Berlin

Germany

Nordrhein-Westfalen

Bremen

Thüringen

Rheinland-Pfalz

Hessen

Brandenburg

Schleswig-Holstein

Hamburg

Saarland

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

Baden-Württemberg

Sachsen

Niedersachsen

Bayern

Sachsen-Anhalt

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

The Regional Court of Berlin (Landgericht Berlin) upheld an action brought by the German Environmental Action (Deutsche Umwelthilfe, DUH) against German Hospitality Management GmbH, the operator of a Best Western hotel in Mannheim. The case concerned advertising by the “Sure Hotel by Best Western Mannheim City” that described hotel stays as “climate neutral” or “CO₂ neutral.”

The court prohibited the company from making such claims without providing further explanation of how the claimed climate neutrality was achieved. The company’s calculation considered emissions from electricity and gas consumption but did not adequately account for other relevant emissions sources, including waste disposal and laundry services. The court therefore found the environmental advertising misleading.



The Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband (VZBV), the umbrella body of German consumer organizations, brought an action against the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) before the Landgericht Berlin II, challenging environmental advertising claims FIFA had made on its German-language website (fifa.com/de) in connection with ticket sales for the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar. After issuing a formal warning (Abmahnung) to FIFA on November 17, 2022, which FIFA declined to honor, VZBV filed suit in 2023.

The contested statements appeared under a "Sustainability" tab on FIFA's German-language ticket website and included: (1) a commitment that FIFA and Qatar would host "a fully climate-neutral FIFA tournament in 2022"; (2) a description of the sustainability strategy as including "energy-efficient stadiums, low-emission transport and sustainable waste management"; and (3) an assurance that "remaining unavoidable emissions will be offset to ensure a fully CO₂-neutral event."

On October 16, 2025, the court upheld the claim in full, finding that all three categories of statements constituted misleading commercial practices under § 5 Abs. 1, Abs. 2 Nr. 1 UWG. The court applied the strict standards the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) had established for environmental advertising in its June 2024 ruling in Wettbewerbszentrale v. Katjes Fassin GmbH (BGH I ZR 98/23 — "klimaneutral"), which it explicitly cited, holding that environmental claims must meet heightened requirements of accuracy, clarity, and transparency because of consumers' elevated environmental awareness and the risk that vague "green" language disproportionately influences purchasing decisions.

The court found FIFA's disclosures insufficient on multiple grounds. First, FIFA never disclosed the ratio of actual emissions reductions to offsetting, creating a risk that consumers would overestimate the share of genuine reductions, especially given the BGH-established principle that emissions reduction takes precedence over compensation. Second, sub-claims about "energy-efficient stadiums," "low-emission transport," and "sustainable waste management" were themselves vague and undefined, lacking any benchmarks or concrete metrics. Third, the substantiating information was accessible only via hyperlinks to documents written exclusively in English (and partly Arabic), which the court held insufficient for German consumers, as advertisers cannot discharge their disclosure obligations by referring consumers to foreign-language sources. 

The court rejected FIFA's argument that exact emissions data had not yet been available at the time of advertising, holding that FIFA was at a minimum obliged to disclose projected magnitudes and the types of offsetting planned. The court also confirmed a risk of repetition (Wiederholungsgefahr) on the basis that FIFA's sustainability page had historically referenced multiple past tournaments, making future use of the contested statements foreseeable even after the Qatar tournament had concluded.

The court ordered FIFA to refrain from making the three categories of statements in connection with ticket sales for any FIFA-organized World Cup, subject to a penalty of up to €250,000 per violation, and to reimburse vzbv's warning costs (€242.99 plus interest). The judgment is provisionally enforceable but not yet final (nicht rechtskräftig). 


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.

The Regional Court of Berlin (Landgericht Berlin) considered an action brought by the Federation of German Consumer Organisations (Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband, vzbv) challenging Tesla’s advertising and information practices. The case concerned, among other things, Tesla’s representation that its electric vehicles have “CO₂ emissions: 0 g/km” and statements referring to a “sustainable energy” transition and an “emission-free future.”

The court rejected the challenge to the 0 g/km CO₂ claim, holding that the statement was not misleading under Section 5a(1) UWG. It considered the statement understandable to the average consumer as referring to the absence of CO₂ emissions during vehicle operation, which was undisputedly accurate. The court also held that information concerning Tesla’s participation in emissions certificate trading was not a material piece of information that had to be disclosed to consumers.

The separate challenge concerning Tesla’s Sentry Mode, which enables camera surveillance around the vehicle, was resolved through Tesla’s submission of a cease-and-desist declaration following the proceedings. This aspect therefore did not result in a substantive judicial determination.

Geography

Berlin

Recent cases