Lliuya v. RWE – Landmark German ruling recognising potential liability in principle of a local emitter for climate change harms in a foreign jurisdiction

On 28 May 2025, the Higher Regional Court of Hamm in Germany delivered a landmark decision in the case of Lliuya v. RWE AG (pree release here, in German), recognizing that major greenhouse gas emitters can, in principle, be held liable under German civil law for contributing to climate-related harms even where those occur outside of Germany. The court found that in case of a threat of impairment, a polluter of CO2 emissions could be obliged to take preventive measures and in case of refusal could be requested to bear the costs of preventive measures in proportion of its share of the emissions even before actual costs arise.

While the court held that the facts in this case did not ultimately support the grant of the remedy sought by this plaintiff, the ruling is significant in that it acknowledges that similar overseas private actors may in principle be able to bring claims against corporations for their role in climate change.

Background to the Proceedings

The case was initiated in 2015 by Saúl Luciano Lliuya, a Peruvian farmer and mountain guide from Huaraz. The plaintiff's home is located near Lake Palcacocha, a glacial lake that has expanded due to the melting of nearby glaciers.

Lliuya's claim alleged that RWE, Germany's largest energy company, is responsible for approximately 0.47% of global greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial revolution.

Using grounds of negligence under German law, Lliuya argued that the emissions attributable to RWE contributed to the accelerated melting of glaciers in the Andes, thereby increasing the flood risk to his property.

Consequently, Lliuya sought financial contribution from RWE to fund protective measures against potential flooding.

The case has gone through various levels of the German courts over the past decade:

• Dismissal by the District Court: In 2016, the District Court of Essen dismissed Lliuya's claim, stating that it could not provide effective redress due to difficulties in proving causality. The court stated that it was not possible to establish a "linear causal chain" between particular greenhouse gas emissions and the complex diffuse nature of climate change.
• Permission to appeal: The plaintiff appealed this decision in February 2017, and in December 2017, the Higher Regional Court of Hamm ruled the case admissible, allowing an appeal to proceed to the evidentiary stage. The court's decision was based on the "neighbour law" under Section 1004 of the German Civil Code, which deals with protection against interference in property. The court considered whether climate change, with its transboundary implications, had created a "global" neighbourhood relationship, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff is located in another country.

The Higher Regional Court Judgment

The court issued its final, non-appealable ruling on the merits on 28 May 2025.

The court dismissed Lliuya's appeal on the grounds that danger to his property is limited. Following a site visit to Peru in May 2022 and after hearing experts in March 2025, the court assessed that the likelihood of a flood event occurring within the next 30 years was less than 1%, and even if such an event were to happen, the resulting damages would be limited. This was too low a threshold to permit the plaintiff to access a remedy under the relevant German statute.

However, the ruling is nonetheless significant as it considers a number of  important questions relevant to international climate law.

The court acknowledged the possibility in principle of holding major greenhouse gas emitters liable under German civil law for their contribution to climate-related harms, even where such harms occur outside of Germany. The ruling is therefore significant for its contribution to the growing body of cases considering responsibility of individual corporations for the global harms of climate change and the means by which an individual corporation's contribution to climate change can be accurately assessed (attribution science). While this particular claim in this case failed on the facts, the German court was clear that such claims could in principle succeed in future.

In reaching this conclusion, the court also found that potential liability could occur despite significant physical distance. The court further emphasized that its findings do not mean that in the future every individual citizen could be found liable in principle. Rather, the individual causal contribution is so minor that it cannot give rise to liability.

While the ruling is limited to German law, many other states have similar torts of nuisance as Germany, and it will remain to be seen how courts in other jurisdictions interpret similar provisions.

Conclusion

The conclusion of the decade-long Lliuya v. RWE claim has been long-awaited, and the final court decision has been accompanied with much attention and commentary.

Although Lliuya’s specific claim was dismissed on the facts due to insufficient risk, the court acknowledged that in principle major emitters can be held accountable for climate harms in a different jurisdiction and despite a significant physical distance abroad. This decision signals increasing legal scrutiny on corporations’ environmental impacts.

However, the case also highlights the complexities in the science of attribution and the complex diffuse nature of climate change. This may be interpreted differently in different jurisdictions, and will be a closely watched question in future.