Introduction
In Germany, a wave of Dieselgate litigation has propelled the Rights of Nature (RoN) into the spotlight, offering a striking example of how civil litigation can be used to advance environmental protection and accountability.[1] These cases reflect an emerging legal creativity, as judges explore novel arguments that challenge anthropocentric frameworks and seek to expand the traditional boundaries of law. This article will dive into how a local courts’ verdicts introduced the possibility of recognizing nature as a rights-holder under EU law, and critically examine the impacts these reasonings may have on European environmental jurisprudence. Aligning with our general hub’s mission, we seek to explore a crucial governance issue : “Are the RoN compatible with the European context?”
First, this article will provide the contextual background of the recent cases of Dieselgate-related litigation in Germany, specifically at the Regional Court of Erfurt. Second, it will analyze the legal reasoning used to integrate nature’s rights into these two civil proceedings. Third, it will examine the courts’ request for a preliminary ruling procedure at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and assess the potential outcomes of such a decision. Finally, we will conclude on the broader implications of judicial environmental activism and legal cross-contamination across national and supranational legal orders.
Background: Diesel Scandal Litigation and the Erfurt Decisions
Since 2015, the “Dieselgate” controversy has reverberated throughout Europe. The scandal involves the installation of illegal defeat devices in diesel vehicles, most notably the “thermal window” software designed to manipulate emissions levels under specific testing conditions.[2] These devices allowed vehicles to appear compliant with European Union emissions standards while emitting pollutants at levels significantly above legal limits during normal driving conditions. The resulting litigation spans numerous jurisdictions and involves both consumer claims and broader regulatory scrutiny over manufacturers’ environmental compliance.[3] This wave of litigation has led to two notable judgments by the Regional Court (Landgericht) of Erfurt in 2024, which collectively mark a potential turning point in German civil and environmental law.
In the landmark case 8 O 1373/21 (2 August 2024), the court granted individual damages to a consumer who purchased a BMW 750 D X-Drive with an illegal thermal window, awarding 10% of the car’s original price under Section 823(2) BGB and relevant EU emissions regulations.[4] Crucially, the court went beyond established precedent by recognizing the “inherent RoN” and treating ecosystems as “ecological persons” within the framework of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR).[5] This novel legal reasoning was reaffirmed and significantly developed in 8 O 836/22 (17 October 2024), where a similar consumer claim involving a VW vehicle resulted in a comparable damages award.[6] The court once again invoked the RoN ex officio, further emphasizing the legitimacy of incorporating ecocentric principles into domestic law.[7] Highlighting comparative developments, the judgment defended its approach as a justified act of judicial law-making to better align private law with fundamental rights protections.[8] The case has since been referred to the CJEU to clarify whether such recognition of nature’s rights could influence how individual damages are quantified.[9] Together, these decisions position the Erfurt court at the forefront of an emerging legal doctrine, potentially reshaping the future of EU-based civil and climate litigation.
Rights of Nature in the Erfurt Court’s Reasoning: Charter-based
Legal Basis – Why the charter ?
To begin, the existing body of European Union law, “the acquis communautaire” provides several legal pathways for incorporating the RoN, as explored in recent scholarship.[10] It is these various pathways the court explores in the two judgements. While RoN are not part of the plaintiffs’ arguments, the court rules that they must be mentioned “to reinforce protection and are a key component in the calculation of damages.”[11] The court argues for RoN’s inclusion according to Article 51(1) CFR: since the Charter applies when Member States implement EU law, it is like a “shadow,” relevant in Dieselgate litigation.[12] Here, the CFR can and should be interpreted to recognize the rights of nature since environmental harm is directly linked to the violation of EU law.[13]
The Charter’s Inclusivity: Ecological Persons
This allows a groundbreaking reading of the instrument: the Charter’s Articles 2 and 3(1), which guarantee the right to life and physical integrity, when read alongside Article 37 (environmental protection as a Union objective), provide a strong legal foundation for recognizing nature or ecosystems as “ecological persons” entitled to fundamental rights.[14] References to these rights highlight the interdependence of species, both within one and among various species, through the trophic relationships that sustain ecosystem balance.
