RWE vs. Anden-Bauer: Judge Delivers Verdict - Court delivers ruling in initial trial case
Germany's Higher Regional Court in Hamm has decided on a high-profile climate lawsuit filed against energy giant RWE by a Peruvian farmer. The case, ongoing since 2015, involves Saúl Luciano Lliuya, a farmer and mountain guide from Huaraz, who wants RWE to contribute to the costs of protective measures against potential flood waves from the Palcacocha glacier lake. Lliuya argues that RWE shares responsibility for this danger due to its substantial emissions of greenhouse gases.
Lliuya, supported by Future Sustainability Foundation and Germanwatch, took his case to the court in Hamm. RWE, Germany’s largest electricity producer, maintains that the lawsuit is inadmissible legally. In March, expert witnesses presented their findings, suggesting that Lliuya's property is unlikely to be seriously affected by flooding or a mudslide in the next 30 years. They estimated the probability of realistic flooding scenarios at one percent. Lawyers and experts for the plaintiff criticized the experts for underestimating the risk.
A bias complaint against one of the expert witnesses was rejected, leading to a postponement of the verdict from April 14 to May 28. The court ultimately dismissed Lliuya’s individual claim for injunctive relief and damages, as there was no immediate flood risk warranting compensation or preventative measures by RWE.
However, the court affirmed that claims against fossil fuel companies for contributions to global climate change are permissible under German law. It recognized that companies like RWE can, in principle, be held liable for their share of emissions and responsible for climate-related damages or preventative efforts if a concrete causal link can be established. The court rejected RWE’s argument that its emissions were insignificant and emphasized RWE's substantial historical emissions as a valid basis for review.
The ruling is groundbreaking, as it opens the door for future climate litigation. It acknowledges that a causal relationship between an emitter’s emissions and climate impacts cannot be excluded per se, and each case must be individually examined for liability. The court even conducted a multi-day site visit to Huaraz, Peru, demonstrating the seriousness with which it treated the claims.
In summary, while Lliuya’s claim was rejected in this instance due to lack of demonstrated immediate risk, the Higher Regional Court of Hamm set a significant legal precedent by confirming that fossil fuel companies can be held liable under German civil law for their contributions to climate change impacts. This ruling is expected to bolster international climate law and encourage future lawsuits challenging major emitters to account for their climate damage.
- The ruling by Germany's Higher Regional Court in Hamm could significantly impact EC countries, as it sets a precedent allowing environmental-science experts to hold fossil fuel industries like RWE accountable for their role in climate-change.
- This decision further emphasizes the need for energy policy reforms in various industries, as it confirms that energy companies can be financially liable for climate-related damages and preventative efforts.
- The science behind climate-change is underscored by this case, demonstrating that energy production, particularly from oil-and-gas, contributes to global warming and subsequent environmental issues.
- The ruling's potential implications extend beyond Germany's borders, as it may foster business relationships and policies that prioritize economic activities with reduced carbon footprints and a lower risk of climate-change-related legal challenges.
