Jess Rodenhiser,
Legal Fellow
On May 28, 2025, the Higher Regional Court of Hamm handed down its final judgment in Saúl Luciano Lliuya v. RWE, the first European climate lawsuit brought by a citizen of the Global South against a major corporate emitter. Although the court ultimately dismissed the individual claim, it broke historic legal ground. It affirmed that companies can, in principle, be held liable for the consequences of climate change.
This case is about more than one man. It is about whether justice can stretch across borders, about whether a Peruvian farmer can confront a German energy giant, and about whether those most affected by climate change can finally demand accountability. Here’s what you need to know about this precedent-setting case.
- What was this case about?
Saúl Luciano Lliuya is a mountain guide and farmer from Huaraz, Peru, a city of more than 50,000 people nestled beneath Lake Palcacocha in the Andes. As glaciers melt due to climate change, the lake has swelled to dangerous levels. One ice avalanche could unleash a deadly flood wave on the city below.
In 2015, Lliuya sued RWE, Germany’s largest CO2 emitter, arguing that the company should pay its proportional share (≈0.38%) of the cost of protecting Huaraz from flooding. His legal claim was simple but unprecedented: if a company knowingly contributes to global warming, it should share responsibility for the damages.
This was the first time a Global South claimant sought cross-border climate accountability from a corporate emitter in the Global North.
This case is about more than one man. It is about whether justice can stretch across borders, about whether a Peruvian farmer can confront a German energy giant, and about whether those most affected by climate change can finally demand accountability.
- What did the Court Decide?
While the court ultimately rejected Lliuya’s individual claim due to insufficient personal risk (estimated at 1% over 30 years), its reasoning marked a legal breakthrough: it affirmed the principle that companies can, in theory, be held liable under civil law for climate-related harms—even across borders. This is the first time a European court has clearly stated that major polluters can be sued for their role in the climate crisis. While the specific claim failed, the legal precedent empowers others to try again—perhaps more successfully.
Here’s what makes the decision so significant:
- Private lawsuits have a place in climate justice. The court rejected the idea that only politicians or international negotiators can address climate harms. It confirmed that individuals affected by environmental damage can seek remedies through the courts.
- Scientific uncertainty doesn’t block accountability. RWE claimed the science was too complex for liability. But the court found the connection between its emissions and the broader effects of climate change to be substantial enough to proceed under civil law.
- German law can apply to cross-border pollution. The judges clarified that victims outside of Germany, like Lliuya, can bring claims against German companies if the harmful emissions occurred within Germany’s jurisdiction.
- Legally authorised pollution isn’t immune from challenge. Even if a company complies with national permits, it may still be liable if its actions cause undue harm to others. Regulatory approval doesn’t cancel out civil responsibility.
- Even small percentages can carry legal weight. The court found that RWE’s estimated 0.38% contribution to global emissions was not negligible. For major emitters, even fractional responsibility can justify legal consequences.
- Companies have long had warning. The court pointed to historical evidence from the mid-20th century—such as the Keeling Curve—as proof that the dangers of emissions have been known for decades. From at least the 1960s, large emitters had enough scientific basis to foresee potential damage.
- Recognising harm strengthens the rule of law. The court positioned climate liability not as a disruption, but as a sign of a mature legal system—one that expects major polluters to answer for their actions.
This is the first time a European court has clearly stated that polluters can be sued for their role in the climate crisis. While the specific claim failed, the legal precedent empowers others to try again, perhaps more successfully.
Support our work!
We can only do our work thanks to the support of brave, passionate people like you!
Your donation will help us to keep fighting for human rights and access to justice for everyone, everywhere.
- Legal Significance
Germanwatch, which supported Lliuya’s case, welcomed the decision as a “turning point” that confirms the door is open for climate liability under civil law. Lawyer Roda Verheyen called the decision a confirmation that “the era of legal impunity for big polluters is over.” The case has been a crucial step in holding corporations accountable across borders.
This case joins a wave of pioneering lawsuits that are reshaping climate law:
- Milieudefensie v. Shell (Netherlands): Shell ordered to reduce emissions by 45% by 2030.
- Juliana v. United States (USA): Youth plaintiffs assert a constitutional right to a safe climate.
- Saber v. Holcim (Switzerland/Philippines): Typhoon survivors seek compensation from a Swiss cement giant.
Together, these cases mark a transformation. Courts are stepping up as venues for climate justice.
- What has the Plaintiff said about the ruling?
In his statement after the ruling, Saúl said:
“Today the mountains have won. My case has shifted the global conversation about what justice means in an era of the climate crisis, and that makes me proud. […] This ruling opens the door for others to demand justice.”
Saúl’s decade-long legal fight was never only about him. It was about fairness in a world where those least responsible for climate change suffer its worst consequences. It was about the right of communities in the Global South to seek justice from those most responsible for the crisis. And it was about insisting that stories like his belong in court.
The court positioned climate liability not as a disruption, but as a sign of a mature legal system—one that expects major polluters to answer for their actions.
- What Comes Next?
Although further appeals are not possible, the decision’s implications will ripple through courtrooms, legal scholarship, and policy debates around the world. It has redefined what is possible in the legal struggle for climate justice.
Courts in other jurisdictions may now draw from this precedent to recognize climate liability as a civil matter. Victims of climate harm—especially in the Global South—are increasingly empowered to hold major polluters to account. This case tells us something important: climate change is not just a policy issue. It’s a justice issue.
Just Access e.V. is a non-party political organisation, whose mission is to support human rights and access to justice worldwide. The views and opinions expressed in this piece and those of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of Just Access e.V.
Subscribe to the Just Access newsletter
Don’t miss any of our blog posts, or any of our other great content!
Stay up to date with our work by subscribing to the Just Access Newsletter (six mailings per year).
