Stuttgart: Lawsuit by residents of environmental zone fails

Since 2008, an environmental zone has been in force for the entire city of Stuttgart. A few months ago, a group of residents had brought a health claim before the court. They argued that a haulage company's violation of the ban on lorries passing through the zone endangered the health of their children. Now the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) in Karlsruhe has ruled against their claims and thus officially dismissed the lawsuit. 

In the case in question, the property owners had complained that a haulage company repeatedly violated the ban on trucks passing through. Every day, the lorries would use the route to get from the branch to the motorway. However, only the traffic for delivery to the houses located there was permitted in the area according to the signage. The mere passage was not only prohibited in their eyes, but also legally.  

However, the group had no right to demand that the city prohibit trucks from passing through. They were not entitled to injunctive relief "from any legal point of view", said the Sixth Civil Senate in its final decision on Tuesday. An appeal had just been dismissed. The ban on lorries passing through was not ordered for specific roads, said Germany's highest civil court. The aim of the ban was not to reduce the concentration of pollutants for the exclusive benefit of the residents. Rather, Stuttgart had introduced the environmental zone to improve the general air quality of the city area. Plaintiffs therefore remain beneficiaries only as part of the general public. The ban on the passage of lorries was not intended to protect individual interests.  

Furthermore, the BGH also based the decision on the large size of the prohibited zone. According to the Court, it cannot be assumed that the emissions generated at any one location pose an immediate danger to citizens at their place of residence. On the basis of the available data, it was not possible to determine whether the exceeding of the limit values caused by delivery traffic could lead to potential adverse health effects. Consequently, it is not possible to determine a group of people who should be protected by injunctive relief. 

In Paris, too, a resident has filed a lawsuit because of adverse health effects caused by transboundary emission levels. However, a decision has not yet been made in this case. If a medical report confirms that the cause of the health problems was air pollution, the Frenchman could still get justice.  Unlike in Stuttgart, however, it could already be proven that Paris had not ensured compliance with EU air quality limits. 

So the BGH's ruling does not mean that such claims by private citizens could never be made valid. It only reminds us all that environmental zones are not necessarily in place to protect particular groups of people. They protect our health and quality of life, while helping in the fight against climate change.