What is striking in the court’s reasoning, is the textual justification of this position: “In the first title of the Charter, which lists fundamental rights, the original German text, as well as numerous other language versions, uses the open-ended term “person” (“personne”) rather than “Mensch.” The English term “everyone” can be considered equivalent.”[16] The Court states that the term is intentionally broad, and can encompass non-human entities such as ecosystems, rivers and forests.[17] The ruling of October 2024 reiterates this position, further developing that recognizing the legal personhood of these entities is worthwhile, and that “the structure of Roman law already supports this.”[18]Another argument put forward by the court, is the inconsistency of granting fundamental rights to legal persons such as corporations and potentially to artificial intelligence, but not to ecosystems.[19] It is underlined in both rulings the necessity of equal legal treatment among various entities. Lastly, protecting nature’s rights also ties into supporting the jus cogens principle of human dignity, enshrined in Article 1 of the Charter: “the recognition of nature’s inherent rights contributes to ensuring that people can continue to lead free and self-determined lives in dignity in the future.”[20]
The Charter Allows for Interpretative Openness
Although EU treaties and secondary law do not yet explicitly codify RoN, the court rules that the “interpretative openness” of the Charter allows courts to develop such recognition through jurisprudence.[21] This approach finds additional support in the fact that the Charter lacks a general limitation of rights to human or corporate legal persons, unlike German Basic Law. Therefore, courts have discretion to extend rights to non-human legal entities.[22] These rights would include not only substantive guarantees—such as the right to preservation and regeneration of ecosystems—but also procedural rights, such as access to legal remedies under Article 47 CFR.[23] The Court here echoes the RoN under the Ecuadorian Constitution.[24] In short, the court’s logic breaks down as follows: due to the Charter’s ‘shadow,’ “car manufacturers that fail to comply with limit values harm nature and violate its fundamental rights. These fundamental rights, like the objectives of the EU, are also enforced through private enforcement , i.e., through civil claims for damages, as in the present case.”[25] The rights to life and physical integrity must therefore be understood as extending to ecosystems and living systems, not just to human beings. This provides an excellent path towards ecocentrism.[26]
Additionally, the property rights protected under Article 17 CFR may also be interpreted as applicable to nature. Drawing on arguments by theorists like Tilo Wesche, ecosystems produce value through services such as pollination, carbon sequestration, and water filtration: which contributes to economic and ecological value creation. According to the principle that those who contribute to value creation are entitled to its fruits, nature too deserves legal protection of its resources through property rights. [27]
Ultimately, this broader recognition aligns with the spirit of the Charter’s preamble. The court states in paragraph 60 : “Its preamble emphasizes responsibility and duties both towards fellow human beings and towards the human community and future generations. The rights of nature oblige its users to ecological sustainability.”[28]
The Charter is a Living Instrument
Furthermore, the tribunal underlines the Charter’s dynamic nature, arguing that the absence of explicit reference to the rights of nature in its original 2000 drafting does not preclude their current recognition and it would be abhorrent to limit interpretative development to the fixed text. “As is well known, originalism is not a dominant interpretative principle in Europe.”[29] The court asserts that although the Charter predates the formal recognition of nature’s rights, its interpretation can evolve to reflect contemporary challenges, such as climate change.[30] The autonomy of EU law is increasingly affirmed by the CJEU, and this includes the possibility of recognizing the inherent rights of nature.[31] As with other legal systems in Latin America, these rights must be considered ex officio, independently of whether they are invoked by the parties. Thus, the court affirms that EU institutions and Member States are obliged to integrate these rights into legal reasoning and implementation, reaffirming the Charter’s “living” capacity to respond to the ecological imperatives of our time.[32] This is in line with the CJEU’s jurisprudence, when it adopted the concept of a “living instrument” from the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights in a landmark decision (ECJ (GC), Case C-336/19, judgment of December 17, 2020, para. 77).”[33]
Charter Justifies Insights from Comparative Law
Building upon the interpretative openness and the living instrument principles, the court goes on to affirm that the Charter allows extensive protections for Nature. Article 52(3) CFR permits Union law to exceed the European Convention of Human Rights’s (ECHR) level of protection, even if the ECHR does not (yet) recognize RoN.[34] In addition, Article 53 of the CFR mandates that courts take into account comparative legal developments. Globally, there is a clear and growing trend toward recognizing the rights of nature. This is evident in South America, New Zealand, and within the EU itself.[35] These developments offer legitimacy to similar recognition within EU law claims the court, especially since the “granting of legal status to ecological persons, as recently done by the Spanish legislature for the Mar Menor saltwater lagoon, is consistent with the Charter’s concept of humanity.”[36]
