The ruling ends a decade-long legal battle asserting that RWE's emissions contribute to glacial melting, endangering the farmer's hometown.
Court Dismisses Landmark Climate Case Against RWE by Peruvian Farmer
Court Dismisses Landmark Climate Case Against RWE by Peruvian Farmer
A German court has ruled against a Peruvian farmer's lawsuit targeting RWE, a German energy company, over climate change impacts.
In a significant ruling on Wednesday, a higher regional court in Hamm, Germany, dismissed the long-standing climate lawsuit by Saúl Luciano Lliuya, a Peruvian farmer, against the German energy giant RWE. Lliuya claimed that the emissions from RWE were a contributing factor to the melting glaciers in Peru, which threatened floods in his hometown of Huaraz. He sought €17,000 (approximately £14,250) to fund flood prevention efforts.
The court's decision put an end to what has been a 10-year battle for Lliuya, who had previously succeeded in an appeal in 2017 when judges agreed there was merit in his claims. However, in its final ruling, the court decided that the flood risk for Lliuya’s property was not substantial enough to warrant the case proceeding, effectively barring any appeals.
While RWE defended itself by stating it was not operating in Peru and noted its plans to transition to carbon neutrality by 2040, Lliuya's legal efforts had gained international attention and became emblematic of the fight for corporate accountability in the face of climate change. Lliuya argued that the glacier melting was directly affecting the water levels in Lake Palcacocha, which has reportedly quadrupled since 2003, posing a significant risk of flooding.
Despite the dismissal of Lliuya's specific claim, the court acknowledged that major corporate emitters could be held responsible for climate change-related risks under German civil law. This aspect of the ruling has been viewed as a victory by climate advocacy groups, suggesting potential precedents for future litigation targeting similar corporate accountability in other countries.
Lliuya’s case had previously been backed by the environmental NGO Germanwatch, which expressed optimism that the ruling might pave the way for similar claims worldwide. While Lliuya’s litigation was ultimately unsuccessful, it remains a crucial moment in the broader discourse on climate responsibility and legal recourse against major polluters.
The court's decision put an end to what has been a 10-year battle for Lliuya, who had previously succeeded in an appeal in 2017 when judges agreed there was merit in his claims. However, in its final ruling, the court decided that the flood risk for Lliuya’s property was not substantial enough to warrant the case proceeding, effectively barring any appeals.
While RWE defended itself by stating it was not operating in Peru and noted its plans to transition to carbon neutrality by 2040, Lliuya's legal efforts had gained international attention and became emblematic of the fight for corporate accountability in the face of climate change. Lliuya argued that the glacier melting was directly affecting the water levels in Lake Palcacocha, which has reportedly quadrupled since 2003, posing a significant risk of flooding.
Despite the dismissal of Lliuya's specific claim, the court acknowledged that major corporate emitters could be held responsible for climate change-related risks under German civil law. This aspect of the ruling has been viewed as a victory by climate advocacy groups, suggesting potential precedents for future litigation targeting similar corporate accountability in other countries.
Lliuya’s case had previously been backed by the environmental NGO Germanwatch, which expressed optimism that the ruling might pave the way for similar claims worldwide. While Lliuya’s litigation was ultimately unsuccessful, it remains a crucial moment in the broader discourse on climate responsibility and legal recourse against major polluters.
