European Courts Address Climate Issues: ECtHR and German Federal Court of Justice Developments
The European Court of Human Rights ("ECtHR") decision in Hauke Leif Engels and Others v. Germany clarifies how the admissibility of climate-related human rights claims will be assessed following the court's landmark KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland judgment and its recent decisions in De Conto v. Italy and Others and Uricchio v. Italy and Others. In parallel, the German Federal Court of Justice will hear the appeal of the non-governmental organization Deutsche Umwelthilfe ("DUH") against a German car manufacturer over vehicle emissions, signaling renewed judicial engagement with corporate climate responsibility.
ECtHR: No Victim Status for General Climate Harm
On July 1, 2025, the ECtHR rejected the application in Engels and Others v. Germany. The applicants alleged violations of Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR"), claiming that Germany's 2021 Climate Protection Act amendments, adopted after the Federal Constitutional Court's judgment in Neubauer v. Germany, failed to meet Paris Agreement targets and endangered their rights to life, health, and a safe home environment.
The court reaffirmed that climate change can, in principle, engage the ECHR—particularly under Articles 2 and 8—but found the applicants lacked "victim status" under ECHR Article 34. Applying the KlimaSeniorinnen criteria of (i) high exposure intensity and (ii) pressing need for protection, it held the claims were too general to show individualized, imminent, or severe harm. Accordingly, the court found the Article 8 complaint incompatible ratione personae and the Article 2 complaint incompatible ratione materiae, as no real and imminent risk to life was demonstrated. The decision mirrors KlimaSeniorinnen but emphasizes that only those facing concrete, acute exposure can invoke ECHR protection.
The ruling confirms the narrow admissibility threshold for climate claims before the ECtHR. While acknowledging that environmental degradation may engage human rights, the court limits access for general climate grievances. Future applicants must show individualized evidence of exposure, such as geographic, health, or socioeconomic vulnerability.
German Federal Supreme Court to Hear Appeal Against German Car Manufacturer
Against this backdrop, according to press reports, Germany's Federal Court of Justice ("BGH") has agreed to hear DUH's appeal in its prominent case against a German car manufacturer, alleging the company's failure to commit to a full phaseout of internal-combustion vehicles by 2030 violates certain fundamental rights. Lower courts had dismissed similar DUH and Greenpeace actions, finding that emissions budgets and transition timelines fall within legislative, not judicial, competence. The BGH's decision to hear the DUH appeal—despite these consistent dismissals—indicates that the Court considers at least some underlying questions of fundamental legal significance.
Depending on how the BGH delineates the intersection of corporate duties of care and constitutional climate obligations, the case could become an EU-wide reference point for corporate climate accountability. Even if the final ruling maintains deference to policymakers, the proceedings underscore that Germany's civil judiciary is increasingly engaging with climate-related, private-law questions once viewed as nonjusticiable.
Outlook
Together, Engels and the pending DUH appeal illustrate a maturing European climate-litigation landscape. ECtHR's strict admissibility criteria limits access for generalized climate grievances, steering strategic climate claims toward narrowly tailored, evidence-driven cases anchored in individual harm. At the same time, the BGH's willingness to revisit corporate climate obligations signals that domestic courts may increasingly test how far private law and constitutional principles extend into decarbonization policy. Companies operating in Europe should therefore anticipate more sophisticated, rights-based challenges to emission strategies and public-interest groups refining their litigation approaches accordingly.
