Combustion Engine Ban in 2030? Germany's Federal Court Reviews Climate Lawsuits Against Carmakers
KARLSRUHE/MUNICH/STUTTGART (dpa-AFX) — Recently, the planned ban on combustion engine cars has once again become a hot political topic in Germany and across Europe. Meanwhile, the German Environmental Aid (DUH) is taking a different approach, bringing climate lawsuits directly against two German car manufacturers in court. The case has now reached the Federal Court of Justice (BGH). What makes this lawsuit special? And what are the environmentalists aiming to achieve? The key questions and answers ahead of today’s hearing in Karlsruhe:
What is the German Environmental Aid demanding?
The DUH wants BMW and Mercedes-Benz to be prohibited from selling new cars with climate-damaging combustion engines in the future: ideally starting from October 31, 2030, since vehicles typically remain in use for just over 14 years and Germany aims to be greenhouse gas neutral by 2045, explains DUH attorney Remo Klinger. However, the plaintiffs have also submitted several alternative motions with different timeframes—for example, until 2045 or even 2050.
The problem, Klinger says, is that BMW and Mercedes have so far refused to commit to any date unless it is legally mandated. This is the crux of the matter before the BGH: “Is everything that is not prohibited under civil law automatically allowed?” From the plaintiffs’ perspective, the answer is clear: No. Companies must also adhere to duties of care beyond state regulation when the rights of third parties are affected.
What rights are the plaintiffs invoking?
Three DUH managing directors are asserting their general right to personality, enshrined in the German Basic Law, before the court. They argue that BMW and Mercedes are consuming too large a share of the global and national CO2 budget, thereby restricting the scope for political action. As a result, far-reaching measures to reduce CO2 would later become necessary, which would in turn restrict their own freedoms. Their argument is based on the landmark climate protection ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court from 2021.
What did the Federal Constitutional Court decide back then?
In March 2021, Germany’s highest court ruled that the federal climate protection law at the time was insufficient and required lawmakers to make improvements. The court found that the (in some cases, very young) plaintiffs were being violated in their freedoms, stating: “The regulations irreversibly shift high burdens of emission reductions to periods after 2030.”
Limiting the rise in global average temperature as planned to well below 2 degrees, and ideally to 1.5 degrees, would then only be possible through ever more urgent and short-term measures. “Virtually every freedom is potentially affected by this,” the judges explained. To safeguard constitutionally protected freedoms, lawmakers must make provisions “to mitigate these high burdens.”
What is now at stake before the Federal Court of Justice?
While the landmark climate protection decision of the Federal Constitutional Court concerned state obligations, the BGH is now considering whether major emitters like BMW and Mercedes can also be held accountable in court. The case centers on a fundamental legal question that remains unresolved, says DUH attorney Klinger: “Do large emitters have a legal duty to align their production and products with the remaining CO2 budget and climate neutrality targets?”
What do the defendant companies say?
BMW argues that the Paris Climate Agreement does not set a legally binding CO2 budget for individual companies, but only entails national commitments by states. In this legal dispute, DUH is attempting “to bypass the parliamentary process in pursuing its political objectives,” a company spokesperson stated. The debate over how to achieve climate goals, they added, must be held in the plenary chamber, not the courtroom.
Mercedes-Benz welcomed the BGH’s decision to clarify fundamental legal questions regarding climate-related claims—such as the scope of the general right to personality. Sustainability and climate protection, the company said, are central components of its strategic direction.
How has the case proceeded so far?
Up to now, DUH has not been successful in its lawsuits against the automakers in court. Both the regional courts in Munich and Stuttgart, as well as the relevant higher regional courts, dismissed the lawsuits. However, the BGH allowed appeals, so the underlying legal questions can now be clarified in Karlsruhe. Whether a ruling will be delivered on Monday remains unclear.
Will a BGH ruling be the final word?
As the final instance in civil proceedings, a decision by the BGH is generally not subject to further appeal. However, if fundamental rights are potentially affected, the path to the Federal Constitutional Court remains open. Environmental Aid is keeping this option in reserve, should its lawsuit fail before the BGH, attorney Klinger said ahead of the oral hearing.
What is the political status of the combustion engine ban?
So far, the end of combustion engines in the European Union (EU) was planned for 2035. The regulation, agreed upon by negotiators from EU member states and the European Parliament about three years ago, stipulated that, after that date, no new cars with gasoline or diesel engines could be registered. However, at the end of 2025, the EU Commission distanced itself from these plans and proposed relaxations and exceptions./jml/kke/DP/zb