Nordrhein-Westfalen

Bremen

Thüringen

Rheinland-Pfalz

Hessen

Brandenburg

Schleswig-Holstein

Hamburg

Berlin

Saarland

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

Baden-Württemberg

Sachsen

Niedersachsen

Bayern

Sachsen-Anhalt

Germany

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 German Environmental Action (Deutsche Umwelthilfe, DUH) filed a climate action before the Higher Administrative Court of Bremen (Oberverwaltungsgericht der Freien Hansestadt Bremen) against the Bremen Senate, seeking to compel the state government to comply with its statutory climate-planning obligations.

Under the Bremen Climate Protection and Energy Act (Bremisches Klimaschutz- und Energiegesetz), Bremen must reduce its CO₂ emissions by at least 60% by 2030 compared with 1990 levels. Emissions had fallen by only 34.8% by 2024, while a study commissioned by the Bremen government projects a reduction of only 40–45% by 2030, even if all currently planned measures are implemented.

The action challenges the Senate's alleged failure to comply with the Act's mandatory corrective-action procedure. Following publication of the preliminary emissions balance in March 2026, the Senate was required to report to the Bremen Parliament by May 31, 2026 on whether the 2030 target was likely to be achieved. It was then required, by July 31, 2026, to submit a draft of additional climate measures if the target was at risk. According to DUH, neither step was taken.

DUH seeks an effective climate action plan setting out concrete, effective, and quantified additional measures capable of enabling Bremen to meet its statutory 2030 target.

On May 5, 2026, Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH), an environmental NGO, filed a lawsuit against the Federal Republic of Germany before the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg. DUH challenges the adequacy of the federal government's Climate Protection Programme 2026 (Klimaschutzprogramm 2026, KSP 2026). The German government adopted the KSP 2026 on March 25, 2026, pursuant to § 9 of the Federal Climate Protection Act (KSG).

DUH argues that the KSP 2026 fails to include the measures necessary to achieve Germany's legally binding greenhouse gas reduction targets of at least 65% by 2030 and at least 88% by 2040 compared to 1990 levels, as required by § 3(1) KSG, and to comply with the annual total emission budgets for the years 2031–2040 set out in Annexes 2 and 3 of the KSG.

The plaintiff contends that the KSP 2026 is unlawful for several reasons. 
First, the government based the program on outdated 2025 projection data, even though updated 2026 projection data published by the Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt) on March 14, 2026 — eleven days before the program's adoption — showed larger emission gaps, projecting only a 62.6% reduction by 2030 (against the required 65%) and approximately 80% by 2040 (against the required 88%). 
Second, the program relies on unrealistic assumptions and contains methodological deficiencies, including inconsistent emission reduction figures across different official documents and the use of key measures as "gap fillers" without plausible substantiation. 
Third, the Expert Council on Climate Issues (Expertenrat für Klimafragen), which is legally required to review the program, was unable to conduct a consistent and complete assessment because the government submitted the program in four installments with major last-minute changes affecting approximately 70% of the projected emission reduction impact. 
Fourth, a range of individual measures — including the conversion of gas power plants to green hydrogen, offshore wind cooperation projects, increased onshore wind auction volumes, circular economy targets in industry, and the agriculture protein strategy — are based on measures lacking legal underpinning, realistic financing, or technical feasibility.

This case is a continuation of DUH's broader climate litigation strategy against the German federal government. Prior rulings by the same court in May 2024 and the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) in January 2026 already confirmed that the government's previous climate program (KSP 2023) was unlawful and ordered it to adopt adequate supplementary measures. DUH argues the federal government has knowingly adopted another unlawful program, necessitating renewed judicial intervention.

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 (Environmental Action Germany), brought actions against major automobile manufacturers, including Bayerische Motoren Werke AG and Mercedes-Benz AG. 

The defendants were undisputedly in compliance with all applicable statutory climate regulations. However, the 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.

The cases were dismissed by lower courts. The case against BMW was dismissed in the Munich Regional Court I on February 7, 2023, a decision affirmed in the Munich Higher Regional Court on October 12, 2023. The case against Mercedes-Benz was dismissed in the Stuttgart Regional Court on September 13, 2022, a decision affirmed in the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court on November 8, 2023. 

On March 23, 2026, the Federal Court of Justice again affirmed the lower courts' decisions, holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive relief. No actionable interference with a protected right was established for below reasons.

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.

The Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, BVerwG) upheld the planning approval for an LNG connection pipeline linking an offshore LNG facility in the Baltic Sea to Germany’s existing gas transmission network. The case concerned, in particular, the compatibility of the statutory framework for accelerated LNG infrastructure development with EU law and the legal justification for the project on the basis of national gas supply security.

The court followed its earlier judgment of June 22, 2023 (Case No. 7 A 9.22), holding that Section 4 of the LNG Acceleration Act (LNGG) is compatible with EU law, including as applied to the Baltic Sea connection pipeline. The court further held that the legislature’s determination that the rapid integration of LNG into the existing transmission network serves Germany’s national energy supply and that the relevant infrastructure projects are particularly urgent for secure gas supply is binding on the courts to a significant extent. This legislative determination limits the scope of judicial review of whether an actual gas-supply crisis existed.

Geography

Germany

Recent cases