News , | 11/14/2025 : Climate Justice by the Court

On 28 May, the lawsuit brought by Peruvian mountain guide and farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya against energy corporation RWE came to an end after almost ten years. After the verdict was handed down, both sides declared victory. As the legal officer at the organization Germanwatch, which has supported the plaintiff from the start, what do you make of that?

In my view, the court decision is a historic precedent with global significance that strengthens the rights of all those affected by the climate crisis. Saúl Luciano Lliuya won the legal argument and the court confirmed that in principle, companies like RWE can be held liable for the consequences of their business models. Over more than 60 pages, the judgement clearly stated that people who are impacted by the climate crisis have enforceable rights and can demand that major emitters bear their fair share of the costs. The ruling resolves key questions of law, for example on causation.

With this precedent in place, future cases will largely depend on presenting robust evidence to substantiate such claims, requiring the integration of climate science and legal reasoning. In this case, the court ruled that the specific risk to Saúl’s property was not high enough and therefore dismissed his claim.

At best, the verdict was a Pyrrhic victory for RWE. It doesn’t mark the end, but rather just the beginning of a new era of corporate accountability in the context of the climate crisis. On the basis of the judgment, a new lawsuit against RWE and Heidelberg Materials has already been announced, initiated by individuals affected by the devastating floods in Pakistan.

Can you give a quick overview of what led to this case?

The context of Saúl’s case is that companies, particularly fossil fuel companies, are among the biggest contributors to climate change. Just 57 companies are responsible for 80 percent of global CO₂ emissions. The historical emissions of some companies exceed the emissions of entire countries in the Global South and even in the Global North. These emissions have significant consequences, yet the costs have largely been borne by the affected communities or governments. This longstanding inequity remains largely unaddressed under existing legal frameworks, both internationally and in Germany. But that is starting to change: in Pakistan, the Philippines, and certain U.S. states, there are legislative initiatives to hold major emitters accountable, including through mandatory contributions to climate funds.

So the case that Saúl Luciano Lliuya brought and Germanwatch supported was also meant to challenge business models based on fossil fuels.

At the moment, most companies don’t factor the consequences of their business model into their profitability calculations at all. That’s often the only way that incredibly destructive business models can remain profitable. Beyond their contribution to global warming, companies are often not held accountable for the human rights impacts of their activities. Fortunately, the legal system offers some protection to affected communities, but the reality is that they often lack the resources to assert their rights in court. That’s where civil society organizations like Germanwatch play a crucial role, facilitating access to justice and demanding that companies be held responsible. When companies have to pay the true price of their business models, it not only levels the playing field but also incentivizes a shift toward sustainable, responsible business practices.

What led a Peruvian mountain guide, as a person impacted by the climate crisis, to bring a suit against a German company?

Saúl Luciano Lliuya has a strong connection to the mountains, where he spends much of his time as a mountain guide. Watching the glaciers melt more and more due to global warming deeply saddens him. The city of Huaraz, where Saúl lives, lies below a glacial lake that is steadily filling as the glaciers retreat, putting the city at risk of flooding. Saúl set out to find answers. How can people in Huaraz protect themselves against the risk of flooding? He got in touch with Germanwatch at the UN climate conference in Lima, and soon Germanwatch staff travelled to the Andes to meet him. Together, they explored how a legal case could ensure that a major contributor to the climate crisis would bear the costs. The claim was brought in 2015, and finally in May of 2025, the judgement was handed down which clearly states that in principle carbon majors can be held liable for climate-related risks.

What concrete demands were made during the trial?

In the case, the concrete demand was for RWE to assume the costs of protective measures along the glacial lake proportional to its contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions—about 0.4 percent. Because RWE contributed to global warming and climate-related risks, the company is also partially responsible for the risk management. The court found that legal argument convincing and agreed to take evidence, including a site visit. For Saúl, it was a remarkable moment — the judges‘ journey to Peru signified more than just a procedural step; it was an acknowledgment of his lived reality, one so often dismissed in legal proceedings.

Was this the first trial of this kind? Meaning a trial in which a company was taken to court over the consequences of the climate crisis?

It was the first trial of its kind to use German civil law to hold a carbon major accountable for the consequences of climate change based on its past emissions. While there are other lawsuits in Germany aimed at reducing future emissions, this case broke new ground by addressing historical responsibility. I believe both approaches are essential: on the one hand, ensuring liability for the damage caused by past emissions, and on the other, creating a legal obligation to move away from fossil-fuel business models and make substantial cuts to current and future emissions.

