“Historic, Landmark Decision”: German Court Finds Major Polluters Could Face Accountability for Climate Damages
While the court dismissed this specific case, experts say the verdict sets an important precedent.
The legal team representing plaintiff Saúl Luciano Lliuya celebrate outside the courthouse, along with Saúl (on video), on May 28, 2025. Credit: Photo courtesy of Saul v. RWE website
Ten years ago, Saúl Luciano Lliuya – a smallholder farmer and mountain guide from Huaraz, Peru – brought a novel and pioneering lawsuit against RWE, Germany’s largest electricity supplier, aiming to hold the company partially responsible for the costs of responding to the climate change-related flood risk facing his home and community as melting mountain glaciers swell nearby Lake Palcacocha situated just northeast of the town. The lake overflowed catastrophically in 1941, destroying large parts of Huaraz and killing at least 1,800 people. Now, rising global temperatures due primarily to fossil fuel combustion are causing glacial retreat that suggests this type of flooding could happen again. “We can see the glaciers melting and the lakes growing very fast,” Lliuya said.
With the help of the NGO Germanwatch and the Stiftung Zukunftsfähigkeit (Sustainability Foundation), Lliuya filed a case in the German civil courts targeting RWE, one of the so-called ‘carbon majors’ and one of Europe’s largest historical carbon emitters, responsible for roughly 0.5 percent of global CO2 emissions. It was seen as a test case on the question of whether a single polluting company could be held liable for climate change harms occurring on another continent. On Wednesday, the lawsuit officially came to an end as a court ruled to dismiss it on evidentiary grounds. But the court’s ruling still affirmed that, at least in principle, the answer to that question of liability is yes, it is possible.
“Even if this specific case was dismissed on the facts that the court found the [flooding] risk wasn’t quite high enough, the court said very clearly that in principle it is possible to hold major emitters like RWE liable for their contribution to climate damages, to climate impacts,” said Noah Walker-Crawford, a research fellow at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science. “This is a historic, landmark decision.”
“For the first time, a European court has affirmed that climate victims can pursue justice—and polluters can be held legally accountable.” - Sébastien Duyck, CIEL
The ruling on Wednesday came from the Higher Regional Court of Hamm, which decided on appeal in 2017 (after the case was initially dismissed by a lower court) that the case was admissible, meaning the legal claim was viable. That kickstarted a lengthy evidentiary phase in which the court assessed the facts and even made a site visit in 2022 to Huaraz and the surrounding mountain glaciers to examine the flood risk. The court held hearings on this evidence in March of this year. Court-appointed experts testified that the risk of a flood event happening and interfering with Lliuya’s property over the next 30 years was low, at about 1 percent probability. Given that assessment, the court decided the risk was not significant enough and the case should not continue. As there is no possibility for a further appeal, the case has officially ended.
RWE pointed to this outcome in a statement commenting on the verdict. “RWE has always considered such civil ‘climate liability’ to be inadmissible under German law,” the company said. “It would have unforeseeable consequences for Germany as an industrial location, because ultimately claims could be asserted against any German company for damage caused by climate change anywhere in the world.”
Despite RWE’s assertion, the court already determined the case was admissible. The court also rejected many of the legal arguments put forward by the company’s lawyers, including the claim that allowing the case to advance would signal that any company or any individual citizen could be held liable for climate change. Individuals’ contributions to greenhouse gas emissions are so minor, especially compared to those of a major fossil fuel energy company, that they would not give rise to liability.
What the court did confirm is that large corporations that have, through their business operations, historically contributed to generating the carbon pollution that is largely driving the climate crisis may bear some responsibility for the damaging impacts. Large emitters, in other words, could be held liable for climate damages, per the polluter pays principle.
As the court explained in a statement on its ruling: “If there is a threat of adverse effects, the polluter of CO₂ emissions may be obligated to take preventive measures. If the polluter definitively refuses to do so, it could be determined, even before actual costs are incurred, that the polluter must bear the costs in proportion to their share of the emissions—as the plaintiff demands.”
Legal experts and climate advocates say the court’s recognition that polluters could be held responsible for the harmful consequences of carbon emissions represents a historic breakthrough for corporate climate accountability.
“[The] Saúl Luciano Lliuya v. RWE judgment shatters the wall of impunity for major polluters,” said Sébastien Duyck, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law. “For the first time, a European court has affirmed that climate victims can pursue justice—and polluters can be held legally accountable.”
“Although the court dismissed this claim, it recognized that companies may be held legally responsible for climate damages tied to their emissions. The ruling confirmed that climate science can provide a basis for legal liability, which is a critical precedent in the broader push for climate accountability,” said Delta Merner, lead scientist for the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Walker-Crawford agreed that the court’s ruling “sets a significant precedent.”
“It recognized that emissions from a specific company may be linked to real-world climate impacts, such as the increased flood risk,” he said. Such recognition could offer a boost for plaintiffs in other cases aiming to hold carbon majors accountable for climate harms.
“This will give a tailwind to all the ongoing cases around the world,” Walker-Crawford said. “We will likely see a lot more cases building on this going forward,” he added. “Because according to this verdict, the legal principle has been clarified. It is possible to use the law to hold companies accountable for climate change.”
More than 60 cases are currently underway seeking to hold major polluters accountable for their role in driving the climate crisis. According to a March 2025 briefing from Zero Carbon Analytics, litigation demanding compensation for climate impacts is expected to increase and represents a growing financial risk for large carbon-intensive corporations. And with advances in climate attribution science helping to strengthen the basis for legal causation, fossil fuel companies and other carbon majors could face substantial liabilities – potentially billions or even trillions of dollars. A recent study published in the journal Nature, for example, finds that extreme heat over the last several decades, attributable to the emissions from over 100 large fossil fuel and cement companies, caused an estimated $28 trillion in global economic damages.
Christoph Bals, policy director at Germanwatch, said the verdict in the Lliuya case should put big polluters on notice. “This will send a huge signal: The pressure on the fossil fuel business model has increased today,” he said. “The big carbon majors, they have to look now at how they calculate the risks that they are brought to court.”
For Lliuya, the end of his ten-year legal battle is bittersweet. On the one hand, he said he is a bit disappointed that the case did not result in an outcome that would require RWE to help fund flood mitigation efforts in his community.
“The court – unlike glacier scientists who have known this area for decades – believes my house doesn't need protection. So, we in Huaraz will not receive any help from RWE in protecting ourselves from the flood risk,” he said.
“But this ruling is not just about me, but about all the people who are already facing the consequences of the ever-worsening climate crisis,” Lliuya added. “The large companies that cause these risks and damage can finally be forced to take responsibility.”