Berlin

Germany

Hamburg

Brandenburg

Nordrhein-Westfalen

Sachsen-Anhalt

Baden-Württemberg

Hessen

Niedersachsen

Schleswig-Holstein

Sachsen

Bremen

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

Thüringen

Rheinland-Pfalz

Saarland

Bayern

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.

The lawsuit was directed against the company "HelloFresh Deutschland SE & Co. KG." The company was accused of making misleading advertising claims that suggest products, companies, or services are "climate neutral." It concerned the following statements:

(1) "The first global climate-neutral meal kit company"
(2) "We offset 100% of our direct CO2 emissions"

The Berlin Regional Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The meal delivery service HelloFresh was no longer allowed to call itself the "first global climate-neutral meal kit company" or claim that it offsets 100% of its direct emissions. This decision was made by the Berlin Regional Court this week. In its reasoning, the court also made it clear that companies must substantiate advertising claims such as "climate neutral" transparently and comprehensively. HelloFresh now faces a penalty if it repeats its advertising claims regarding climate neutrality.

On September 5, 2022, environmental organization Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH; Environmental Action Germany) filed a lawsuit against the German government in the Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg. 

The case challenges the “Sofortprogramm” (immediate action program) presented by the Federal Ministry of Digital and Transport. § 8 of the Federal Climate Change Act (KSG) requires federal government ministries to draft immediate action programs where the emissions in their respective sectors have exceeded the permissible annual emissions budget. These plans are to demonstrate compliance with the annual sectoral emission budgets for the following years. Any immediate action program is to be presented to the Council of Experts on Climate Change which is tasked with assessing and examining “the assumptions on greenhouse gas reduction that underlie the measures.” (§ 12(2) KSG). 

In its consideration of the Transport Ministry’s immediate action program, the Council of Experts found that the measures suggested in the immediate action program were not sufficient to comply with § 8 (1) KSG. It calculated the cumulative emissions gap to amount to 261 million tons CO2-equivalent by 2030. On the basis of these findings and its own calculations, DUH is arguing for the short-term enforcement of an immediate action programme that complies with the (CO2) requirements of the Federal Climate Change Act. 

In its submission to the court, DUH outlines several measures and their calculated emissions reductions that could, they submit, be included in an immediate climate action program:
1) 100/80/30 speed limits on highways/outside of cities/in cities
2) Reduction of climate damaging subsidies for, amongst others, diesel and company cars
3) Introduction of a CO2-based new registration tax
4) Nationwide 365€ ticket and rapid expansion of local public transport and rail 
5) Mileage-based passenger car toll
6) Moratorium on new construction and expansion of federal road network 
7) Adaptation of the Road Traffic Act and Road Traffic Regulations to reflect climate and environmental considerations 


In October 2018, three German families and Greenpeace Germany filed suit in the Administrative Court of Berlin, asking the court to oblige the German government to update or supplement the National Climate Protection Programme 2020.  

In December 2014, the German cabinet set a goal of reducing national greenhouse gas emissions by 40% until the end of 2020, as compared to 1990 (the Climate Protection Plan). According to the government’s 2018 official climate protection report, however, reduction was likely to only reach 32%. The German families were comprised of organic farmers who claimed to already be experiencing the impacts of climate change. Plaintiffs argued that the government was bound by the Climate Protection Plan and alleged that the government’s failure to adhere to the 40% target encroaches on their human rights in violation of Article 2(2) (right to life and health), Article 12(1) (occupational freedom), and Article 14(1) (right to property) of the Basic Law. They further alleged that failure to meet the original 2020 goal breached Germany’s minimum obligations under the EU Effort Sharing Decision (406/2009/EC), which determines the contributions of the respective Member States to achieve a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions throughout the Community in economic sectors not subject to EU emissions trading.

The plaintiffs asked the court to hold that the government is obliged to: 1) implement the national Climate Protection Program 2020 by updating or supplementing appropriate measures to meet the 2020 target; 2) compensate for the excess of approximately 650 million tons of CO2 equivalent, accrued between 2007 and the time of delivery of the judgement, due to insufficient implementation of the 2020 target; and 3) supplement the national Climate Protection Program 2020 to meet the reduction targets set out in European environmental law.

On October 31, 2019 the Administrative Court of Berlin dismissed the case, concluding that the action was inadmissible for lack of standing. In its view, the Climate Protection Program 2020 was not legally binding, as it only constituted a political declaration of intent without any external effect on which plaintiffs could base their legal claims. The court further held that plaintiffs had not conclusively demonstrated that the government had violated their fundamental rights by setting inadequate climate protection targets, as “the mere fact that a very large number of people are affected by the effects of climate change does not rule out the possibility that they may be affected individually”. However, the court did find that the government’s climate policy is subject to judicial review and must be consistent with the government’s duties to protect fundamental rights under the Basic Law, Germany’s constitution. The court also determined that the government must undertake measures to provide adequate and effective protection of the fundamental rights potentially affected by climate change, including the rights to life and property. Nonetheless, the court concluded that the government is entitled to wide discretion in deciding how to meet these obligations, so long as precautionary measures to protect fundamental rights are not entirely unsuitable or wholly inadequate. In the court’s view, the government’s protection policy, which aimed to lower emissions by 32% rather than 40% by the end of 2020, was within this discretional margin.

Geography

Berlin

Recent cases