Ausgabejahr 2026
Erscheinungsdatum 23.03.2026

Nr. 054/2026

Judgments of 23 March 2026 – VI ZR 334/23 and VI ZR 365/23

The Sixth Civil Panel of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH, Bundesgerichtshof) has ruled that private individuals cannot demand that motor vehicle manufacturers cease to place on the market passenger cars with combustion engines before the deadline set by the EU Regulation setting CO2 emission standards for passenger cars. It dismissed the appeals on points of law of the executive directors of Environmental Action Germany (Deutsche Umwelthilfe, DUH), thereby upholding the appeal judgments dismissing the action.

Facts and Circumstances:

The claimants are executive directors of Environmental Action Germany, a registered association. The defendants are global car manufacturers. The defendant in case VI ZR 334/23 is Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (BMW); the defendant in case VI ZR 365/23 is Mercedes-Benz AG. The defendants comply with all the statutory climate protection provisions.

The claimants are of the opinion that, with reference to the ‘Climate Ruling’ of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGE 157, 30), only a certain CO2 budget may be used by the defendants in order to achieve the climate targets set out in the Paris Agreement. If the provisions of the Federal Climate Change Act (Bundes-Klimaschutzgesetz) on globally and nationally admissible CO2 emission levels could have an advance interference-like effect on the freedom of the claimants, that would, in their view, necessarily also apply to the rapid use of their CO2 budget by global undertakings such as the defendants. By using up an excessively large share of the remaining CO2 budget, the defendants were unlawfully interfering with the intertemporal dimension of the claimants’ general right of personality, since the political room for manoeuvre was limited by this consumption and extensive measures to reduce CO2 that would limit the claimants’ rights of freedom will become necessary at a later date. The claimants argue that the defendants are liable as indirect tortfeasors, also for the emissions produced during the vehicles’ service life.

First and foremost, the claimants are seeking an order restraining the defendants from

1. placing on the market new cars with a combustion engine after 31 October 2030 if they emit certain greenhouse gases during use,
2. placing on the market new cars with a combustion engine before 31 October 2030 if, during use, the cars placed on the market by the defendants since 1 January 2022 have already emitted a total of more than 604 tonnes of CO2 (defendant in case VI ZR 334/23) and 516 million tonnes of CO2 (defendant in case VI ZR 365/23).

Previous Proceedings:

The Regional Courts dismissed the actions. The Higher Regional Courts dismissed the claimants’ appeals.

Rulings of the BGH:

The defendants’ appeals on points of law admitted by the Panel were unsuccessful. The claimants are not entitled to the preventive injunction sought.

The claimants are not impaired in their general right of personality by the defendants’ contested working method. Such an impairment is also not caused with an advance effect by the fact that CO2 emissions to be attributed to the defendants in the future will inevitably lead to restrictive climate legislation and thus to restrictions on freedom. Such legally-effected inevitability would require the CO2 budget remaining for the defendants to be specified. Such an emissions budget can only be inferred from the Paris Agreement and the Federal Climate Change Act in general terms and for the Federal Republic of Germany as a whole, however, but not for particular actors or only for the transport sector. As a result, the present cases differ materially from the situation underlying the Federal Constitutional Court’s Climate Decision (BVerfGE 157, 30), where compliance with existing national emission budgets was held to be the responsibility of the national legislator.

Moreover, the future enactment of radical climate laws feared by the claimants would not be attributable to the defendants. In that respect, the defendants would not be responsible as (indirect) tortfeasors. In the Regulation on CO2 emission standards for passenger cars, the EU legislator explicitly provided for an arrangement that is committed to the Paris Agreement’s climate targets relating to placing cars with combustion engines on the market. The defendants comply with these and other provisions. In that respect, the defendants are not subject to any further (safety) obligations. Moreover, the responsibility for any possible necessity for future climate legislation lies with the legislator. Only legislation provides the appropriate framework to act with democratic responsibility to reconcile climate protection and its tension with any conflicting interests. The negotiation of this complex balance of competing ecological, social, societal, economic, fiscal and other political collective and individual interests, which are integrated into the European and international multi-level system, and thus the distribution of the burden of avoiding emissions, requires difficult decisions involving balancing and allocation. The legislator has considerable discretion in this task, also in accordance with Article 20a of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz). In contrast, it is not, in principle, the task of the courts to infer specifically quantifiable limits for global warming and corresponding emission levels or reduction requirements from the open formulation of Article 20a of the Basic Law.

Lower courts:

VI ZR 334/23
Munich Regional Court I – judgment of 7 February 2023 – 3 O 12581/21
Munich Higher Regional Court – judgment of 12 October 2023 – 32 U 936/23 e

VI ZR 365/23
Stuttgart Regional Court – judgment of 13 September 2022 – 17 O 789/21
Stuttgart Higher Regional Court – Decision of 8 November 2023 – 12 U 170/22

Relevant legal provisions:

German Civil Code
Section 1004 Claim for removal and injunction
[Analogous application in cases of infringement of other rights enjoying absolute protection]

(1) If the ownership is interfered with by means other than removal or retention of possession, the owner may demand that the disturber remove the interference. If there is the concern that further interferences will ensue, the owner may seek a prohibitory injunction.

(…)

Section 823 Liability in damages

(1) A person who, intentionally or negligently, unlawfully injures the life, limb, health, freedom, property or some other right of another person is liable to provide compensation to the other party for the damage arising therefrom.

(…)

Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany
Article 2 [Personal freedoms]

(1) Every person shall have the right to free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral law.

(…)

Article 20a [Protection of the natural foundations of life and animals]

Mindful also of its responsibility towards future generations, the state shall protect the natural foundations of life and animals by legislation and, in accordance with law and justice, by executive and judicial action, all within the framework of the constitutional order.

Article 1 Regulation (EU) 2019/631 of the European Parliament and of the Council setting CO2 emission performance standards for new passenger cars (amended by regulation [EU] 2023/851

(…)

(5) From 1 January 2030, the following EU fleet-wide targets shall apply:
(a) for the average emissions of the new passenger car fleet, an EU fleet-wide target
equal to a 55 % reduction of the target in 2021 (…)
(5a) From 1 January 2035, the following EU fleet-wide targets shall apply:
(a) for the average emissions of the new passenger car fleet, an EU fleet-wide target
equal to a 100 % reduction of the target in 2021 (…)

Karlsruhe, 23 March 2026