German Court Ends Landmark Climate Case Brought By Peruvian Farmer, But Affirms Liability Potential For Major CO2 Emitters
A German court today has issued what climate advocates say is a groundbreaking and historic ruling in a pioneering climate damages lawsuit against German energy company RWE, affirming that major carbon-emitting corporations could be held liable for their contributions to increasingly severe climate change risks and harms. Although the lawsuit was ultimately dismissed on evidentiary grounds, the court’s affirmation of potential liability for large polluters may help turbocharge climate accountability litigation, according to legal experts.
The May 28 ruling from the Higher Regional Court of Hamm came in the case Saúl Luciano Lliuya v. RWE, initially filed in 2015 by a Peruvian farmer and mountain guide concerned about flood risk facing his home and community from melting mountain glaciers in the Peruvian Andes raising the water levels of a local lake. The lawsuit sought to hold RWE – Germany’s largest electricity supplier and one of Europe’s largest historical CO2 emitters – liable for helping to pay for a small portion of the costs of responding to this flooding risk, which is linked to climate change-induced glacial melting. In 2017 the Hamm court decided on appeal that the case was admissible, allowing it to move into the evidentiary phase. Following a site visit in 2022 to the plaintiff’s home community of Huaraz, Peru, and hearings on the evidentiary questions held in March this year, the court decided that flooding risk to Lliuya’s property was not sufficiently high and therefore the case should not continue.
The court did, however, recognize that major emitters could be held financially responsible for damaging climate impacts. As stated in a press release posted to the court’s website: “If there is a threat of adverse effects, the polluter of CO₂ emissions may be obligated to take preventive measures. If the polluter definitively refuses to do so, it could be determined, even before actual costs are incurred, that the polluter must bear the costs in proportion to their share of the emissions—as the plaintiff demands.”
In the judgment, presiding judge Dr. Rolf Meyer also pushed back against some of the arguments from RWE’s lawyers, including the claim that holding a single company accountable would give rise to virtually unlimited liability against even individual citizens who use fossil fuels and emit CO2. Such a claim is baseless, Meyer said, since an individual’s causal contribution to global warming is so minor that it cannot give rise to liability. Meyer also noted that great geographical distance between RWE’s operations in Germany and the plaintiff’s home in Peru does not mean the case is unfounded, and that RWE “could not invoke its existing supply obligation under German law to justify tolerating impairments to the property of the plaintiff,” even though the plaintiff resides on a different continent. This means that, at least in principle, nuisance law could be applied to hold so-called carbon majors liable for climate harms around the globe, even in areas far from where the companies are headquartered.
Legal experts say this determination from the court sets a groundbreaking precedent.
“Today, climate litigation has shifted up a gear. A journey that started with one farmer from Peru has prompted a court thousands of miles away to confirm that, in principle, companies can be held financially responsible by individuals for the climate impact of their operations,” Adam Weiss, chief programs and impact officer at ClientEarth, said in a statement.
“For the first time, a European court has affirmed that climate victims can pursue justice—and polluters can be held legally accountable,” said Sébastien Duyck, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law. “This precedent provides a legal spark to accelerate the pursuit of climate justice. The recognition that a company can, in principle, be held accountable in court for climate harms halfway across the planet will buttress the arguments presented in dozens of pending cases as well as embolden impacted communities to seek justice through the courts.”
Multiple other cases are already underway seeking to hold large emitters liable for contributing to climate harms. Indonesian islanders from Pari Island are suing Swiss cement giant Holcim in Swiss courts demanding not only compensation for localized climate damage and adaptation costs on the island but also to compel the company to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 43 percent by 2030. In Belgium, a farmer filed a lawsuit last year against the French oil major TotalEnergies seeking recognition of damages and orders for the company to implement stringent emissions reductions and halt new investments in fossil fuel projects while slashing its oil and gas production by 47 percent by 2030. In the US, the fossil fuel industry is facing lawsuits from dozens of state and local governments aiming to hold companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Shell accountable for climate damages and alleged deception. And in the Netherlands, the Dutch NGO Milieudefensie has taken Shell to court in a landmark case that has already found that big polluters like Shell have a legal responsibility to reduce their CO2 emissions.
Roda Verheyen, a German lawyer representing Saúl Luciano Lliuya in his case against RWE, said that the decision by the Hamm court today could help bolster climate litigation against the carbon majors.
“While the court itself assessed the flood risk for my client as insufficiently high, one thing is clear: Today's ruling is a milestone and will give a boost to climate lawsuits against fossil fuel companies and thus to the global transition away from fossil fuels,” she said.
In a statement commenting on the court’s ruling, RWE emphasized that the case was ultimately dismissed and said the attempt to create a legal precedent has thus failed.
“The decision of the Hamm Higher Regional Court means that the attempt, supported by German NGOs, to use Mr. Luciano Lliuya’s lawsuit to create a precedent for holding individual companies responsible for the effects of climate change worldwide under German law has failed,” the company said. “RWE has always considered such civil 'climate liability' to be inadmissible under German law. It would have unforeseeable consequences for Germany as an industrial location, because ultimately claims could be asserted against any German company for damage caused by climate change anywhere in the world.”
For Saúl Luciano Lliuya, the court’s decision that the flooding risk to his home is insignificant (estimated at one percent probability over the next 30 years) comes as a disappointment, but he said he is still pleased by the precedent his case has set. “Today, the mountains won – even if my case doesn't move forward, my lawsuit has achieved something important,” he said. “This makes me proud: Major perpetrators of the climate crisis must answer for the consequences of their actions and can be held legally liable.”
