Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) v. Mercedes-Benz AG

On September 20, 2021, environmental organization Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH; Environmental Action Germany) filed an action against Mercedes-Benz in the Regional Court of Stuttgart for not yet having clearly and irreversibly committed to phase out the sale of passenger cars with internal combustion engines (ICE) by 2030. DUH argues that by failing to do so, the automaker is violating the fundamental right to climate protection and impinging upon the rights and freedoms of future generations, as phase out would be necessary for the company to adhere to its allocated carbon budget. The claim is grounded in the Paris Agreement and German Tort Law. The plaintiff relies on the earlier decision by the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) on the German Climate Protection Act, where the Court accepted that Germany has a limited total CO2 emissions budget remaining at its disposal (Neubauer v. Germany). The action filed against Mercedes-Benz is one of the first civil proceedings based on this decision. DUH asks the court to hold that, (i) unless Mercedes-Benz can prove GHG neutrality for Scope 3 CO2 emissions resulting from the intended use of their ICE passenger cars, after October 31, 2030, Mercedes-Benz is obliged to refrain from placing ICE passenger cars on the market; and (ii) unless Mercedes-Benz can prove GHG neutrality for Scope 3 CO2 emissions globally exceeding 511 million tons resulting from the intended use of ICE passenger cars (based on an average mileage of 200,000 km), between January 1, 2022 and October 31, 2030 Mercedes-Benz is obliged to refrain from placing ICE passenger cars on the global market. Alternatively, DUH asks the court to order Mercedes-Benz to stop placing new ICE passenger cars on the German market after October 31, 2030, unless Mercedes-Benz can prove GHG neutrality for the intended use of said cars. The requested ban on producing new ICE cars would take effect earlier than the 2035 effective ban proposed by the EU in July 2021. On September 13, 2022, the Regional Court of Stuttgart dismissed the case, on the grounds that it is up to the legislator to decide the appropriate measures to protect the climate. The court went on to state that this could not be preempted by an individual action before a civil court. DUH has announced that it will appeal this decision before the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart. It held that the DUH could not rely on a “quasi-negatory” claim by analogy to Sections 12, 862 and 1004 of the German Civil Code, as such a remedy presupposes that conduct which is lawful in itself nonetheless gives rise to an unlawful situation. The marketing of new internal combustion engine vehicles did not meet that threshold. The court further explained that any unlawfulness could arise, if at all, only through the indirect horizontal effect of fundamental rights. However, the reach of fundamental rights in relations between private parties cannot exceed the scope of the State’s own constitutional obligations. The DUH had not demonstrated that the State is required, under fundamental rights law, to prohibit Mercedes-Benz Group AG from selling combustion engine vehicles by 2030. To the contrary, the legislature was found to have acted within its constitutional responsibilities to curb greenhouse gas emissions, in particular through the EU climate policy framework Fit for 55, which mandates that, from 2035 onwards, no new vehicles may be registered in the EU if their operation entails greenhouse gas emissions. Against this background, the court saw no basis for concluding that continued sales until the end of 2034 would, in themselves, constitute a violation of the DUH’s fundamental rights. In October 2025, the Federal Court of Justice, Germany’s highest civil court, granted leave to appeal on points of law. This step opens the door for a landmark examination of whether and to what extent automobile manufacturers can be held civilly liable for climate-related harm linked to their products. The case brought by Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) against Mercedes-Benz AG was appealed to the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), which has now issued its decision and dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the lower courts’ rulings. On March 23, 2026, the Sixth Civil Panel of the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) issued judgments in cases VI ZR 334/23 and VI ZR 365/23, holding that private individuals lack a legal basis to compel automobile manufacturers to phase out internal combustion engine vehicles prior to the timeline established under applicable European Union law. The court affirmed lower court decisions dismissing the claims. The plaintiffs, executive directors of Deutsche Umwelthilfe, brought actions against major automobile manufacturers, including Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (BMW) and Mercedes-Benz AG. The defendants were undisputedly in compliance with all applicable statutory climate regulations. Plaintiffs argued that, based on the German Federal Constitutional Court’s climate decision, private corporations must adhere to a limited CO₂ “budget” derived from the Paris Agreement. They contended that excessive emissions by the defendants would indirectly infringe their fundamental rights—particularly the intertemporal dimension of the general right of personality under Article 2 of the Basic Law—by necessitating stricter future climate measures that could constrain their freedoms. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to prohibit the defendants from marketing combustion-engine vehicles after October 31, 2030, and, under certain emissions thresholds, even earlier. Regional Courts and Higher Regional Courts dismissed the claims. The plaintiffs’ appeals on points of law were likewise rejected. The Federal Court of Justice held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive relief. No actionable interference with a protected right was established. First, the court found no present or anticipatory violation of the plaintiffs’ general right of personality. The alleged “advance interference” theory failed because no legally binding, actor-specific CO₂ budget exists. While general emission limits can be derived from international and national frameworks, these do not impose individualized obligations on specific private entities or sectors. Second, the court distinguished the case from the Federal Constitutional Court’s prior climate ruling, emphasizing that responsibility for allocating emission reductions lies with the legislature, not private actors. Third, the court rejected tort liability. Any future restrictive climate legislation cannot be legally attributed to the defendants’ conduct. The manufacturers operate within the framework established by EU law—specifically Regulation (EU) 2019/631, as amended—which sets binding emissions targets and timelines, including a full phase-out target for new passenger car emissions by 2035. Compliance with this regulatory regime precludes additional judicially imposed obligations. Finally, the court underscored the constitutional separation of powers. The balancing of climate protection against economic, social, and individual interests—particularly under Article 20a of the Basic Law—is a matter for the legislature, which retains broad discretion. Courts are not authorized to derive specific emission limits or reduction pathways from open-ended constitutional provisions. The ruling confirms that there is no judicially enforceable right to an accelerated phase-out of combustion-engine vehicles beyond the timelines set by EU legislation. Responsibility for determining and implementing climate policy measures remains with the legislative branch.