In a landmark ruling, the Oberlandesgericht Hamm has just decided: in principle, RWE is liable for the consequences of CO2 emissions. The fact that the proceedings nevertheless ended negatively for the Peruvian plaintiff was due to an insufficiently proven concrete danger, i.e. the effects in his specific individual case.
The appeal process has a signal effect for every major emitter of CO2: if they refuse measures against resulting impairments, this in principle results in liability, under certain circumstances even before damage occurs. An appeal to the Bundesgerichtshof was not permitted.
Two central arguments of RWE were explicitly rejected: the distance (here from NRW to Peru) is not decisive. And the reverse conclusion on which RWE wanted to rely does not apply: the decision does not establish liability for every car driver or gas heating owner, as their causative contributions are far too insignificant. Historically, RWE has emitted more than a third of a percent (one three-hundredth, 0.38%) of all CO2 emissions since the mid-19th century, which was undisputed after the taking of evidence.
We are eager to see what subsequent lawsuits this landmark decision will entail. The large emitters – which in our view include cement, steel and aluminium producers in addition to power generators – are in principle liable for the consequences of CO2 emissions – damaging natural resources for one's own economic advantage without having to answer for it is simply not a permissible business model.
As soon as the judgement is released in anonymised form, we will post it here in the comments.
Source: Press release of the OLG Hamm, 5 U 15/17, 28/05/2025, https://www.olg-hamm.nrw.de/behoerde/presse/Pressemitteilungen/14_26_PE_OLG_VT-Lliuya_RWE/index.php
