TotalEnergies has temporarily closed a legal front after the French courts declared inadmissible a complaint against the group for complicity in war crimes in Ukraine. This decision, taken by the senior investigating judge of the crimes against humanity division of the Paris judicial court, rejected the arguments of the Bordeaux-based NGO Darwin Climax Coalition and the Ukrainian Razom We Stand.
Details of legal proceedings
The plaintiff associations, whose aim was to obtain an embargo on fossil fuel imports from Russia, had their initial complaint rejected by the National Anti-Terrorist Prosecutor’s Office (Pnat) for “insufficiently characterized offences”. Despite an appeal, their new complaint was also rejected on procedural grounds, notably the failure to meet the five-year seniority requirement and the inappropriateness of the corporate purpose for this type of case.
Reactions and implications
The NGOs’ lawyers, William Bourdon and Vincent Brengarth, criticized the decision, calling it an “impediment” to civil action and emphasizing the evidence accumulated against TotalEnergies. They expressed their frustration at what they saw as obstruction of investigations into complicity in war crimes, despite the continuing Russian invasion of Ukraine.
TotalEnergies’ position
In response, a TotalEnergies spokesman said that the court ruling confirmed the Group’s position, arguing that the accusations were “devoid of any basis in law or fact”. The group also reiterated its efforts to comply with European sanctions, notably by ceasing production of kerosene for use by the Russian army and selling its shares in certain Russian operations.
Outlook and global context
This case is part of a wider context in which TotalEnergies has been one of the most exposed French groups in Russia in terms of energy. The Group has taken steps to reduce its involvement in Russia following the start of the conflict in Ukraine, but is maintaining certain contracts, such as that for the Yamal LNG gas field, for Europe’s energy security.
The outcome of this court case highlights the complexity of the legal and ethical issues associated with the international operations of major corporations in conflict zones. It also raises questions about the role of civil society in monitoring corporate activities abroad.
