No early retirement for the combustion engine based on civil law claims
On March 23, 2026, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) dismissed two appeals and claims by the 'Environmental Action Germany' (Deutsche Umwelthilfe) in proceedings against BMW AG ('BMW') and Mercedes Benz AG ('Mercedes Benz'). The claimant sought to impose that BMW and Mercedes are barred from selling internal combustion engine cars by 2030.
A. Facts of the case
Deutsche Umwelthilfe, a German NGO regularly litigating against large corporations in the German heavy industries and automotive sector, had claimed that BMW and Mercedes Benz must cease selling cars with combustion engines because they infringe the claimant's civil rights and freedoms by using up too large a sum of the remaining national CO₂ budget. The depletion of the budget would limit the scope for political action and necessitate far-reaching measures to reduce CO₂ emissions later, thereby restricting the Deutsche Umwelthilfe's - more precisely their directors' - civil rights and freedoms.
This line of reasoning refers to the German Federal Constitutional Court's (Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVerfG) so-called 'Climate Ruling' (BVerfG, Decision dated 24 March 2021, case numbers 1 BvR 2656/18, 1 BvR 78/20, 1 BvR 96/20, 1 BvR 288/20), in which the court established that "any concrete consumption of remaining CO₂ quotas reduces the residual budget and the possibilities for further CO₂-related exercise of freedom, while at the same time shortening the time available for initiating and implementing sociotechnical transformation." Consequently, preserving future freedoms requires, "initiating the transition to climate neutrality in a timely manner." Deutsche Umwelthilfe tried to apply this line of arguments to civil law but ultimately failed.
B. No civil law claims against car manufacturers
The BGH has now ruled that private individuals cannot require car manufacturers to transition to climate neutrality before it is legally imposed on them. Neither the Paris Agreement nor the Federal Climate Protection Act establishes an emission budget for individual actors or sectors, such as the transportation sector. EU law has established rules governing the sale of passenger cars with internal combustion engines that explicitly align with the targets of the Paris Climate Agreement. The defendants comply with these and other regulations. Most importantly neither BMW nor Mercedes Benz are subject to additional obligations under the so-called 'Climate Ruling'.
C. Impact of ruling for car manufacturers
The BGH's ruling is a landmark decision that provides legal certainty regarding responsibility for climate neutrality by private actors. The depletion of the CO₂ emission budget can be considered a matter of constitutional significance according to the so-called 'Climate Ruling' and its significance for acts of the German state. This ruling gave rise to legal uncertainties as to whether it gives rise to individual rights which can be enforced against other private actors - for example car manufacturers. The BGH's ruling clarifies that the responsibility for meeting emission targets is a matter of public law and legislation which may create obligations for private actors but not a purely civil law to be litigated between private actors. Private individuals cannot require companies to reduce their emissions as long as they comply with the relevant legal provisions. The BGH's ruling therefore strengthens the position of industry in the automotive and other sectors as it clarifies that civil law does not compel them to additional acts beyond obligations laid down public law and legislation for example on emissions.
.jpg?crop=300,495&format=webply&auto=webp)
