German Court Dismisses Peruvian Farmer's Climate Challenge Against RWE

A German court has dismissed a landmark lawsuit by Peruvian farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya against the German energy company RWE, despite the court recognizing the potential liability of major polluters in climate-related cases.

A German court has issued a ruling that dismissed a significant climate lawsuit brought forth by Peruvian farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya against RWE, one of Europe’s leading energy companies. Lliuya claimed that the company's global emissions disproportionately contributed to the warming of glaciers in Peru, thereby threatening his hometown of Huaraz with imminent flooding. He sought €17,000 (£14,250) for flood protection initiatives.

The higher regional court of Hamm declared that the potential flooding risk to Lliuya’s property did not justify the case proceeding. This decision firmly puts to rest a legal battle that has spanned a decade and eliminates the possibility of an appeal. In its defense, RWE pointed to its planned transition to carbon neutrality by 2040 and questioned its inclusion in the lawsuit given its operations are not present in Peru.

Although Lliuya's claim was dismissed, the ruling has garnered attention from climate advocacy groups, as it acknowledges that significant greenhouse gas emitters could indeed face liability under German law for climate-related damages. The farmer, who has observed firsthand the alarming melting of glaciers near Huaraz, argued that Lake Palcacocha's water levels have quadrupled since 2003 due to climate change.

Lliuya opted to pursue RWE due to a 2013 database that listed it among the largest historical polluters. Initially, a lower court ruled against him in 2015, stating that no single company could be held accountable for climate change effects. However, in a pivotal turn in 2017, Lliuya’s appeal was accepted, allowing the case to move forward based on its merits.

The activist group Germanwatch, which supported Lliuya’s case, claimed that although the specific claim was dismissed, it set an important legal precedent acknowledging that major polluters could shoulder liability under civil law for climate change risks. They expressed optimism that this ruling could inspire similar legal actions globally, emphasizing its significance in the ongoing fight against climate change.