How did RWE act during the trial?

Initially, RWE kept a low profile in the media. But just before the court hearing, the company shifted its tone, warning that if it could be held liable as a major emitter, then even ordinary drivers might face lawsuits. The court dismissed that argument outright, accusing RWE of stoking fear with legally baseless claims. This case, the judges made clear, was about the significant role of major polluters — not the everyday emissions of individuals.

…whose responsibility is very different from that of individual citizens.

Exactly. The court made it unmistakably clear that the responsibility of major emitters is worlds apart from that of individual citizens. In 2013, RWE’s annual CO₂ emissions amounted to around 164 million tonnes, while the average person in Germany emitted just about 10.3 tonnes. Among the world’s 81 biggest emitters, RWE ranks 23rd — and has even described itself as “Europe’s biggest CO₂ emitter.” A company whose emissions rival those of entire industrialized nations such as Spain or Sweden is undeniably a significant contributor to the climate crisis and must bear responsibility accordingly.

So did the final decision come as a surprise?

When the court began taking evidence in 2017, it effectively confirmed that the complaint was legally sound — a breakthrough in itself. From that moment, I expected the judges would ultimately side with Saúl’s legal argument. Even so, it was striking how thoroughly the court examined the legal question of whether major emitters can be held responsible for the consequences of their emissions.

In the end, though, the verdict came as a surprise. The court concluded that the flood risk for Saúl’s property was not sufficiently high. Yet since 1970, the glacial lake above his property has grown to 34 times its original size. Earlier this year, another lake in a neighbouring town burst its banks, sweeping away homes and claiming lives. In Saúl’s town, evacuation signs now line the streets — a constant reminder of the danger hanging over residents.

To me, the expert appointed by the court drastically underestimated the flood risk. His analysis assumed that the conditions of the past would somehow remain unchanged in the future — an assumption that no longer fits a world transformed by the climate crisis., when processes like melting permafrost are accelerating faster than ever. That reality, unfortunately, was largely ignored.

Nonetheless, the verdict will have a far-reaching impact.

The judgement marks a historic turning point. The court established that CO₂ emissions can infringe on legally protected rights beyond national borders and that carbon majors can be held proportionately responsible for the resulting harm. It confirmed that the consequences of fossil fuels and the climate crisis have been forseeable since 1965, so liability can be established from then onward. The judges also stressed that claims raised in the context of the climate crisis are not too complex or too political to be decided upon in civil court. These are all groundbreaking determinations both for future legal cases and for the political discourse.

What does that mean for the future? Are there already other cases that could be influenced by this verdict?

There are already a number of new cases in the pipeline, and several ongoing lawsuits are explicitly referencing the decision in the case of Saúl. For example, Korean farmers have brought a suit against the energy company KEPCO, and Belgian farmers are pursuing legal action against Total Energies. In both, the plaintiffs’ arguments draw heavily on the judgement secured by Saúl— one written statement cites it no fewer than 43 times. What we’re seeing increasingly is that courts are paying close attention to developments abroad, learning from each other, and becoming both more willing and better equipped to engage with climate-related claims.

In recent years, climate-related lawsuits have become an important tool for climate justice. At the same time, we’re currently seeing increasingly authoritarian forms of governance in many countries — as well as a tendency for governments to simply disregard or ignore court rulings. What does that mean for climate-based lawsuits? And what would ensure that verdicts are actually implemented?

Courts enjoy a high level of legitimacy in most societies, and that makes them a crucial avenue for advancing climate justice. Take Germany’s 2021 Neubauer ruling, for example: when the Federal Constitutional Court confirmed that climate protection is enshrined in constitutional law, politicians from across the spectrum quickly highlighted the importance of protecting future generations as well as the climate, and the Climate Protection Act was amended soon after. In civil law, there are even more direct ways to make sure rulings are actually enforced.

Particularly in times of rising authoritarianism, when constitutional and human rights are under threat, courts and the legal system play a vital protective role. They can ensure a fair balance of interests, defend marginalized groups, and uphold spaces for criticism, protest, and democracy itself. That’s why it is essential for civil society to understand, embrace, and actively use the legal system. At their core, courts are spaces for discourse; the more we bring in new perspectives and actively participate, the better equipped they are to address the real problems at hand. At the same time, civil society must continue to advocate for broader political solutions to tackle systemic injustices, ensuring that litigation complements the necessary social changes.

Translated by Joseph Keady and Marty Hiatt for Gegensatz Translation Collective