Peruvian mountain guide at the origin of one of the most critical cases of climate justice

A German court has established the principle that companies can be held liable for damages caused by climate change, based on their contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions. This responsibility is global, meaning that even if thousands of kilometres separate the damage occurring in Peru from the activity of the German company, the company is still accountable. Additionally, the historical practices of large polluting companies are also taken into consideration.

Today, the Higher Regional Court of Hamm handed down a final decision, not susceptible to appeal, in the case of Saul Liuya against RWE, a significant decision in the context of the current debate on climate change, in which courts are assuming a growing prominent role.

The decision by the German court regarding civil compensation for damages caused by climate change is particularly relevant, even for individuals residing in distant countries. This is based on a transparent methodology that attributes compensation for damages according to a company’s percentage of global emissions.

In 2015, Saúl Luciano Lliuya, a Peruvian farmer and mountain guide from Huaraz, filed a lawsuit in Germany against RWE, the largest electricity producer in Germany. He claimed that RWE’s substantial greenhouse gas emissions contributed to the melting of glaciers over his hometown, increasing the risk of an overflow of Lake Palcacocha, which would prove catastrophic. Lliuya requested approximately €17,000 in compensation, representing RWE’s estimated contribution of 0.47% to global emissions, to finance protection measures against potential floods.

The 17,000 euros petitioned by Lliuya to the German company RWE were calculated based on the company’s proportional contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions and the estimated cost of the protective measures (dams and alarm systems) necessary to avoid a climate disaster in its hometown, Huaraz, Peru. That is, 0.47% of RWE’s global emissions before approximately 3.6 million euros, which corresponds to the estimated value of the security works, and the 17,000 euros requested are calculated.

The objective was not personal compensation, but rather symbolic and concrete accountability of the company for its historical contribution to global warming — a practical application of the polluter-payer principle, which is still little tested in international courts.

In the first instance, the Essen court did not accept the Peruvian’s request, given the difficulty of establishing a causal link between RWE’s emissions and the specific threat to the Peruvian’s property. In 2017, a turnaround occurred when the Hamm Regional Court acknowledged that the case is ongoing.

After an intense collection of evidence, which included a multi-day visit to Peru in May 2022 and a two-day hearing with experts in Hamm in March 2025, the court despite rejecting the plaintiff’s appeal – the estimated risk of 1% flooding in the next 30 years was insufficient to justify compensation – issued a sentence of enormous importance that will certainly build a reference in the coming years.

In his oral statement of grounds of the sentence, the presiding judge, Dr. Rolf Meyer, stated that the plaintiff could have an action against the defendant under § 1004 of the German Civil Code. Indeed, if there is damage, the polluter of CO2 emissions may be obliged to take measures to prevent it. If you refuse to do so, it is already possible to establish, before the actual costs are known, that you must pay them in harmony with your share of emissions, as required by the author.

By ruling that large issuers can be held responsible for climate damage under the German Civil Code (BGB), the court paved the way for future lawsuits, particularly for those who can demonstrate a concrete and imminent danger to their property resulting from the impacts of climate change.

The decision validates the legal strategy of Southern countries that process large North-emitting companies and provides a legal basis to seek redress and boost corporate responsibility for historical and ongoing emissions. The controversy surrounding risk assessment and the need to incorporate climate factors into scientific evaluations will likely persist in future cases.

 

Carlos Torres