Upcoming oral hearings before the German Federal Court of Justice in climate litigation cases against car manufacturers

On 2 March 2026, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, FCJ) will hold an oral hearing in two climate-related claims against German car manufacturers. Both cases are part of a series of lawsuits in Germany building upon the landmark Hague District Court’s ruling in the Shell case and the German Federal Constitutional Court decision on the German Climate Change Act (Klimaschutzgesetz) in 2021. These cases are the first of their kind to reach the FCJ and could set a precedent for climate change litigation in Germany. For the first time the FCJ will address climate litigation cases brought against private companies seeking the reduction of corporate contributions to climate change.

Background

The two cases, filed in September 2021 by the NGO Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) are based on general provisions of German nuisance and tort law, i.e. Sections 1004 and 823(1) of the German Civil Code (BGB), which protect, among other things, the rights to property and life, as well as the right of free development of personality under Article 2(1) of the German Constitution (Grundgesetz, GG) against threats posed by third-party interference.

Relying on a similar reasoning as in Milieudefensie v Shell, the claimants argue that the continued production and sale of combustion engine vehicles will lead to an overconsumption of the companies’ remaining CO₂ budget in order to achieve the climate targets set out in the Paris Agreement. They argue that this will necessitate drastic state-imposed measures in the future that would infringe upon claimants’ right to free development of personality. The claimants allege that the car manufacturers have an unwritten duty of care under German tort law to reduce emissions and not to exceed their remaining CO₂ budget. The reasoning draws on the Federal Constitutional Court’s 2021 decision, which held that shifting the burden of greenhouse gas mitigation to the future is impermissible, and that the reduction burdens must not be unevenly distributed over time and between generations to the detriment of the future.

The claimants request (i) a ban on the distribution of new combustion engine vehicles after 31 October 2030 unless the manufacturers can demonstrate greenhouse gas neutrality for their use; and (ii) limits on permissible CO₂ emissions from 1 January 2022 to 31 October 2030 (516 million tonnes for one car manufacturer and 604 million tonnes for the other).

The Appeal Court Judgments

The claims have been dismissed by the Courts of Appeal (CoA) Munich and Stuttgart based on the following grounds:

• Causation and potential violation of the right to the free development of personality: The courts found that manufacturing and selling vehicles does not directly violate the claimants’ right to the free development of personality. Any potential future restrictions on freedoms would result from state action, not directly from the defendants. The causal link was also considered too remote. The CoA Munich noted that the car manufacturer’s emissions account for only 0.2% of global CO₂ emissions, which is considered too minor to impose liability as a “disturber”.
• Separation of power: The courts emphasised that it is up to the legislator to set climate targets and designing policies. Imposing emission restrictions through judicial decisions would risk encroaching on this separation of powers.
• Compliance with existing law: The courts also noted that the companies operate within the framework of existing national and EU regulations on CO₂ emissions. Conduct that complies with regulatory requirements does not, as a rule, constitute “unlawful interference” under Section 1004 BGB. The CoA Stuttgart specifically referenced the EU’s “Fit for 55” package as evidence that the legislature is addressing its climate protection obligations at a systemic level.

Outlook and international context 

The FCJ hearings will shape whether civil law can be a vehicle for climate action, a field traditionally reserved for public law and policy in Germany, where courts have so far been reluctant to impose emission reduction obligations on private companies, as long as the legislator has not set specific limits for CO₂ emissions. 

The current climate case before the FCJ follows the recent landmark advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), that has addressed States’ obligations in relation to climate change and held that States have an obligation to protect the climate system from the harmful effects of greenhouse gas emissions (also see the recent Dutch Bonaire Climate Case that is one of first decisions to expressly rely on the ICJ's advisory opinion). 

The FCJ hearings also come as courts in Europe increasingly evaluate corporate responsibility for climate mitigation. However, since the ground-breaking 2021 Dutch first instance decision in Milieudefensie v Shell, which ordered Royal Dutch Shell to reduce  CO₂ emissions by net 45% by the end of 2030 (relative to 2019 levels), there have been some recent losses for claimants bringing climate changes against private companies in Europe: The Court of Appeal of the Hague overturned the first instance judgment in Milieudefensie v Shell and the Hamm CoA judgment in the Lliuya v RWE case in 2025. However, these courts have left some room for claimants to amend their claims and potentially reach a more favourable outcome in future proceedings. For example, in Milieudefensie v Shell, although the 45% emission reduction order was overturned, the Court of Appeal affirmed that protection from climate change constitutes a human right.  Claimants are already responding to the courts’ guidance by filing new claims that are tailored to different fact patterns and refined legal arguments which may ultimately prove more successful.

At the same time, the EU is adapting its ESG strategy to place a stronger focus on competitiveness and growth, as demonstrated by the shift from the European Green Deal to the Clean Industrial Deal, the recently published  sustainability Omnibus package (which simplifies key EU sustainability regulation, such as the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)) and the EU Automotive Package, presented on 16 December 2025: The latter proposes revised CO₂ emission standards for cars, vans, and heavy-duty vehicles, with a shift for cars and vans from the previously planned 100% tailpipe emissions reduction  by 2035 (as introduced under the “Fit for 55” package) to a new 90% target.

In light of these legislative and litigation developments, the FCJ ruling is expected to set a landmark precedent, and all eyes will be on the FCJ as it considers issues that are highly relevant for corporate climate change obligations in and beyond Germany.