German Federal Court of Justice Dismisses Landmark Climate Claims Against German Car Manufacturers

On 23 March 2026, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, FCJ) rendered its highly anticipated judgments in two climate-related claims against German car manufacturers (the full judgments are accessible only in German here and here). These were the first climate litigation cases against private companies to reach Germany’s highest civil court. The FCJ dismissed both appeals, upholding the lower courts’ decisions. The judgments mark a major milestone in the German climate change litigation landscape, reinforcing the primacy of the legislator in setting climate policy and legislation.

Background

The two cases were filed in September 2021 by the executive directors of the environmental NGO Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH). The claimants relied on general provisions of German nuisance and tort law (Sections 1004 and 823(1) of the German Civil Code (BGB)) in conjunction with the right of free development of personality under Article 2(1) of the German Constitution (Grundgesetz, GG) and Article 8 ECHR. Drawing on the Federal Constitutional Court’s (Bundesverfassungsgericht, FCC) landmark 2021 Climate Decision and the Dutch first-instance decision in Milieudefensie v Shell, the claimants requested (i) a ban on the placing on the market of new combustion engine vehicles after 31 October 2030; and (ii) caps on permissible CO₂ emissions arising from the use of vehicles placed on the market from 1 January 2022 to 31 October 2030 (604 million tonnes for one manufacturer and 516 million tonnes for the other). Both claims were dismissed at first instance and on appeal. For more details on the claimants’ arguments and the Courts of Appeal’s reasoning, please refer to our earlier blog.

The FCJ Judgments

The FCJ dismissed the claimants’ appeals by holding that the claimants’ general right of personality is not impaired because there is no binding CO₂ budget applicable to individual companies. Furthermore, the FCJ found that the defendants cannot be held liable under German tort law given their compliance with the regulations in place. Finally and importantly, the FCJ stressed that it is not up to the civil courts, but the sole responsibility of the legislator to establish the appropriate framework to reconcile climate protection and its tension with any conflicting interests.

In detail:

No impairment of claimants’ general right of personality as no specific CO₂ budget exists for individual companies

The FCJ found that the claimants’ general right of personality under Article 2 (1) and 1 (1) GG and Article 8 ECHR is ultimately not infringed by the CO₂ emissions caused by the car manufacturers’ contested business activities. In line with the FCC decision, the FCJ emphasised that a future impairment of constitutional rights could only be established if there was a roughly determinable CO₂ emissions budget in the first place. Since there was no such budget for federal states nor for the transport sector, let alone for individual companies or consumers, the FCJ denied a potential violation of the claimants’ constitutional rights. The FCJ further stressed that such emissions budgets would have to be implemented by the legislator first.

No duty of care beyond regulatory compliance

The FCJ further clarified that the defendants cannot be held liable under German tort law as there exists no duty of care going beyond the regulatory requirements such as the EU Regulation on CO₂ emission standards for passenger cars. The EU legislator has established a graduated framework that is explicitly committed to the climate targets of the Paris Agreement. This framework specifically governs the placing on the market of combustion engine vehicles. Since the defendants fully comply with these requirements, a breach of duty of care on the part of the defendants cannot be established. Imposing by court order an earlier end to the possibility of placing combustion engine vehicles on the market would undermine the decision taken by the EU legislator. 

Civil courts are not the appropriate forum to decide on climate change liability

The FCJ emphasised that the legislative process is the only appropriate forum for reconciling climate protection with potentially competing interests in a manner that ensures democratic accountability. The legislator is responsible for enacting emission reduction laws, which requires balancing a wide range of competing ecological, social, economic and political interests within the European and international multi-level system. Article 20a GG (the fundamental objective to protect the natural foundations of life) provides the legislator with considerable discretion in shaping climate policy. It is not the responsibility of the civil courts to derive specific emission caps or reduction targets from this constitutional provision, let alone enforce them in civil proceedings between private parties. 

No referral to the European Court of Justice

The FCJ also declined to refer the case to the European Court of Justice based on the “acte clair” doctrine. The claimants had suggested a reference for a preliminary ruling on whether placing combustion engines on the market that produce CO₂ beyond 2045 or 2050 is compatible with Article 6 (right to liberty) and Article 37 (protection of the environment) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Outlook

The FCJ’s landmark judgments clarify core questions of civil liability for climate change and are likely to shape the climate litigation landscape well beyond Germany. By taking into account international jurisprudence – notably the Dutch Court of Appeal’s decision in Milieudefensie v. Shell and the European Court of Human Rights’ KlimaSeniorinnen ruling – the FCJ has resolved fundamental questions of climate change litigation:

• Compliance with existing legislation precludes liability: Business activities that comply with regulatory requirements do not, as a rule, constitute a breach of duty of care under German nuisance and tort law. This reasoning is also relevant for so-called “backwards looking” climate claims, i.e. claims based on a company’s historic emissions. Such claims equally require that the defendant owed a duty of care or violated statutory obligations at the relevant time.
• Separation of powers: The FCJ clarified that it is the responsibility of the legislator – not the civil courts – to determine climate policy and provide for adequate emissions reductions laws.

While German and EU initiatives like the EU Automotive Package signal a shift in regulatory priorities that could strengthen claims of inadequate legislative climate action, the FCJ noted that any relaxation of regulatory requirements (e.g. the proposed amendments to the EU regulation on CO₂ emission standards for passenger cars as part of the EU Automotive Package) would in fact further weaken the claimants’ prospects in civil proceedings against private companies. The claimants in the current proceedings have already indicated that they are considering filing a constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) with the FCC, arguing that the FCJ’s interpretation of civil law does not give adequate effect to their constitutional rights.

The FCJ’s judgments have to be also viewed within the broader landscape of corporate climate litigation in Germany and beyond. Courts across Europe continue to define the legal boundaries of corporate climate responsibility. Since the ground-breaking 2021 Dutch first-instance decision in Milieudefensie v Shell, claimants in similar cases have encountered notable setbacks: the Court of Appeal of the Hague overturned the first-instance judgment in Milieudefensie v Shell, and the Hamm Court of Appeal dismissed the Lliuya v RWE case in 2025. The FCJ’s landmark rulings represent a further significant setback for climate litigation against private companies in Germany.

It remains to be seen whether claimants and NGOs will continue to file further strategic claims against private companies in Germany or rather focus on challenging government action directly. In other EU Member States, where the highest civil courts have yet to rule on comparable claims, the civil litigation risk remains high.