In March 2026, the Federal Court of Justice dismissed two claims, underscoring that responsibility for climate protection lies solely with the legislature. This sets a precedent for future climate litigation.

In November 2021, the managing directors of Deutsche Umwelthilfe, a German environmental association, initiated legal proceedings against two German car manufacturers, including Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, which was represented by Clifford Chance. The claimants sought to compel the manufacturers to cease selling vehicles with internal combustion engines from 2030 onwards, alleging a violation of their general right of personality (Allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht, "APR"). The continued sale of combustion engine vehicles, they argued, would increase CO2 emissions and reduce the carbon budget available to Germany for achieving greenhouse gas neutrality. According to the claimants, depletion of this budget would eventually force the legislature to enact stricter emissions laws, which could restrict their freedoms and impair their APR.

The Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, "BGH") upheld the lower courts' decisions and dismissed the claims. The court found that the emissions limits for the Federal Republic of Germany set out in the Climate Protection Act may not be allocated to individual federal states, municipalities, the transport sector, or, indeed, to individual companies or consumers (para. 29). The BGH therefore rejected the claimants' attempt of breaking down the national CO2 budget, set to achieve the Paris climate target, to individual sectors and companies.

As companies are not subject to individual CO2 budgets, they cannot be compelled to implement specific climate protection measures to achieve the "individual" budgets asserted by the claimants. The BGH emphasised that it is not the role of the courts to "derive concretely quantifiable limits on global warming and corresponding emission quantities or reduction targets from the open wording of Article 20a of the Constitution [concerning the protection of resources]". Courts are not authorised to allocate the overall federal carbon budget to private parties in civil proceedings, given the inherent limitations of such proceedings (para. 46).

Of even greater significance is the BGH's finding that "only the legislature provides the appropriate framework to balance climate protection and its tension with potentially conflicting interests in a democratically accountable manner. Negotiating this complex balance, embedded in the European and international multi-level system, between conflicting ecological, social, societal, economic, fiscal, and other collective and individual interests, and thus allocating the burden of emissions reduction, requires difficult decisions for which the legislature retains significant discretion under Article 20a of the Constitution" (para. 45). The BGH thus confirmed that the mandate for climate protection enshrined in Article 20a of the German Constitution (Grundgesetz) rests exclusively with the legislature, not the courts. Civil courts must not circumvent this clear allocation of responsibilities by imposing climate-related obligations on individual companies through civil law. The BGH's reasoning shows that holding individual companies liable for failing to meet certain climate protection requirements not provided for by law would exceed the permissible boundaries of judicial law-making.

The BGH's findings are of far-reaching significance beyond the individual case, not only because of their general wording but also because the BGH deliberately elevated them to guiding principles. This is particularly relevant for the climate claims currently pending in Germany against an energy company and a building materials company. Moreover, the BGH's decision is expected to have a signalling effect for similar claims currently pending in other European countries, such as the Netherlands and Italy.

Although some argue that the BGH's decision will not affect ongoing proceedings, this position appears to be a strategic attempt to avoid further diminishing the prospects of success in those cases. It also indicates that activist claimants are unlikely to be deterred by the BGH's decision and will continue to bring similar claims against other companies for political and strategic reasons.

A legislative clarification would therefore be welcome, making it clear that companies complying with public law emissions standards cannot be held liable under civil law for emissions-related impacts or global climate change. The legislative proposal submitted to the German Federal Council (Bundesrat) on 12 May 2026 (BR-Drucksache 285/26) points exactly in this direction.