Mega-emitters can be liable for climate change contribution, German court confirms

A German court has changed the timbre of climate litigation, confirming in its ruling in the case of Saúl Luciano Lliuya v. RWE that individuals can sue major corporations for climate damages.

Environmental lawyers say it could “light the fuse” on a slew of accountability cases worldwide.

Energy giant RWE has historically been one of Europe’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters. Lliuya had pursued legal action on the basis that climate change was expediting the melting of nearby glaciers, with disastrous consequences for his farmland.

While Mr Lliuya’s claim was dismissed on the basis that the Court found there is not a sufficient risk of floodwater damage to his property to merit a compensation claim, important legal ground in Germany has been broken by this claim.

The case was supported by NGO GermanWatch, among others.

ClientEarth Chief Programmes and Impact Officer Adam Weiss said: “Today, climate litigation has shifted up a gear. A journey that started with one farmer from Peru has prompted a court thousands of miles away to confirm that, in principle, companies can be held financially responsible by individuals for the climate impact of their operations.

“This case has been groundbreaking from the start, particularly in its use of climate attribution science. The work of Mr Lliuya, Germanwatch and others has moved us another huge step forward in the legal fight for climate justice.”

Under the ‘polluter pays’ principle, today’s ruling means future cases could demand remedial action from companies – for example, funding the mitigation of flood risks.

Weiss said: “This ruling could light the fuse on litigation that holds the most untouchable-seeming businesses to account for their climate destruction.

“This should be a tense day for those relying on business models centred on fossil fuels. Legal consequences are snapping at their heels.”

Reporting on Bluesky, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) attorney Sebastian Duyck wrote:

“the judges stress that the plaintiff cannot be expected to wait until political solutions have been enacted but instead that it is the role of the judiciary to protect his right, including the right to property.”