Environmental campaigners wanted to stop the companies from selling combustion engine cars after 2030. They argued that continuing to release high amounts of CO2 could infringe on the rights of younger generations.
Environmental campaigners wanted to stop the companies from selling combustion engine cars after 2030.
They argued that continuing to release high amounts of CO2 could infringe on the rights of younger generations.
Germany's Federal Court of Justice on Monday dismissed a bid by environmental campaigners to ban BMW and Mercedes Benz from selling new combustion engine cars beyond 2030.
The plaintiffs from Environmental Action Germany (Deutsche Umwelthilfe, or DUH) had argued that continuing to sell fossil fuel-powered vehicles after that date would violate the constitution and curb the rights of young people.
The case centered on the question of whether companies can be ordered to take such emissions-savings steps independently of government regulations.
The DUH case was brought by three of the organization's managing directors.
They argued that the automakers were consuming a disproportionate share of global and national carbon dioxide budgets — the amount of emissions that can be released without breaching internationally agreed targets.
They said that by continuing to sell new combustion engine cars after November 2030, Mercedes Benz and BMW could infringe on the right to self-determination enshrined in Germany's constitution.
According to the plaintiffs, using up this carbon budget by selling more vehicles would likely force governments to impose stricter emission-cutting measures, potentially limiting the freedoms of younger generations.
But the court ruled that there were no such emissions budgets for individual companies, with presiding Judge Stephan Seiters saying "the responsibility for climate protection legislation" was a matter for policymakers.
The plaintiffs' argument was built on alandmark 2021 ruling by Germany's Federal Constitutional Court, which required lawmakers to strengthen the country's climate protection law to protect future generations.
Barbara Metz, DUH executive director, said the organization would analyze the ruling in detail and would consider filing an appeal.
A lawyer for the group, Remo Klinger, said the court's decision provides "a very clear mandate for the legislature.
The importance of the report depends on confirmed records, named authorities and any follow-up statements that clarify the scale, timing and public impact of the development.
The next useful information will be the most direct record available: an official notice, a named statement, an updated dataset, a court filing, a regulator note or a corrected public advisory.
