In a decision that has been ten years in the making, judges in the western German city of Hamm have thrown out the case of a Peruvian farmer seeking damages from energy giant RWE for the risk of flooding connected to melting glaciers.Delivering its verdict in the David versus Goliath case, judges said the damage to Saul Luciano Lluiya’s property from a potential glacier flood was not high enough. They ruled out an appeal.But in a legal first, the court did rule that companies can be held liable for the impacts of their emissions.Lluiya’s lawyer Roda Verheyen said that although the court had not recognised the risk to her client’s home, the verdict was a “milestone” that would “give a tailwind to climate lawsuits against fossil fuel companies.”“For the first time in history, a high court in Europe has ruled that large emitters can be held responsible for the consequences of their greenhouse gas emissions,” she added.The environmental NGO Germanwatch, which has supported the plaintiff throughout the long legal proceedings, said the ruling marked “a great success.”“The court’s decision, which at first glance sounds like a defeat due to the dismissal of the case, is actually a historic landmark ruling that can be invoked by those affected in many places around the world,” the nonprofit said in a statement.“This is because there are very similar legal requirements in numerous other countries, such as the UK, the Netherlands, the USA and Japan.”
A long road of litigation
It is almost a decade since Saul Luciano Lluiya first filed a lawsuit against German energy giant RWE, calling on the company to pay its fair share to protect his home in Peru.Lliuya’s town of Huaraz is located in the west of the country, in a valley below the Palcacocha mountain lake. As greenhouse gas emissions have caused global temperatures to rise, glaciers in the region have been melting. Water in the lake above Lluiya’s home has increased more than fourfold since 2003 alone, leading experts to warn of an increased risk of flooding, with potentially dire consequences for the region. They say if large blocks of ice were to break off the glacier and fall into the lake, it could trigger meter-high flooding in lower-lying urban areas.Lliuya has been suing RWE under a German neighborhood law, which works to protect residents from disturbances resulting from the actions of their neighbors — for example, from tree roots causing damage from an adjacent property. His initial lawsuit was rejected in 2015 by a court in Essen, the western German city where the energy company is headquartered. But in 2017, a higher court in the nearby city of Hamm granted an appeal. In March this year, judges at that court heard evidence over whether Lliuya’s house was really in jeopardy and whether RWE can be held responsible. “I feel a great responsibility,” Lliuya said ahead of this year’s hearings. For him, the case is about fighting climate change and the melting of glaciers and “holding those who have caused the damage to account.”The Peruvian farmer was calling on RWE to cover a pro rata percentage of the estimated costs to build flood defenses to protect the village from the rising lake water. This would equate to around €17,000 ($19,000).RWE, which is not active in Peru, says it has always complied with national legal regulations and has repeatedly questioned why it has been singled out.In a statement to DW earlier this year, the multinational said “if there were such a claim under German law, every car driver could also be held liable. We consider this to be legally inadmissible and the wrong approach from a socio-political point of view.”
Corporate responsibility for global emissions?
As an energy powerhouse with a history of largely using coal to generate electricity, RWE is one of Europe’s biggest polluters. A 2023 analysis found the company to be responsible for just under 0.4% of global emissions — more than twice that of Greece.In ruling the case as admissible in an earlier hearing, experts saw the court as effectively recognizing the transboundary effects of climate change — even if the damage occurs thousands of kilometers away.“Some of the arguments made in the case are of course transferable, even if not directly applicable in any other jurisdiction,” said Petra Minnerop, a professor of international law at Durham University. “And this is what we see in litigation generally that litigants have tried to transfer the arguments and also learn from the court outcomes and then provided improved evidence and the adjusted legal argument,” she added.
Could it still set a precedent?
Speaking ahead of Wednesday’s decision. Noah Walker-Crawford, a research fellow at the London-based Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said the case set an important precedent, adding that there were likely to be “repercussions around the world.” Since the proceedings began, Walker-Crawford says around 40 cases have sprung up challenging big companies over their responsibility for climate change in countries such as Belgium, Indonesia and the United States.“There has been insufficient political progress on climate change over the past decades, especially at an international level and especially in terms of loss and damage, in terms of the devastating impacts that communities are facing around the world and that’s why we’re seeing more and more that communities are turning to the courts, really out of desperation,” Walker-Crawford explained.However, other experts doubt the impact it could have.“It’s something that will probably provide orientation for other courts or will be cited as something that’s quite powerful and courageous and it could encourage other courts to follow […]but if doesn’t necessarily allow us to predict how other jurisdictions will rule on it,” said Minnerop.
