A German court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Peruvian farmer against energy giant RWE, seeking compensation for the company’s alleged contribution to climate change and the resulting threat to his hometown. Despite the court’s refusal to award damages, the case marked a noteworthy development in legal discussions over corporate responsibility for carbon emissions.

On Wednesday, the higher regional court in Hamm, located in western Germany, rejected the legal action led by 44-year-old Saul Luciano Lliuya. He claimed that RWE’s history of greenhouse gas emissions played a role in the increasing flood risks his community near Huaraz, Peru, now faces due to fast-melting glaciers in the Andes.

Recommended Stories

Photos: Rapid glacier retreat in the Andes puts communities in danger

Peru’s Indigenous guardians protecting remote communities

UN: Over 420,000 children affected by historic drought in the Amazon

However, the court acknowledged that companies might hold a duty to implement preventive actions to address their emissions. According to a court statement, polluters could be mandated to cover future costs based on their share of responsibility, even before damages occur.

That line of reasoning echoed one of Lliuya’s key arguments: that RWE should contribute toward safeguarding his hometown from a swelling glacial lake—a risk tied to warming temperatures and the accelerated melting of nearby ice and snow.

Though RWE has no operations in Peru, Lliuya maintained that, as a significant global emitter of CO₂, the company shares blame for the environmental threats to his region.

Yet, the court ultimately sided with RWE, ruling that there was “no imminent danger” threatening the farmer’s property, and therefore dismissed his claim.

Despite the outcome, Lliuya’s lawyer, Roda Verheyen, described the court’s decision as a pivotal step forward in climate accountability cases.

“This case is extraordinary,” said Al Jazeera correspondent Step Vaessen from Hamm. “It marks the first time someone from the Global South has legally pursued a Global North company over responsibility for climate-related impacts on their home.”

Lliuya referenced data compiled by the Carbon Majors database, underscoring that RWE is responsible for approximately 0.5% of all industrial-era human-made emissions. Using this figure, he calculated that the company should contribute around $17,500 towards a $3.5 million flood defense effort in his region.

The farmer, who cultivates crops including corn, barley, wheat, and potatoes with his family, said he targeted RWE not because of its activities in Peru, but because of its significant pollution record as one of Europe’s largest emitters.

RWE, currently in the process of shutting down its coal operations, rejected the claims, arguing that a single company cannot take the blame for a global issue like climate change. It also criticized the effort to push for a judicial ruling to set precedent.

“Turning courtrooms into a platform for climate policy advocacy is the wrong approach,” RWE stated in response to the lawsuit.

Before the court’s announcement, Lliuya’s legal team noted the significance of the case regardless of its conclusion. The judges’ decision came after reviewing a detailed 180-page dossier and even traveling to Peru with experts to assess how global warming has specifically impacted Lliuya’s community, according to Vaessen.

The court also underscored that RWE “should have recognized the consequences of its emissions,” Vaessen added.

This ruling could open doors for similar cases in the future, especially from those in the Global South suffering disproportionately from climate change effects compared to other parts of the world.