6 days ago
German court dismisses RWE climate case but opens door to others
A court in the German city of Hamm has dismissed a high-profile lawsuit brought by Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya against energy giant RWE, ending a ten-year legal battle that sought to link one of Europe's biggest emitters to climate change unfolding in the Andes.
Lliuya, a farmer and mountain guide from Huaraz, argued that RWE's historic carbon emissions had contributed to the melting of nearby glaciers, raising the risk of deadly flooding from the swollen Lake Palcacocha above his home.
He sought partial damages in line with the company's share of global emissions, estimated at nearly 0.5 per cent since the industrial era by the Carbon Majors database.
The court ultimately ruled that the risk to Lliuya's property was not sufficiently imminent to justify damages and dismissed his case without the possibility of appeal.
But experts say the ruling from the Higher Court established that communities that can demonstrate a concrete threat of harm induced by climate change can seek compensation from fossil fuel majors under German civil law.
Despite the outcome, Lliuya called the ruling a step forward for climate accountability.
'Today the mountains have won,' he said in a statement.
'This ruling shows that the big polluters driving the climate can finally be held legally responsible for the harm they have caused… This case was never just about me. It was about all the people who, like us in Huaraz, are already living with the consequences of a crisis we did not create. This ruling opens the door for others to demand justice.'
The judges said they couldn't award damages in this specific case because the flood risk to Lliuya's home wasn't high enough. But they also made several important points that could help future lawsuits in countries with similar legal requirements, such as Japan and the US.
They confirmed that big polluters like RWE can, in principle, be held responsible for their role in climate change, even if their emissions are a relatively small share of the global total.
They also pushed back on a common defence used by fossil fuel companies that only governments can deal with climate change.
26/⚡️⚖️🎉What a stunning victory for climate justice: the Higher Court has established that communities that can demonstrated a concrete threat of harm induced by climate change can seek compensation from fossil fuels major under the regime of civil liability.
The case was among the first to try to hold a single fossil fuel company financially responsible for specific climate damages.
Although it was ultimately dismissed, the implications of this ruling are already rippling outward.
Germanwatch, the NGO that backed Lliuya's case from the start, called the decision 'ground-breaking' and noted that more than 40 similar lawsuits are ongoing worldwide.
'The court's decision … is actually a historic landmark ruling that can be invoked by those affected in many places around the world,' the NGO said in a statement.
