Climate action against Mercedes-Benz dismissed – SWR Aktuell

The German Environmental Aid has failed with the lawsuit against Mercedes-Benz before the district court in Stuttgart. The environmentalists announced that they would appeal.

The Stuttgart Regional Court has dismissed the climate action brought by the German Environmental Aid (DUH) against the car manufacturer Mercedes-Benz. It is up to the legislator to decide which measures are to be taken to comply with climate protection. This cannot be anticipated by an individual lawsuit before a civil court, the regional court in Stuttgart said on Tuesday as a reason.

Environmentalists call for conversion of Mercedes-Benz

With their lawsuit, the environmentalists had demanded a climate-friendly conversion of the car manufacturer. Among other things, Mercedes-Benz should no longer be allowed to sell conventional combustion engines that emit greenhouse gases from November 2030. According to Jürgen Resch, head of the German Environmental Aid and one of the plaintiffs, Mercedes-Benz is violating the fundamental right to climate protection due to its particularly climate-damaging vehicle fleet.

In the opinion of the chamber, however, the plaintiffs are not entitled to a cessation of the sale of combustion engines, according to a statement from the district court. The legal consequence sought by the plaintiffs contradicts the constitutional division of tasks between the legislature and the judiciary. The legal consequence assigns “the legislature the essential decisions for the organization of social life and living conditions”. The courts could only apply applicable laws in compliance with constitutional requirements.

DUH wants to go to the next higher authority

DUH boss Resch said after the verdict: “The judges argue whether protective measures are sufficient or not, the legislator must decide. But the legislator does not take action, which is why we are forced to go to court to protect the basic rights of people and to protect future generations.” Resch announced that he would take the lawsuit to the next higher court. Then the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart would be responsible.

“We assumed from the beginning that only higher court instances would clarify this fundamental issue,” said the plaintiff’s lawyer, Remo Klinger, according to the announcement. Even if the verdict was not in their favor, they were happy about the opportunity to “hopefully get a quick clarification before the Higher Regional Court”. The climate crisis does not leave much time.

Mercedes-Benz sees legal opinion confirmed

Mercedes-Benz welcomed the verdict. The district court of Stuttgart has confirmed the legal opinion of the group, according to a spokesman for SWR. Which efforts should be shouldered by which actors in order to achieve the overall climate goals is “a political question that cannot be answered by individual decisions” by civil courts.

According to the spokesman, climate protection is out of the question for Mercedes-Benz. The group has long since initiated the “lane change to climate neutrality”. For example, the carmaker wants to “become fully electric by the end of this decade, where market conditions allow”.

Lawsuits were also filed against VW, BMW and Wintershall

It was a minor sensation when the Stuttgart Regional Court allowed the so-called climate lawsuit against Mercedes-Benz at all almost three months ago. Almost at the same time, lawsuits from representatives of environmental aid and Greenpeace against VW, BMW and the energy company Wintershall were filed with other regional courts.

SWR business editor Petra Thiele summarized the significance of the lawsuit against Mercedes-Benz before the verdict:















Climate lawsuits made possible by the Federal Constitutional Court

Climate lawsuits by private individuals against corporations have only been a possibility since the climate decision of the Federal Constitutional Court in March last year. The constitutional court had decided that the legislature must now minimize greenhouse gases so that future generations are not too severely restricted in their fundamental rights by climate protection rules.

source site