analysis
As of: 09/13/2022 4:29 p.m
The Stuttgart district court has dismissed a so-called climate lawsuit against Mercedes-Benz. It is up to the legislature to create the framework for the fight against climate change.
Can private individuals demand more climate protection from a global corporation? That was the key question in the Stuttgart climate process. Jürgen Resch, Barbara Metz and Sascha Müller-Kraenner had filed their lawsuits as individuals for procedural reasons. But behind them is a powerful association: the German Environmental Aid (DUH). The three federal directors knew that “their” house was behind them when they invoked their own rights before the Stuttgart district court.
The concrete goals that they pursued and continue to pursue with their lawsuit are ambitious: the full-time environmentalists want to achieve a climate-friendly conversion of the Stuttgart car manufacturer – enforced in the lawsuit. Mercedes-Benz should be obliged to stop selling conventional combustion engines from the end of 2030.
According to Jürgen Resch, Mercedes-Benz is violating the fundamental right to climate protection with its climate-damaging vehicle fleet. The DUH calculated that the CO2 emissions of the Mercedes vehicles sold in 2021 will exceed those of countries such as Norway or Portugal, at more than 65 million tons. However, the lawsuit was initially unsuccessful.
Court emphasizes principle of separation of powers
Accompanied by a great deal of media coverage, the plaintiffs brought Mercedes-Benz AG before the Stuttgart district court. Negotiations took place in July. Now the result: The lawsuit is dismissed. The verbal justification for the judgment was rather brief.
The main argument: The legislature, and not a court, must decide what concrete measures there should be for private companies to improve climate protection. This follows from the principle of the separation of powers. The court thus emphasizes the division of tasks between politics and the judiciary. One also notices from the reasoning: This is not a lawsuit directly against the state – as with the successful climate lawsuit in 2021 in Karlsruhe – but against a private company before a civil court. There, questions of the burden of proof play a different role.
In order to be successful, the plaintiffs would have had to explain and prove that their rights had been violated. According to the court, however, it is not yet foreseeable what future government measures will be taken to limit CO2 emissions. And how that affects the rights of the plaintiffs.
Different climate processes have already been successful
The idea of fighting for more climate protection in court is not doomed to failure per se. Because in the recent past, several climate lawsuits have been successful. However, the specific circumstances and direction were not the same as in Stuttgart.
In April 2021, the Federal Constitutional Court announced its so-called “climate resolution”. At that time, Karlsruhe partially granted an application from young farmers from the North Sea island of Pellworm. They saw and still see their livelihood threatened by climate change. However, their lawsuit was directed against the state and not against a private company. With its decision, the Federal Constitutional Court instructed the legislature to improve the legal regulations. The climatic changes with their serious consequences would threaten the freedom of future generations on various levels.
That is why it must be clearly and precisely regulated now as to how the federal government intends to comply with the binding climate targets. And beyond the year 2030. The state has a lot of leeway here, but the decisions that are urgently required should not generally be postponed in the future. Because then, to put it simply, there would be less and less air to be able to act effectively. And that would mean that the liberties of future generations would then have to be curtailed all the more massively.
Legislators who do not address the pressing issues today are a burden on the freedoms of future generations. That is not compatible with the Basic Law. The big difference to the Stuttgart procedure: In Karlsruhe, the state was claimed. Because against him, the citizens can lead the fundamental rights directly in the field. Today’s judgment in Stuttgart shows that these principles cannot simply be transferred 1:1 to a lawsuit against a company.
Shortly thereafter, a district court in the Netherlands even sentenced a private company to do more climate protection. After the decision in May 2021, the oil and natural gas company Shell must reduce its CO2 emissions by 45 percent compared to 2019. Environmental organizations and thousands of Dutch people had complained. The court in The Hague followed your argument that the oil multinational was not doing enough to protect the climate.
Proceedings in Stuttgart not yet completed
Overall, today’s judgment in the Stuttgart proceedings shows that the legal hurdles for climate lawsuits against companies are high under German law. The sensational judgment from the Netherlands cannot be transferred one-to-one. At the same time, the Stuttgart judgment is not the last word on these issues, but just the beginning. It is about new legal territory, which the next instances will also examine very closely. Nothing is set in stone yet.
The DUH has already announced that it will appeal. The proceedings will therefore continue at the Higher Regional Court.
And: The proceedings in Stuttgart are not the only ones of this kind. In Detmold, the regional court is currently negotiating the lawsuit brought by an organic farmer against VW. With the support of Greenpeace, the farmer wants to oblige the Lower Saxony automobile giant to show more commitment to climate protection.
Unlike in Stuttgart, the oral hearing is still ongoing here. The court there had initially indicated doubts as to the merits of the lawsuit, but has now set another date for February 2022. Other lawsuits are pending in Braunschweig and Munich.