On May 28, 2025, the Higher Regional Court in Hamm (Oberlandesgericht Hamm) issued a final and binding decision in the case of Saúl Luciano Lliuya v. RWE AG. While the court ultimately concluded that there was no immediate or concrete threat to the plaintiff’s property, the ruling nonetheless established a significant precedent for future climate litigation. Crucially, the court confirmed the legal possibility of attributing partial responsibility to corporations for damages arising from climate change.
In November 2015, Saúl Luciano Lliuya, a Peruvian farmer from the city of Huaraz, filed a claim for declaratory judgment and compensation before the District Court in Essen, Federal Republic of Germany, against RWE, the largest electricity producer in Germany. The lawsuit was based on the assertion that RWE had knowingly contributed to climate change by emitting substantial quantities of greenhouse gases and was therefore partially responsible for the accelerated melting of mountain glaciers near Huaraz. The plaintiff sought damages from RWE proportional to its historic contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions — calculated at 0.47% since the beginning of industrialization (i.e., since 1751). The District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and compensation.
However, in 2017, the Higher Regional Court in Hamm admitted the claim as both well-reasoned and legally admissible, allowing the case to proceed to the evidentiary stage. At this point, the court required scientific and technical assessments to establish two key elements:
- The degree to which the plaintiff’s home was at risk of flooding or landslides due to the increased volume of a glacial lake;
- The causal link between RWE’s greenhouse gas emissions and the identified risk.
Following comprehensive engineering and scientific evaluations, the court concluded in late May 2025 that not all elements of causality required for a binding judgment had been sufficiently established. As a result, the case was formally dismissed, with no liability attributed to RWE. Nevertheless, the legal implications are substantial.
For the first time, a higher court in a developed country explicitly considered the possibility that private corporations may bear proportional responsibility for climate change-related impacts beyond national borders. Moreover, the case demonstrated that modern climate science — capable of tracing causal links between emissions and specific environmental consequences — can serve as a basis for establishing corporate liability in climate-related claims.
Although RWE was not found liable in this instance, the case has paved the way for future litigation that may rely on more advanced scientific evidence and more precise risk attribution to establish causal connections between major greenhouse gas emitters and resulting damages.