12 June 2025
Kein Problem des Zivilrechts
139 Seiten Gerichtsurteil, ein peruanischer David gegen einen Goliath der deutschen Energiewirtschaft und eine Gletscherkatastrophe. Das hätte zur juristischen Großerzählung an einer schwierigen Schnittstelle zwischen Privat- und Verwaltungsrecht getaugt. Man hätte das Eigentumsrecht in einer globalisierten Welt vermessen und hinterfragen können, ob das BGB so einem Fall gerecht werden kann. Aber das Oberlandesgericht Hamm will in seinem Klimaurteil vom 28. Mai 2025 in die Beweiswürdigung und löst den Fall, als spiele er in Wanne-Eickel: Gutachten, kein Beweis für die Gefahr, Klage abgewiesen. Continue reading >>
1 
01 June 2025
Success Without Victory
One of the most striking climate cases has come to a striking end. The Higher Regional Court of Hamm dismissed the lawsuit against RWE on minor factual grounds – yet at the same time confirmed that major emitters can, in principle, be held liable under German private law for climate-related harms. The ruling may ultimately represent a success without victory: A short-term loss for the plaintiff, but one that provides important insights and strategic lessons for future climate liability cases. Continue reading >>
0
08 April 2025
The Human Right to a Healthy Environment from an EU Charter Perspective
Over the last five years, there has been a noticeable turn towards human rights in climate litigation. In the same period, European climate legislation has evolved into a considerable legal framework. This warrants the question of whether there has been a similar turn to human rights before the Court of Justice of the EU – especially as Article 37 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights consecrates the “principle” of environmental protection. Continue reading >>
0
15 November 2024
Towards a Bundle of Duties
This week’s decision in Shell v Milieudefensie from the Hague Court of Appeals seemed like a blow to climate litigation: Milieudefensie was ultimately unsuccessful in convincing the Court that it could transpose a global requirement for 45% emissions reductions by 2030 into an obligation for a particular actor. Yet, the Court of Appeals decision marks considerable progress in how we understand the civil liability of large Dutch economic actors for their contributions to climate change. Continue reading >>
0
12 November 2024
Lessons of a Landmark Lost
On 12 November 2024, the Hague Court of Appeal in Shell v Milieudefensie set aside the preceding 2021 judgment which held Shell responsible for its contribution to climate change. The 2021 judgment was widely heralded (though also critiqued) as groundbreaking and a precedent that could be followed elsewhere. While the Appeal judgment is unlikely to receive similar praise from climate activists, it contains important lessons regarding the responsibility of multinational companies for their contributions to climate change. Continue reading >>29 October 2024
A Leap Forward for Biodiversity Litigation
On 23 October, 2024, BUND (Friends of the Earth Germany) and several individuals filed a constitutional complaint mirroring the Neubauer case, but directed at the biodiversity crisis. The claimants seek a declaration from the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) that the lack of a coherent scheme for the protection of biodiversity infringes fundamental rights and seek an order from the court for the legislature to take the necessary measures to adopt an appropriate, legally binding protection scheme within a clear timeline. This case presents a significant development in the field of strategic biodiversity litigation as the first systemic government framework case. It can be seen as the Urgenda of biodiversity litigation. Continue reading >>
0
16 October 2024
Admissibility Revisited
In an effort to force the European Union to adopt more ambitious climate targets, two environmental NGOs initiated a proceeding before the EU General Court, invoking the rarely used mechanism of “internal review” under the EU’s Aarhus Regulation. The reason for this unusual approach lies within a reoccurring issue of climate litigation: overcoming restrictive admissibility requirements. This new approach follows a path that had not yet been considered by legal scholarship or practice. While the line of argument is rather innovative, it goes beyond the boundaries of the Aarhus Regulation and is therefore likely to fail. Continue reading >>27 June 2024
A Global South Perspective on Loss and Damage Litigation
In June 2024, delegates undertook two-week-long negotiations at the UNFCCC Bonn Climate Change Conference. These meetings concerned the modalities of the newly instituted Loss and Damage (L&D) Fund and the provision of financial assistance to developing countries. In this piece, we reflect on the future interactions between the L&D Fund and litigations regarding L&D. We argue that these two phenomena must be seen as having a synergistic relation, effectively benefitting the Global South. Continue reading >>
0
20 June 2024
Downstream Emissions as Climate Impacts
In a 3-2 majority, the UK Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling today, significantly impacting the consideration of climate impacts in the oil and gas licensing process. While the Government’s approach so far has been to only consider exploration and production emissions, the Court’s decision establishes that emissions resulting from burning the produced oil and gas (regardless of where it occurs) have to also be considered. The ruling is significant as it is the first highest court decision to adopt this interpretation on climate impacts of fossil fuel production. It will no doubt have a knock-on effect on at least three other cases pending before lower courts in the UK, and potentially affect cases both within and outside the European Union. Continue reading >>
0
07 June 2024
More than a Sink
The difference between treating the oceans as a mere sink versus protecting them as a vital part of the environment has important implications under international law. These implications come to the fore when considering the relationship between the UNCLOS on the one hand and the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement on the other. While the latter treaties in no way legitimize pollution of the marine environment, their focus on oceans as sinks could be misinterpreted to deprive UNCLOS and the customary rules it codifies of a meaningful role in addressing climate change. Continue reading >>
0