Lliuya v RWE AG

{{ill|Saúl Luciano Lliuya|lt=|de}}, a Peruvian farmer from Huaraz, population 120,000, claimed against RWE, Germany's largest electric company, that it knowingly contributed to climate damage by emitting greenhouse gases, and was partly responsible for melting mountain glaciers near his town.{{Cite news |last=Zumaeta |first=Kevin Ylan Zacarias |date=28 August 2022 |title=A melting glacier, an imperiled city and one farmer's fight for climate justice |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/interactive/2022/peru-climate-lawsuit-melting-glacier/?itid=sr_2_aaa2777e-fdc6-44ae-8503-ca946ce512c4 |access-date=24 April 2025 |newspaper=Washington Post |language=en}} This caused Palcacocha, a nearby glacial lake, to increase in size since 1975, creating a major flood risk to the town. If a large avalanche were to fall into the lake, the resulting wave would reach 70 feet over the top of the moraine, and the flood of nearly 2 million cubic meters of water would reach Huaraz within an hour. The emissions were a nuisance under the German Civil Code, BGB §1004,{{Citation needed|date=April 2025}} and RWE is requested should reimburse a portion of costs incurred to establish flood protection, namely 0.47% of total cost, given RWE's annual contribution to GHG emissions. Specifically, as the flood protection project would cost 4 million USD, RWE is requested to pay $20,000.

The Essen Landesgericht dismissed Lliuya's claim for an injunction and damages. It stated that it could not provide effective redress, because Lliuya's situation would be the same even if RWE stopped emitting and there was no 'linear causal chain' within the complex causal relationship between particular emissions and climate change impacts. RWE was not a 'disturber by conduct' under BGB §1004, and given the number of contributors to climate change, attributing individual damage to specific actors was impossible.

The Oberlandesgericht Hamm, on 30 November 2017, said the claim was admissible. It would go to evidential phase on whether Lliuya's home is (a) threatened by floods or mudslides (b) how RWE contributed. It will review expert opinion on RWE {{CO2}} emissions, contribution and impact on the glacier.

On 17 March 2025 the case resumed at the Higher Regional Court in Hamm, North Rhine-Westphalia.{{Cite web |last=Alkousaa |first=Riham |date=17 March 2025 |title=Peruvian farmer takes Germany's RWE to court in landmark climate case |url=https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/peruvian-farmer-takes-german-energy-giant-rwe-court-landmark-climate-case-2025-03-16/ |access-date=18 March 2025 |website=Reuters}} The hearings determined what evidence will be permissible in the final trial, which will rule on whether RWE – which has never operated in Peru – can be held liable for damages.{{Cite web |last=Saueurs |first=Craig |date=17 March 2025 |title=Why is a Peruvian farmer taking German energy giant RWE to court? |url=https://www.euronews.com/green/2025/03/17/how-a-peruvian-farmers-lawsuit-is-challenging-global-energy-giants-over-climate-damage |access-date=18 March 2025 |website=euronews |language=en}} RWE continues to deny legal responsibility, arguing that climate change is a global issue caused by many contributors.

On 28 May 2025, the court rejected Lucino's lawsuit.{{Cite web |last=Buschschlüter |first=Vanessa |date=28 May 2025 |title=German court rejects Peruvian farmer's landmark climate case |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y5lwveqzno |access-date=29 May 2025 |website=BBC News |language=en-GB}}

This was the first case to potentially hold fossil fuel corporations directly responsible in tort for the damage they knowingly cause through releasing greenhouse gases and making profit. If Lliuya was successful in German law, the principle would apply to all other companies responsible for releasing greenhouse gas emissions and the damage they cause, and could be applied in similar ways in all countries' tort laws.{{Cite book |last=McGaughey |first=Ewan |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=y62aEAAAQBAJ |title=Principles of Enterprise Law: The Economic Constitution and Human Rights |date=2022 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-316-51764-2 |location=Cambridge, United Kingdom |page=411 |chapter=Ch 11. Natural resources}}

• Law of the European Union
• Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands (20 December 2019), duty of state to cut emissions in line with Paris Agreement and right to life
• Neubauer v Germany (24 March 2021), 1 BvR 2656/18, duty on state to reduce carbon emissions faster than government required in Act to protect right to life and environment
• Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd (2021), NZCA 552 duty of oil and power companies in tort to pay for climate damage
• Milieudefensie v Royal Dutch Shell (26 May 2021), duty of an oil company in tort to cut emissions in line with Paris Agreement and right to life
• McGaughey and Davies v USS Ltd (2022), EWHC 1233 (Ch), directors' duties to plan to divest fossil fuels in light of Paris Agreement and right to life

{{reflist|2}}

• [http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/lliuya-v-rwe-ag/ Lliuya v RWE AG on the Sabin Center database]
• D Collyns, [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/29/climate-change-has-turned-perus-glacial-lake-into-a-deadly-flood-timebomb Climate change has turned Peru's glacial lake into a deadly flood timebomb]' (2018) Guardian

Category:Climate change litigation

Category:German case law