German Federal Court of Justice Sets Limits on Private-Law Climate Lawsuits
Legal Insights Germany
May 12, 2026On 23 March 2026, the Federal Court of Justice dismissed the claims by Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) seeking a court ban on the manufacture of internal combustion engines.[1] It had already indicated during the oral hearing that it would set strict limits on climate lawsuits against car manufacturers. This has now been confirmed. Without an explicit legal basis, companies cannot be compelled to implement far-reaching climate protection measures. Neither the Paris Climate Agreement nor the Federal Climate Protection Act provides a basis for deriving an individual or company-specific CO2 budget.
Background
In March 2026, the Federal Court of Justice heard two lawsuits filed by the DUH seeking to compel two major German automakers—including Mercedes-Benz—to stop selling new vehicles with combustion engines starting in 2030.
These lawsuits are part of a series of legal proceedings through which private individuals or environmental organizations are seeking to enforce climate protection measures in court. As recently as December 2025, the Zug Cantonal Court had admitted a lawsuit filed by four Indonesian islanders against a Swiss cement manufacturer (see also our Legal Insights of March 3, 2026). Unlike in the case of the Indonesian fishermen, however, the Federal Court of Justice is not being asked to rule on specific damages caused by climate change, but rather to compel private companies to take preventive climate protection measures.
The DUH’s lawsuits were unsuccessful both in the first instance and before the higher regional courts; the same now applies to the appeal before the Federal Court of Justice.
On the Dispute
The DUH based its argumentation primarily on the Federal Constitutional Court’s 2021 climate protection ruling.[2] According to this ruling, courts may intervene if state climate policy fails to adequately protect the civil liberties of future generations.
The defendant automakers countered that fundamental decisions regarding CO2 reduction measures are reserved for the legislature. A corresponding balancing of interests should not be carried out by courts and does not necessarily have to favor climate protection.
The Federal Court of Justice was not persuaded by the plaintiffs’ arguments. Statutory emissions budgets currently exist only for the state, not for individual companies. The allocation of emissions budgets and the setting of concrete climate targets for industries or companies is therefore primarily the task of the legislature.
At the same time, the court emphasized a key difference from the Federal Constitutional Court’s climate protection ruling: The constitutional obligations developed there are directed primarily at the state and not directly at private companies.
The Federal Court of Justice’s rulings underscore the court’s reluctance to shape climate policy through the judiciary without a clear legal basis. In the court’s view, the responsibility for setting binding emissions targets for companies remains primarily with the legislature.
Conclusion
The Federal Court of Justice makes it clear that German courts will not directly impose climate-related operational restrictions or sales bans on companies without a legal basis.
For automakers, energy companies, and other major emitters, this creates a certain degree of planning security: Any climate obligations will be established primarily by the legislature and not through private lawsuits.
Companies should therefore keep a close eye on legislative developments at the national and European levels in particular.
Law clerk Maximilian Freutsmiedl contributed to this article.
______________