ESG: Climate lawsuit against RWE dismissed in second instance

On May 28, 2025, the Higher Regional Court of Hamm dismissed a climate lawsuit brought by a Peruvian farmer against the energy company RWE. The plaintiff held RWE jointly responsible for specific climate risks in the Andes. However, the judges denied that there was any immediate danger.

Facts of the case

Peruvian farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya had sued RWE for a share of the costs of protective measures against glacier flooding. In his argument, he referred to scientific studies according to which RWE, as a major emitter of greenhouse gases, was responsible for around 0.5 % of global emissions since the beginning of industrialization. In his opinion, these emissions contributed to glacier melt in the Peruvian Andes, which specifically threatened his home town of Huaraz with flooding.

Court decision

The Higher Regional Court of Hamm upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit in the second instance. The court left open the question of whether large emitters can be held liable for climate impacts. In this specific case, however, there was no sufficient causal link between RWE's emissions and the alleged threat. The threat of a glacier flood had not been sufficiently substantiated. The plaintiff announced that he might appeal the decision.

Background to the lawsuit

The lawsuit was filed in 2015 before the Essen Regional Court and was considered a test case in the field of climate-related liability. It was supported by an environmental organization and sought to clarify whether individual companies can be held liable under civil law for global climate risks. The lawsuit was dismissed in the first instance due to lack of proof of causality. In 2017, the Higher Regional Court of Hamm was the first German court ever to allow evidence to be taken in a climate lawsuit.

What can be expected?

The ruling is likely to make climate lawsuits against private companies more difficult in the future. Although the fundamental possibility of liability continues to be discussed, concrete prospects of success remain dependent on proof of individual causality and risk situations. Other comparable lawsuits – for example, against Shell or TotalEnergies – are currently still pending in other countries. But here, too, the courts will examine the specific attribution of emissions and are likely to question it critically. This means that case law has come a long way since the first so-called climate or environmental lawsuits, which addressed and questioned the (geo)political responsibility of globally active companies (keyword: KICK). However, the legal "weak points" now seem to be increasingly coming to the fore.

Practical note

Climate liability remains a strategic risk area for companies with a high carbon footprint. Although the legal situation remains inconsistent, the increase in legal disputes signals growing expectations of corporate responsibility. Defending against climate lawsuits requires not only technically sound expert opinions, but also a clear sustainability strategy. Companies should review the extent to which their emissions are documented and plans for reduction have been developed and implemented – not least to minimize potential liability risks at an early stage.