What is a climate protection program? What legal binding does it have, what effect? The Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig dealt with these questions on Thursday. The 7th Senate, chaired by Andreas Korbmacher, President of the Court, also had in the final instance to clarify whether climate activists such as Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) can sue the federal government for more climate protection. The answer: Yes, they can.
“Environmental associations have a right to improvement,” explained Korbmacher when the verdict was announced. The provisions of the Climate Protection Act are “environmental legislation”, which is why they are also the subject of environmental associations’ right to sue.
Equally important for climate protection is that the court identified a gap between expectations and reality in German politics: It’s about that Federal Climate Protection Actwhich commits the federal government to reduce German emissions by 65 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and by at least 88 percent by 2040.
In order to achieve this goal, the “climate protection program” was introduced in the law as a political instrument: Here the government must explain what means it wants to use to achieve progress in the individual areas – for example in industry, transport, agriculture, buildings. This climate protection program “requires additional measures” by the current federal government, the judge has now ruled: otherwise the goal will be missed.
At that time, Habeck filed an appeal against the DUH lawsuit
According to the Federal Environment Agency, Germany had until 2023 only 46 percent emissions reduction achieved. Nevertheless, the government of Olaf Scholz (SPD) did not adapt the program. The DUH sued before the Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Administrative Court (OVG) and was proven right in May 2024. The OVG criticized three points: Firstly, the program was based on unrealistic assumptions – for example, that the mere intention to promote local public transport would bring about measurable emissions reductions. Secondly, there are methodological errors in evaluating the measures. Thirdly, there is a gap of at least 200 million tonnes of greenhouse gases before the target.
Instead of using the verdict to breathe new life into climate policy, the Green Economics Minister Robert Habeck, of all people, appealed. This was now negotiated in Leipzig this Thursday: a treat for friends of environmental law.
Plans such as water management or air pollution control plans have a direct impact: If too much fine dust is measured in a street, the authority must take action, for example ordering a speed limit of 30 km/h. But does this also apply to a climate protection program? And could the “errors in the methodology” lead to the gap being much larger than 200 million tonnes of greenhouse gases – wouldn’t the Federal Administrative Court then have to instruct the Higher Administrative Court to determine how big the shortfall really is? Can a court even do something like that, or – to put it in the words of the presiding judge Andreas Korbmacher: “Isn’t that beyond the limits of administrative jurisdiction?”
Apparently not, because the 200 million tons were expressly mentioned in the reasons for the judgment. “We now have an enforceable title,” exulted DUH lawyer Remo Klinger, “if Chancellor Merz doesn’t deliver, we have a very strong sword in our hands.” In addition, Klinger has already set its sights on the German climate target for 2040 – minus 88 percent. “The government must now present a new climate protection program for 2026. If that is not enough again for 2040, we will sue again.” The law stipulates that the program must be available by March 25th, but the DUH doubts whether this deadline can be met. “The law requires citizen participation, but it hasn’t even started yet,” says Klinger.
The federal government remains relaxed
“The court has made it clear: the supplementary proposal must come now, we take the order seriously,” a spokesman for the Federal Environment Ministry told the taz. The new climate protection program for 2026 will come on time and close the gap: “Paragraph 9 of the Climate Protection Act provides for a consultation process, not a hearing with associations, as the DUH would like.”
“The verdict has brought the speed limit very close to us,” said DUH boss Jürgen Resch after the verdict was announced. The government could also introduce other climate protection measures in the transport sector, ban domestic flights or issue driving bans. Resch: “The government is now obliged to do more climate protection in transport: the speed limit would be the easiest, cheapest and quickest to implement.”
However, this can be filed in the area of “political wishful thinking”: The Federal Administrative Court has expressly emphasized the “decisional scope of the federal government”: which means it chooses – whether a speed limit, driving bans or even nuclear power – is up to it. The only thing that matters is that you have to be able to achieve the goal.