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 to take measures against resulting impairments, this in principle results in liability, under certain circumstances even before damage occurs. A revision to the Bundesgerichtshof was not permitted.
Two central arguments put forward by RWE were explicitly rejected: the distance (in this case from NRW to Peru) is not decisive. And the reverse conclusion on which RWE sought 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. RWE has historically emitted more than a third of a percent (one three-hundredth, 0.38%) of all CO2 emissions since the mid-19th century, as was undisputed after the taking of evidence.
We are keen to see what subsequent lawsuits this landmark decision will entail. The major emitters - which in our view include cement, steel and aluminium producers alongside power generators - are in principle liable for the consequences of CO2 emissions - indeed, damaging natural resources for one's own economic advantage without having to answer for it is not a permissible business model.
Sources:
https://nrwe.justiz.nrw.de/olgs/hamm/j2025/5_U_15_17_Urteil_20250528.html
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
https://www.lto.de/recht/nachrichten/n/olg-hamm-5u1517-klimaklage-peruanischer-bauer-gegen-rwe-abgewiesen