Judicial Law-Making is Justified in Light of Global Trends and Weak Environmental Rules
Lastly, one of the main lines of argumentation from the court lies in justifying judicial law-making in light of the global trends described above.[37] Indeed, courts across the world have recognized RoN through case law, even in the absence of specific legislation. The Colombian Constitutional Court’s 2016 Rio Atrato decision is a leading example, deriving nature’s legal personhood from a holistic reading of the constitution. Similar paths have been taken by courts in Peru, India, and Bangladesh, demonstrating that judicial law-making can fill legislative gaps in the face of ecological urgency.[38] “While it is preferable and desirable, with regard to the separation of powers and legal certainty, to introduce rights of nature into EU law through treaty reform or through EU legislation, prior judicial recognition is not inadmissible. Around one-third of all cases of recognition of inherent rights are said to be based on case law.”[39] This line of reasoning grounds the Erfurt rulings not only as following a global trend, but also in line with the “DNA of the Union legal order.”[40]
Indeed, the judge asserts this evolution is necessary, especially in light of the current limitations of environmental law, which suffers from fragmentation, weak enforcement, and inadequate preventive mechanisms. Recognizing nature’s rights under the Charter addresses these structural failures and aligns EU law with the evolving global legal landscape.[41] This is further supported to match the EU’s claim of being at the forefront of climate governance. The EU’s co-sponsorship of the 2022 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which explicitly acknowledges the value systems underlying RoN, is an example of the Union’s commitment to these developments.[42] Importantly, this EU-level stance resonates within the national jurisdiction: Germany’s federal constitutional court describes ecological grief in its March 2021 decision and “the scientific report on biodiversity in Germany of October 2024 calls for the recognition of nature’s inherent rights in the German legal system.”[44]
Preliminary Ruling Procedure and Its Potential Impact
The preliminary ruling procedure under Article 267 TFEU empowers national courts to refer questions to the CJEU regarding the interpretation or validity of EU law.[45] This mechanism plays a central role in ensuring the uniform application and development of EU law across all Member States. Through it, the CJEU not only clarifies the content of EU legislation but may also contribute to the progressive evolution of legal norms, particularly in emerging and complex areas such as environmental protection and its link to fundamental rights. Before issuing the two rulings we have examined, the Erfurt Court referred the question of adopting RoN to the CJEU in another dieselgate case, 8 O1045/18.[46] “Is it compatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the duty to protect and promote inherent in it, and the inherent rights of nature established by the Charter, that a claim for damages is ultimately reduced to zero due to the offsetting of benefits?”[47] What we find relevant here is the implied question: Does EU law recognize nature as a subject of rights via the Charter? Yet, in paragraph 70 of the October 2024 ruling, the court asserts that “as a court of first instance merely authorized to refer a question, but not obligated to do so, is free to initially interpret and apply applicable EU law itself – in its capacity as an EU court.”[48] This means that while there are pending proceedings for the CJEU to rule on the matter, the regional court of Erfurt may very well issue a verdict in a similar case calling RoN compatible with EU law. And that is what it did in the cases 8 O 836/22 and 8 O 1373/21, which were part of the not submission under the preliminary ruling procedure.
Doctrinally, the legal stakes are high. A favorable interpretation by the CJEU could mark a turning point in Charter-based environmental litigation, potentially affirming the standing of nature or enabling claims grounded in harm to ecosystems rather than exclusively individual human injury. Such a decision would also clarify whether the rights of nature are compatible with the existing corpus of EU primary law and could solidify the EU’s alignment with global trends in green constitutionalism and ecocentric jurisprudence. Systemically, the case highlights the tensions of constitutional pluralism between EU and national courts. It also anchors the potential of judicial law-making in advancing ecological constitutionalism.
However, the referral to the CJEU dated 15 June 2020, together with the supplementary order of 22 April 2024 addressing the legal personhood of nature, has now been withdrawn. This means the suspended domestic proceedings may resume as a stand-alone case, and the debate surrounding such a preliminary ruling on this issue remains purely hypothetical. One may suggest the withdrawal could be strategic: by avoiding a potentially restrictive CJEU interpretation, the Erfurt Regional Court’s innovative stance on the RoN can stand on its own, strengthening its pioneering national impact for now.
