We have been eagerly awaiting the decision from Saúl Luciano Lliuya v. RWE which was heard in the Higher Regional Court of Hamm (Germany).
Why?
Because the judges were deciding whether companies can be held liable under German civil law for the consequences of climate change, even if these consequences are in a different country from the company’s operations. We were also waiting to hear whether damages could be calculated on an attribution basis.
As is often the case in climate litigation, the parties didn’t have equal power and financing.
Over a decade ago, the claimant, Saúl Luciano Lliuya, a Peruvian farmer and mountain guide filed claims for declaratory judgment and damages in the District Court Essen, Germany against RWE. RWE is Germany’s largest electricity producer, which is based some 6,500 miles away from Peru.1
He claimed that RWE, by knowingly contributing to climate change and therefore the increase in temperature in Peru’s mountain region, is in part responsible for the glacier melt and related flood risk near his home in Huaraz, potentially leading to massive destruction and loss of life.
His lawyers previously argued that RWE was responsible for 0.38% of global CO2 emissions and demanded that the energy firm pay damages amounting to a proportional share of the cost of building a $3.5m-flood defence for Huaraz – a total of €17,000 for appropriate adaptation measures.2 .
This argument was described as “novel”.
Despite an initial setback in a lower court, in 2017, the Higher Regional Court decided that the case was admissible, thereby recognising that a corporation could be held liable for climate-related damage – it was a historic ruling already at that point.3
You can’t say that the judges didn’t take it seriously. Climate attribution science was used, even though it was unfamiliar to most parties involved. Judges, court-appointed experts and lawyers for both parties travelled to Peru to examine whether the plaintiff’s house is threatened by a possible flood wave from the glacier lake Palcacocha above the city.4
However, last week, on May 28, 2025, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal. The court deemed that the probability of concrete danger to the plaintiff’s property was too low to justify legal intervention.5
Although it is a disappointing result for Saúl Luciano Lliuya, this case established extremely important legal principles for climate litigation:
- major greenhouse gas emitters can, in principle, be held accountable for the impacts of their emissions in a European Court, and
- as the court emphasised, the geographical distance between the defendant’s power plants and the plaintiff’s home in Peru does not, by itself, render the claim unfounded.
Sébastien Duyck, Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) said:
“Saúl Luciano Lliuya v. RWE judgment shatters the wall of impunity for major polluters.
For the first time, a European court has affirmed that climate victims can pursue justice – and polluters can be held legally accountable. This precedent provides a legal spark to accelerate the pursuit of climate justice.”6
What kind of financial impact can this development have on companies?
The environmental and development organisation Germanwatch quotes research which suggests that:
“25 of the world’s largest oil and gas companies could be liable for up to 20 trillion dollars in climate damage for their emissions between 1985 and 2019.”7
We know that climate litigators build on each others’ wins and losses, and each time the next case is brought forward its arguments get even stronger, making future wins more likely.
Similar cases that are currently pending are:
- Greenpeace Italy et. Al. v. ENI S.p.A, where 12 Italian citizens and 2 NGOs filed a lawsuit against the fossil fuel company ENI for its contribution to global warming.
- Asmania et al. vs Holcim, where 4 inhabitants of the Indonesian island of Pari have sued Swiss-based major buildings materials company Holcim, requesting proportional compensation for climate change-related damages on Pari and reduction of CO2 emissions.
Among other things, Saúl Luciano Lliuya v. RWE has taught us a lot about using climate attribution in litigation – and companies should take note. The risk of climate litigation just got more serious.
(This blog was originally published by Private Goodness on the 4th of June 2025)
References:
- https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/lliuya-v-rwe-ag/
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y5lwveqzno
- https://www.ciel.org/news/historic-court-ruling-confirms-polluters-face-accountability-for-climate-harm/
- https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/lliuya-v-rwe-ag/
- https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/lliuya-v-rwe-ag/
- https://www.ciel.org/news/historic-court-ruling-confirms-polluters-face-accountability-for-climate-harm/
- https://www.germanwatch.org/en/93166
Private Goodness 