Judge “cannot yet” see sound claims in landmark climate case by Peruvian farmer against RWE

In the landmark climate litigation case brought by a Peruvian farmer against German energy company RWE, the judge responsible for the case at a German court has voiced scepticism regarding the plaintiff’s arguments but decided to give a final verdict only in mid-April, newspaper Tagesspiegel reported. The case brought by farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya from Peru together with German NGO Germanwatch has captured attention around the world. If successful, it would represent the first time a major emitter is held directly responsible for physical damages resulting from global warming.

Lliuya argues that his hometown Huaraz in the Andes is under threat of flooding from a dangerously large glacial lake that has grown due to climate change. However, after hearing expert opinions on the flood risk, judge Rolf Meyer said he “currently cannot yet” see a clear danger for Lliuya’s property. Any danger to the plaintiff’s home debated in the case would have to be “concrete,” while an abstract risk resulting from climate change did not suffice for the lawsuit to have a legal basis, Meyer said. After concluding the hearing on 19 March, a decision would be made on 14 April, the court said.

One expert opinion heard by the court deemed the risk for a flooding event at Lliuya’s home to be “absolutely unlikely,” with the odds that his house could be hit being less than three percent. This formulation did not sit well with the Peruvian farmer’s lawyer, Roda Verheyen. Another expert opinion from the plaintiff’s side found “blind spots” in the argumentation that the risk was too abstract, NGO Germanwatch said. “We were wondering a lot about the absoluteness of this statement,” Verheyen said, arguing that this particular expert opinion suffered from technical flaws and failed to account for the progressing risk of climate-related changes in the Andes.

Energy company RWE, Germany’s largest historical emitter, has rejected Lliuya’s claims, arguing it had always operated according to national regulation on greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, the company today pursued the goal of becoming CO2-neutral by 2040. The case was filed in 2015. After one court rejected the case, an appeal successfully redirected it to a different court that regarded the case as valid and ordered evidence to be submitted in 2017. The court sent its own delegation to Peru in 2022 to get first-hand information on the situation on-site.