On 21 January 2026, the German government launched extensive amendments to the Environmental Appeals Act (UmwRG). The reform is intended to bring access to justice for environmental associations and the criteria for their recognition in line with EU and international law. A corresponding government draft was approved by the Federal Government in the Cabinet following departmental coordination and consultation with the federal states and associations. The next step will be for the Bundesrat and the Bundestag to deal with the bill.

A revision of the UmwRG is urgently required. On the one hand, both the European Court of Justice and the Federal Administrative Court, as well as the Conference of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention, have criticised the German regulations on access to justice in environmental matters as inadequate. On the other hand, the current Federal Government has set itself the goal in its coalition agreement of tightening up the right of associations to bring legal action and reducing it to the minimum required under European law.

Extended rights of action

Firstly, the scope of application of Section 1 UmwRG is extended to include decisions that are essential for the implementation of the right to bring collective action in accordance with EU and international law. The list principle will continue to apply. The aim is to ensure legal certainty - users should be able to easily recognise which constellations fall within the scope of the law.

In practice, it is likely to be of particular importance that the action by associations under nature conservation law, which was previously regulated in the Federal Nature Conservation Act, is now to be integrated into the UmwRG (Section 1 (1a) No. 4 UmwRG-E). The bundling into one law is intended to simplify application and speed up procedures.

Change in the recognition procedure

The conditions laid down in the law that associations must fulfil in order to be granted the right to sue are based, among other things, on the principle of the internal democratic constitution. According to this principle, the association must be open to any person who supports its objectives and must subsequently be organised as a member. However, this restriction is not in line with the Aarhus Convention. According to the Convention, for example, foundations under private law, i.e. associations without members, are also authorised to bring legal action.

In order to keep the group of environmental associations that can lodge appeals up to date, the draft also provides for a time limit on recognition. Initial recognition is therefore valid for five years from the date of the recognition notice. Each subsequent recognition is valid for ten years, also starting from the date of the new recognition notice.

Amendment of the abuse paragraph

The so-called abuse clause in Section 5 UmwRG is to be concretised with two regulatory examples. The provision was originally included in the law with the 2017 amendment to the UmwRG in order to compensate for the abolition of substantive preclusion. Accordingly, objections that are raised for the first time in the appeal proceedings are not taken into account if the first assertion in the appeal proceedings is abusive or dishonest. In practice, however, this proves to be difficult to apply. Due to the broad wording, legal uncertainty prevails. To date, there have been hardly any supreme court decisions on the abuse clause. In addition, suitable cases can be resolved in court practice even without being enshrined in law, as it is a general legal institution. It is questionable whether the standard examples - which by their very nature are also broadly defined - will help to clarify the situation.

Time limits for statement of grounds also for defendants and respondents

In addition to the time limit of ten weeks for the statement of grounds, a time limit for a defence can now also be set for defendants and respondents (Section 6 UmwRG-E). Whether a deadline is set is at the discretion of the court. This can be extended upon application. However, the expiry of the deadline does not result in judicial preclusion. According to the Federal Government, the deadline is primarily intended to ensure that the authorities give the statement of defence the necessary priority in their internal work organisation.

Conclusion and outlook

The adaptation of the legal text to European and international law requirements is long overdue. It is to be welcomed that the application of the law has been simplified, for example in the case of legal action under nature conservation law and the requirements for recognition of associations, by summarising and restructuring them in one law. At the same time, against the background of current political developments, the question arises as to whether the abolition of the basic internal democratic organisation of associations still sufficiently guarantees that the associations support the free democratic basic order.

It remains to be seen whether and to what extent a time limit for defence in administrative proceedings for defendants and respondents can make a meaningful contribution to speeding up procedures for infrastructure projects.