DUH fails in climate lawsuit against BMW and Mercedes-Benz

The lawsuits had previously been dismissed by lower courts in Munich and Stuttgart, where the cases were heard before Regional and Higher Regional Courts. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH), acting as the final instance, has now also rejected the appeals brought by Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH). Barbara Metz, Executive Director of DUH, stated that the organisation would review the ruling before deciding whether to take the case to the Federal Constitutional Court.

The legal action dates back to 2021, when Deutsche Umwelthilfe and Greenpeace filed lawsuits against BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen, seeking to compel carmakers to comply with climate protection targets. DUH pursued claims against BMW and Mercedes-Benz, while Greenpeace targeted the Volkswagen Group.

According to the organisations, the cases were based on a landmark ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court. In April 2021, the court found that Germany’s climate legislation was insufficient and required lawmakers to strengthen it. The ruling is formally referred to as the Federal Constitutional Court’s Climate Decision (BVerfGE 157, 30).

A chronology of the subsequent developments in the various instances can be found here. Deutsche Umwelthilfe faced setback after setback. Now, the Federal Court of Justice has also dismissed DUH’s lawsuit against BMW and Mercedes. The court justified its decision by stating that ‘private individuals cannot demand that motor vehicle manufacturers cease to place on the market passenger cars with combustion engines before the deadline set by the EU Regulation setting CO2 emission standards for passenger cars.’

The court argued that ‘the responsibility for any possible necessity for future climate legislation lies with the legislator. Only legislation provides the appropriate framework to act with democratic responsibility to reconcile climate protection and its tension with any conflicting interests.’

It added: “The negotiation of this complex balance of competing ecological, social, societal, economic, fiscal and other political collective and individual interests, which are integrated into the European and international multi-level system, and thus the distribution of the burden of avoiding emissions, requires difficult decisions involving balancing and allocation. The legislator has considerable discretion in this task, also in accordance with Article 20a of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz).”

In contrast, it is not the role of the courts to derive concretely quantifiable limits for global warming—and corresponding emission volumes or reduction targets—from the open wording of Article 20a of the Basic Law.

spiegel.de, handelsblatt.com (both in German), bundesgerichtshof.de