SPDC- was sufficiently equipped (as far as knowledge, possibilities and means are concerned) to intervene adequately in case of evident negligence by SPDC.

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