This master thesis explores the significance of Article 7 Rome II in the context of climate change litigation. As one of the key norms in questions of private international law, Article 7 Rome II applies to non-contractual obligations arising from environmental damage and its consequences. There has been criticism that the provision is overly broad, given the inclusion of the principle of ubiquity and the resulting claimant’s right to choose the applicable law, potentially leading to the application of various liability regimes. On this basis, the work examines the legal possibilities for restricting its scope of application or legal consequences. The analysis includes the interpretations of the norm in the landmark cases “Lliuya v RWE” and “Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell”. Additionally, in the face of the proposed restrictions, it considers the impact of socially relevant factors such as political interests and human rights implications. The findings suggest that most restrictions lack a solid legal basis. The only viable approach is to take foreign permits into account that meet a strict standard of appropriateness under Article 17 Rome II.