In May 2024, the Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg ruled that the federal government’s climate protection program violated the law because it was insufficient to meet the binding climate targets established under the Climate Protection Act. The ruling was obtained through a lawsuit filed by Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH), which argued that the program lacked sufficiently concrete and effective measures to achieve the legally mandated emissions reduction targets. The federal government appealed this decision to the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig.

On October 22, 2025, the Federal Administrative Court scheduled a hearing for January 29, 2026, to decide the federal government’s appeal in the final instance. DUH maintains that the federal government has still not presented a program capable of achieving the legally mandated climate targets for 2030 and 2040, arguing that the government must specifically identify which measures will reduce CO2 emissions and by what amount. The organization contends that vague declarations of intent and measures with unclear climate benefits are inadequate to fulfill statutory obligations. The federal government is currently negotiating a new climate protection program that must be adopted by March 2026 at the latest, and any judgment from the Federal Administrative Court would directly influence the formulation of this program.

The main legal question is whether the federal government's climate protection program satisfies its statutory obligations under the Climate Protection Act by containing sufficiently concrete and effective measures to achieve the legally binding emissions reduction targets for 2030 and 2040.

On January 29, 2026, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the Federal Government’s appeal. The claimant, acting as an environmental association, may seek judicial review to assert that the 2023 Climate Action Programme requires supplementation. While the Federal Government enjoys a broad margin of discretion in selecting the measures included in the Climate Action Programme by resolution, compliance with the statutory requirements governing that decision is subject to judicial review.

The Court held that the Climate Action Programme, as the central steering instrument of climate policy, must include all measures necessary to achieve the binding national climate target for 2030. Measured against this standard, the Programme does not meet the statutory requirements. Based on the binding findings of the Higher Administrative Court, the measures included are insufficient to achieve the 2030 target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 65 percent compared to 1990 levels. Accordingly, the defendant must supplement the Programme, taking into account developments in greenhouse gas emissions since its adoption.

DUH v. Federal Government

<p>This entry was provided by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Please see the terms of use for citation and licensing of third party data.</p>

DUH v. Federal Government - press release

Filed

Germany

Berlin

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

An aim to achieve a quantifiable outcome within a given time-frame, set by an institution such as a national government.

Policy instruments are techniques or tools used by governing authorities to promote certain policies in order to achieve predetermined goals. Put simply, instruments are how a government tries to achieve its goals, with this taxonomy being focused on national policy instruments.

Risk is the potential for adverse consequences resulting from the dynamic interplay between (climate-related) hazards, exposure, and vulnerability of affected human or ecological systems.

Groups  of people who are adversely affected by climate change or the response to it

A set of principles, processes, and practices that build economic and political power to shift from an extractive economy to a regenerative economy.

Justice is the ethical and political framework that addresses fairness, including issues of responsibility, rights, and structural inequity.

Renewable energy means all forms of energy produced from renewable sources in a sustainable manner.

Fossil fuel is a generic term for non-renewable energy sources such as coal, fossil gas, and oil (including crude oil, and petroleum products), that can be used for electricity and heat generation. Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons formed from pressurised and heated organic material buried over millions of years.

Molecules in the atmosphere that play a key role in the greenhouse effect by trapping heat radiating from Earth’s surface.

Area of the economy in which actors engage in identical or related activities.

In human systems, the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate change and its effects, in order to moderate harm, increase resilience or exploit beneficial opportunities. In natural systems, the process of adjustment to actual climate change and its effects; human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected climate change and its effects.

The management and allocation of funds, assets and investments to meet various objectives

A long-lived, colourless gas, chiefly emitted from fossil fuel combustion, deforestation and cement production.

In May 2024, the Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg ruled that the federal government’s climate protection program violated the law because it was insufficient to meet the binding climate targets established under the Climate Protection Act. The ruling was obtained through a lawsuit filed by Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH), which argued that the program lacked sufficiently concrete and effective measures to achieve the legally mandated emissions reduction targets. The federal government appealed this decision to the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig.

On October 22, 2025, the Federal Administrative Court scheduled a hearing for January 29, 2026, to decide the federal government’s appeal in final instance. DUH maintains that the federal government has still not presented a program capable of achieving the legally mandated climate targets for 2030 and 2040, arguing that the government must specifically identify which measures will reduce CO2 emissions and by what amount. The organization contends that vague declarations of intent and measures with unclear climate benefits are inadequate to fulfill statutory obligations. The federal government is currently negotiating a new climate protection program that must be adopted by March 2026 at the latest, and any judgment from the Federal Administrative Court would directly influence the formulation of this program.

The main legal question is whether the federal government's climate protection program satisfies its statutory obligations under the Climate Protection Act by containing sufficiently concrete and effective measures to achieve the legally binding emissions reduction targets for 2030 and 2040.

On 29 January 2026, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the Federal Government’s appeal. The claimant, acting as an environmental association, may seek judicial review to assert that the 2023 Climate Action Programme requires supplementation. While the Federal Government enjoys a broad margin of discretion in selecting the measures included in the Climate Action Programme by resolution, compliance with the statutory requirements governing that decision is subject to judicial review.

The Court held that the Climate Action Programme, as the central steering instrument of climate policy, must include all measures necessary to achieve the binding national climate target for 2030. Measured against this standard, the Programme does not meet the statutory requirements. Based on the binding findings of the Higher Administrative Court, the measures included are insufficient to achieve the 2030 target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 65 percent compared to 1990 levels. Accordingly, the defendant must supplement the Programme, taking into account developments in greenhouse gas emissions since its adoption.

DUH v. Federal Government - press release

Greenhouse gas