Climate litigation in German federal courts: Governmental climate change management under scrutiny while private enforcement is restricted
6 min read
Climate litigation brought by environmental associations is increasingly appearing on the agendas of German courts. Two recent landmark decisions draw first boundaries for climate litigation: while the Federal Administrative Court required the Federal Government to supplement its climate protection action plan, the Federal Court of Justice rejected a request for injunctive relief against two German car manufacturers.
Government climate action plan subject to judicial review
On 29 January 2026, Germany's Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) dismissed the Federal Government's appeal and upheld the ruling of the Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg (Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg).1 The claimant, an environmental association, had sought to compel the Federal Government to supplement its Climate Protection Action Plan 2023 with additional measures in order to achieve the national climate target of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 65% compared to 1990 levels by 2030. The Court confirmed that the measures included in the Climate Protection Action Plan 2023 were insufficient.
As a result, the Federal Government is now required to supplement the Climate Protection Action Plan 2023, ensuring that the measures included, based on methodologically sound projections, collectively guarantee the achievement of the GHG emissions reduction target. The Court noted that the Federal Government retains a broad discretion as to which specific measures it adopts, and may update existing projections or replace existing measures with new ones, provided the overall 2030 target is met.
The limits of private enforcement in climate litigation
In two parallel proceedings, members of environmental associations sought injunctions before the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, "FCJ") to oblige two German car manufacturers to cease placing new internal combustion engine vehicles on the market after 31 October 2030.
The plaintiffs argued that their constitutional rights were violated because the vehicles sold by the defendants would surpass certain CO2 budgets that the claimants attributed to the manufacturers, thereby causing severe future restrictions on their future personal life and social relationships as a result of legislative climate measures.
On 23 March 2026, the FCJ dismissed the appeals.2 While future potential restrictions on personal life and social relationships would interfere with the claimants' general rights of personality, the Court held these restrictions were not attributable to the car manufacturers. The FCJ reasoned that based on its interpretation of the 2021 climate protection judgment and subsequent case-law of the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), no specific residual CO2 budget could be attributed to the defendants, and that such attribution would be required for future restrictions to be actionable.
In addition, the FCJ held that the manufacturers who were in full compliance with the applicable EU Car Emissions Regulation3 were not subject to any additional due diligence obligations with respect to CO2 emissions. The fact that the applicable provisions constitute not merely general rules but a specific regulatory framework does not give rise to additional due diligence obligations on the part of the car manufacturers. Only if special circumstances of an individual case applied, could other due diligence obligations going beyond the statutory requirements be incurred. The FCJ also noted that the current threshold of individual damage and urgency required under the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights had not been met.
The FCJ devoted an entire section of its reasoning to the observation that only the legislator is in the position to decide on climate protection measures balancing the relevant ecological, social, societal, economic, fiscal and political interests. In principle, it is not the task of the courts to develop specific emission reduction obligations.
Residual scope for private climate claims
Whilst containing a very clear statement against private enforcement of climate protection, the FCJ judgment leaves several issues undecided. The decision does not address more nuanced fundamental rights, such as the right to health or the protection of property. Questions regarding civil liability for proven damages of the past also remain unanswered because the judgement relies heavily on the legislator's responsibility to regulate future emissions.
For instance, the standards established by the Higher Regional Court of Hamm in the Lliuya v. RWE AG case4 may still apply. In that case, the Court ultimately had dismissed the claim on evidentiary grounds but found that the German Civil Code can, in principle, support cross-border tort claims related to climate damage. The Hamm Court noted that the legality of CO2 emissions could not shield against liability for alleged transboundary harm. This may conflict with the FCJ's restrictive position on due diligence obligations, yet it could be upheld in the context of proven harm to property. Notably, the points of reference for the claims differ between the two judgments. In the Hamm case, the claimant did not seek an injunction against actions contributing to CO2 emissions, as in the FCJ ruling, but rather sought coverage of the costs of appropriate protective measures for his property. Furthermore, the Hamm Court relied on longstanding knowledge of the effects of GHG emissions, a perspective structurally different from the FCJ's reliance on future climate legislations.
Beyond the question of direct climate liability, a separate but related area of litigation continues to gain traction: environmental advertising claims under unfair commercial practices law. Companies that promote their products or services using terms such as "climate-neutral", "carbon-offset" or "sustainable" are increasingly facing legal challenges under the Act against Unfair Competition (UWG). In several rulings, courts have clarified that environmental claims must meet strict requirements of accuracy, clarity, and unambiguity, and clarity of the advertising claims.5
Conclusion
Taken together, the two recent decisions delineate a boundary between public and private enforcement of climate protection in Germany. The Federal Administrative Court's ruling confirms that the Federal Government's Climate Protection Action Plan is subject to judicial review. The Federal Court of Justice's decision bars private injunction claims against CO2 emissions that are merely based on the general right of personality and provides indications that other claims will also be difficult to maintain. It remains to be seen whether these decisions will trigger a shift in the strategy of climate-related lawsuits. In the meantime, unfair commercial practice litigation remains a risk for companies making climate-related advertising claims. This risk is set to increase further once the EU Directive 2024/825 on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (EmpCo Directive) has been transposed into national law, as it will introduce stricter rules on environmental claims and extend the catalogue of per se prohibited commercial practices accordingly.
1 See Federal Administrative Court, Judgment of 29 January 2026 – 7 C 6/24.
2 See Federal Court of Justice, Judgment of 23 March 2026 – VI ZR 334/23; Judgment of 23 March 2026 – VI ZR 365/23.
3 See EU Car Emissions Regulation here.
4 See https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/germanys-climate-case-concludes-what-does-mean-future-climate-lawsuits.
5 See for instance: Regional Court of Nürnberg-Fürth, Judgment from 25 March 2025 – 3 HK O 6524/24; Regional Court of Frankfurt, Judgment from 26 August 2025 – 3-06 O 8/24; the FCJ has already established standards for describing products as "climate neutral" in its judgment from 27 June 2024 – I ZR 98/23.
White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.
This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.
© 2026 White & Case LLP
