German High Court Rejects Climate Lawsuits Against BMW and Mercedes-Benz

Germany's Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe rejected climate lawsuits filed against BMW and Mercedes-Benz on Monday, ruling that courts cannot compel carmakers to stop selling new combustion-engine vehicles by 2030. Presiding judge Stephan Seiters announced the decision, stating that "responsibility for climate legislation lies with the legislature." The lawsuits had been brought in a private capacity by three managing directors of the environmental organization Deutsche Umwelthilfe, who sought to prohibit BMW and Mercedes-Benz from selling new internal combustion engine cars from October 31, 2030. The court's sixth civil senate ruled that private individuals are not entitled to demand specific emission budgets for individual companies. The ruling upheld earlier dismissals by lower courts in Munich and Stuttgart.

2021 constitutional ruling underpinned the failed legal strategy The DUH lawsuits drew on a landmark ruling issued by Germany's Federal Constitutional Court in March 2021, which found that the Federal Climate Protection Act in its then-existing form was insufficient. That court determined that the regulations irreversibly shifted high emission reduction burdens to periods after 2030, thereby violating the freedom rights of younger plaintiffs. The Constitutional Court ordered the legislature to strengthen climate protection measures to safeguard future generations' freedoms. The DUH's managing directors argued that BMW and Mercedes-Benz were consuming a disproportionately large share of the global and national carbon dioxide budget, restricting political room for maneuver and ultimately threatening individual freedoms. The DUH plaintiffs grounded their case in the general right of personality enshrined in Germany's Basic Law, arguing that the carmakers' continued combustion-engine sales would force governments to impose increasingly severe emission restrictions on younger generations. DUH lawyer Remo Klinger contended that companies must adhere to duties of care beyond state regulation when the rights of third parties are being infringed, framing the central legal question as whether civil law permits everything not explicitly prohibited. The plaintiffs had also submitted alternative deadline motions — including bans by 2045 or even 2050 — in addition to the primary October 2030 target. Klinger noted that BMW and Mercedes had so far refused to commit to any phase-out date as long as one was not legally prescribed. The BGH rejected this line of reasoning, ruling that no emissions budget exists for individual companies and that balancing climate protection against other societal interests is a task for elected legislators, not courts.

DUH weighs constitutional complaint as carmakers welcome verdict DUH Executive Director Barbara Metz said the organization would carefully examine the court's decisions before determining its next steps. „We will, of course, also consider the possibility of filing a constitutional complaint” — Barbara Metz via Deutsche Welle Remo Klinger framed the ruling as a directive to politicians rather than a defeat for climate protection, saying the decision amounted to "a clear instruction to the legislature." He added that any weakening of existing European emissions regulation "would run counter to climate protection and is unacceptable." BMW welcomed the BGH's decision, stating that the "discussion about ways to achieve climate goals must be conducted in the political process by democratically legitimized parliaments" and adding that the company had "long been making an effective contribution to climate protection." A BMW spokesperson also said the ruling provided "legal certainty for companies operating in Germany." Mercedes-Benz had argued throughout the proceedings that setting climate targets falls within the legislature's domain, not the judiciary's.

EU's 2035 combustion ban faces its own political turbulence The BGH ruling arrives against a backdrop of shifting European policy on combustion-engine vehicles. The European Commission currently maintains an effective ban on the sale of new combustion-engine cars from 2035, but proposed easing that requirement in December 2025, with negotiations on the matter expected to continue for months. German carmakers have invested billions in transitioning to electric vehicles in an effort to meet EU climate targets, while the European automotive industry has argued that electric vehicle sales have fallen below expectations, making previously established carbon dioxide reduction targets difficult to achieve. Bundestag member Fabian Fahl of the Left Party called the court decisions "a vivid example of the difference between 'lawful' and 'legitimate,'" arguing that the automotive industry "contributes significantly to climate destruction." The BGH's ruling does not foreclose future legislative action — it instead places the onus squarely on Germany's parliament and European institutions to define the pace and scope of any combustion-engine phase-out. For DUH, the path forward now runs through the political arena or, potentially, the Federal Constitutional Court.

[{"dateISO": "2021-03-24", "date": "March 24, 2021", "title": "Federal Constitutional Court climate ruling", "description": "Germany's Constitutional Court found the Federal Climate Protection Act insufficient, ordering the legislature to strengthen climate protections for future generations."}, {"dateISO": "2026-03-02", "date": "March 2, 2026", "title": "DUH hearing at BGH", "description": "Deutsche Umwelthilfe argued before the Federal Court of Justice that BMW and Mercedes-Benz should be barred from selling new combustion-engine cars from November 2030."}, {"dateISO": "2026-03-23", "date": "March 23, 2026", "title": "BGH rejects climate lawsuits", "description": "The Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe dismissed the DUH cases against BMW and Mercedes-Benz, ruling that climate legislation is the legislature's responsibility."}]