Crucially, the Erfurt court’s action reflects an understanding that European legal systems can draw inspiration from global precedents where RoN have been judicially recognized. Nevertheless, risks remain. There is legal uncertainty as to whether the Charter, which centers human dignity, can encompass non-human rights holders. However, this tension may be resolved through biocultural reasoning that integrates both anthropocentric and ecocentric values. As reflected in German constitutional jurisprudence and the Federal Nature Conservation Act, nature’s intrinsic value and its importance for human life can be co-recognized.[49] “When laying the foundation, there is no need to choose between the traditional anthropocentric orientation of the Union legal order – human beings at the center (preamble to the Charter) – and a now widely advocated ecocentric approach. Both perspectives have their merits. This corresponds to the German approach, as expressed as a general principle in Section 1 (1) of the Federal Nature Conservation Act.”[50] RON should be not essentialised to be exclusively applicable in non-western contexts. In fact, western religious and philosophical traditions such as Christian environmental ethics with Pope Francis’ Laudato Si’ offer further normative support for this dual approach.[51]
While critics may argue that this interpretation stretches the Charter beyond its intended scope, the CJEU has historically embraced progressive readings when necessary to address pressing societal challenges. “Like the ECHR, the Charter is a living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions and of the ideas prevailing in democratic States today.”[52] Given the gravity of the ecological crisis, this preliminary ruling offers a timely opportunity for the Court to take a decisive step towards recognizing the inherent rights of nature within EU legal order.
Conclusion
To conclude, the Erfurt judgment represents a paradigmatic shift in legal reasoning within the European context, redefining the framework of environmental protection by recognizing nature as a subject capable of bearing rights. Such recognition may catalyze broader legal transformations, prompting further protection for the environment through rights-based approaches and compelling EU institutions to more deeply engage with ecocentric legal theory.
This development can be understood within the broader context of environmental judicial activism, where courts and judges emerge as agents of legal transformation. Through bold and forward-looking interpretations, they can challenge anthropocentric limitations and embed intergenerational and ecological responsibility into the heart of legal systems. Furthermore, the Erfurt case illustrates the growing relevance of comparative and transnational legal reasoning. Drawing on constitutional and judicial innovations from Ecuador, Bolivia, Colombia, and New Zealand, the judgment reflects an increasing openness to judicial cosmopolitanism in environmental law. This cross-pollination of legal traditions and jurisprudence underscores the global nature of environmental challenges and the shared aspiration to protect the Earth’s integrity.
Ultimately, the recognition of the rights of nature is more than a legal innovation—it marks a cultural and ethical turning point in how law understands life, responsibility, and justice. It invites a shift in perspective from dominion over nature to coexistence with it, guided by principles of mutual respect, sustainability, and care. As such, it offers a compelling vision for the future of environmental governance in Europe and beyond.
[1]CLIMATE RIGHTS DATABASE (2024), https://climaterightsdatabase.com/2024/08/30/german-rights-of-nature-case-8-o-1373-21/
[2] HOTTEN (2025), https://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772
[3] Ibid.
[4] 17 October 2024 – LG Erfurt, Case 8 O 836/22: Verdict on the consideration of the “proper rights of nature” in a claim for damages related to the diesel emissions scandal, para. 15.
[5] 2 August 2024 – LG Erfurt, Case 8 O 1373/21: Verdict on determination of damages considering fundamental rights protection for ecological persons, para. 27.
[6] 17 October 2024 – LG Erfurt, Case 8 O 836/22: Verdict on the consideration of the “proper rights of nature” in a claim for damages related to the diesel emissions scandal, para 15.
[7] 2 August 2024 – LG Erfurt, Case 8 O 1373/21: Verdict on determination of damages considering fundamental rights protection for ecological persons, para. 26. .
[8] 17 October 2024 – LG Erfurt, Case 8 O 836/22: Verdict on the consideration of the “proper rights of nature” in a claim for damages related to the diesel emissions scandal, para 98.
[9] 22 April 2024 — LG Erfurt, Case 8 O 1045/18: Reference to the ECJ on the deduction of actual use of a motor vehicle affected by the diesel scandal from the buyer’s claim for damages; independence of the referring court, para. 5.
[10] HERVÉ-FOURNEREAU, B., Droits de la nature et droit de l’Union européenne : les chemins du dialogue, (2024); GARCÍA RUALES et al., Rights of Nature in Europe; Encounters and Visions, (2024) ; and 17 October 2024 – LG Erfurt, Case 8 O 836/22: Verdict on the consideration of the “proper rights of nature” in a claim for damages related to the diesel emissions scandal, para. 47.
[11] 17 October 2024 – LG Erfurt, Case 8 O 836/22: Verdict on the consideration of the “proper rights of nature” in a claim for damages related to the diesel emissions scandal, para. 27.
[12] 2 August 2024 – LG Erfurt, Case 8 O 1373/21: Verdict on determination of damages considering fundamental rights protection for ecological persons, para. 27.
[13] Ibid.
