Summary
On October 17, 2024, the Erfurt District Court in Germany issued a ruling awarding a plaintiff compensation for an RV purchased in 2019 in connection with the Volkswagen (VW) diesel emissions scandal. In calculating the amount of damages, the court considered the “inherent rights of nature”—deriving them from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Para. 30.) Although the plaintiff did not raise this point, the district court on its own accord determined it should take into account the inherent rights of nature involved in this case.
The Charter is applicable in national court decisions because it is a binding legal instrument that forms part of EU law. This means that national courts, including district courts, must take the rights and principles enshrined in the Charter into account when making decisions. Although the rights of nature are not explicitly mentioned in EU law, the court explained that EU law allows for judicial interpretation through its inherent flexibility and its interpretative openness. Article 53 of the Charter allows for a flexible interpretation of the Charter’s principles, including environmental protection and human dignity. (Paras. 45-46.)
The court thus relied on the Charter to establish a broad right to address the violations committed by car manufacturers when they use unauthorized defeat devices that emit pollutants above the permitted levels. (Paras. 96, 99.) The court determined that the use of such defeat devices increases emissions, which in turn violates the rights of nature. (Paras. 93, 94, 96.) The court noted that individual EU member state legal systems that have already recognized the rights of nature, such as Spain (which granted enforceable rights to the Mar Menor lagoon) and the French overseas territory of New Caledonia. (Para. 48.)
This case closely resembles a second ruling by the Erfurt District Court in October 2024. In both instances, the application of the Rights of Nature is based on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. However, the Rights of Nature were not the primary legal basis for the claims; rather, they served as an additional justification for decisions that were already supported by existing law. Despite this, they remain an important step that could help shape future legal rulings.
This case closely resembles another ruling by the Erfurt District Court in August 2024. In both instances, the application of the Rights of Nature is based on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. However, the Rights of Nature were not the primary legal basis for the claims; rather, they served as an additional justification for decisions that were already supported by existing law. Despite this, they remain an important step that could help shape future legal rulings.
A Landesgericht is a court of second instance run by a federal state (or several federal states) of Germany. Even though it is formally a state court, these cases are about federal civil law (in Germany state and federal courts form one hierarchical body, so the distinction between state and federal level is not that relevant when it comes to the judiciary). Still, other courts are not bound by this decision.