[14] 2 August 2024 – LG Erfurt, Case 8 O 1373/21: Verdict on determination of damages considering fundamental rights protection for ecological persons, para. 27; and 17 October 2024 – LG Erfurt, Case 8 O 836/22: Verdict on the consideration of the “proper rights of nature” in a claim for damages related to the diesel emissions scandal, para. 30.
[15] 17 October 2024 – LG Erfurt, Case 8 O 836/22: Verdict on the consideration of the “proper rights of nature” in a claim for damages related to the diesel emissions scandal, para. 52.
[16] 2 August 2024 – LG Erfurt, Case 8 O 1373/21: Verdict on determination of damages considering fundamental rights protection for ecological persons, para. 31.
[17] Ibid.
[18] 17 October 2024 – LG Erfurt, Case 8 O 836/22: Verdict on the consideration of the “proper rights of nature” in a claim for damages related to the diesel emissions scandal, para. 64.
[19] 2 August 2024 – LG Erfurt, Case 8 O 1373/21: Verdict on determination of damages considering fundamental rights protection for ecological persons, para. 32; and 17 October 2024 – LG Erfurt, Case 8 O 836/22: Verdict on the consideration of the “proper rights of nature” in a claim for damages related to the diesel emissions scandal, para. 64.
[20] 2 August 2024 – LG Erfurt, Case 8 O 1373/21: Verdict on determination of damages considering fundamental rights protection for ecological persons, para. 33.
[21] 17 October 2024 – LG Erfurt, Case 8 O 836/22: Verdict on the consideration of the “proper rights of nature” in a claim for damages related to the diesel emissions scandal, para. 27.
[22] Ibid, para. 53.
[23] Ibid, para. 54.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid, para. 30.
[26] EPSTEIN and SCHOUKENS, “A positivist approach to rights of nature in the European Union,” Journal of Human Rights and the Environment Vol. 12 No. 2, (2021).
[27] 17 October 2024 – LG Erfurt, Case 8 O 836/22: Verdict on the consideration of the “proper rights of nature” in a claim for damages related to the diesel emissions scandal, para. 55.
[28] Ibid, para. 60.
[29] 2 August 2024 – LG Erfurt, Case 8 O 1373/21: Verdict on determination of damages considering fundamental rights protection for ecological persons, para. 28.
[30] Ibid.
[31] 17 October 2024 – LG Erfurt, Case 8 O 836/22: Verdict on the consideration of the “proper rights of nature” in a claim for damages related to the diesel emissions scandal, para. 56.
[32] 2 August 2024 – LG Erfurt, Case 8 O 1373/21: Verdict on determination of damages considering fundamental rights protection for ecological persons, para. 29.
[33] 17 October 2024 – LG Erfurt, Case 8 O 836/22: Verdict on the consideration of the “proper rights of nature” in a claim for damages related to the diesel emissions scandal, para. 58.
[34] 2 August 2024 – LG Erfurt, Case 8 O 1373/21: Verdict on determination of damages considering fundamental rights protection for ecological persons, para. 34.
[35] TANASESCU (2022).
[36] 2 August 2024 – LG Erfurt, Case 8 O 1373/21: Verdict on determination of damages considering fundamental rights protection for ecological persons, para. 30.
[37] Ibid, para. 36.
[38] Ibid, para. 26.
[39] Ibid, para. 67.
[40] Ibid, para. 68.
[41] Ibid, para. 44.
[42] Ibid, para. 49; and DI SALVATORE, Towards a European Charter of the Rights of Nature (2019).
[43] Ibid, paras. 33-37.
[44] Ibid, para. 41; Federal Constitutional Court, Decision of 24 March 2021, 1 BvR 2656/18, para. 23.
[45] Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Article 267, on the preliminary ruling procedure before the CJEU.
[46] 22 April 2024 — LG Erfurt, Case 8 O 1045/18: Reference to the ECJ on the deduction of actual use of a motor vehicle affected by the diesel scandal from the buyer’s claim for damages; independence of the referring court, para. 5.
[47] Ibid.
[48] 17 October 2024 – LG Erfurt, Case 8 O 836/22: Verdict on the consideration of the “proper rights of nature” in a claim for damages related to the diesel emissions scandal,. para. 70.
[49] Ibid, paras. 83-89.
[50] Ibid, para. 83.
[51] Ibid, para. 92.
[52] BOJARSKI, SCHINDLAUER, WLADASCH, The Charter of Fundamental Rights as a Living Instrument (2014); and 17 December 2020 – CJEU (Grand Chamber), Case C-336/19: Judgment on preliminary ruling concerning ritual slaughter and religious freedom, para. 77.
