Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Law, regulation and treaties · Peru · 2025

Lliuya v RWE

Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured.
Not on record
  • The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
What the record lacks: 1 none on record · 4 insufficient · 1 not measured · 4 disputed · 1 unclear See the gaps

A Peruvian farmer sued the German energy company RWE for €17,000, a sum corresponding to RWE's share of about 0.47% of global emissions, because a glacial lake above his home could overflow. In May 2025 the court in Hamm accepted such liability in principle and dismissed the claim.

€17,000 / noneAmount claimed from RWE vs amount awarded
Claim dismissed at Hamm on 28 May 2025; liability accepted in principle.

Status As of 11 October 2026: the Hamm court accepted liability of large emitters in principle and dismissed the claim on 28 May 2025; no later step is recorded.

What?
A Peruvian farmer sued RWE in Germany for a share of the risk of a glacial-lake flood; the court accepted liability in principle and dismissed the claim. European Law Institute (ELI)
Where?
Huaraz, Peru (Palcacocha glacial lake); court in Hamm, Germany.
When?
Ruling on 28 May 2025; filing date not stated in the record. European Law Institute (ELI)
Who?
Gained
  • RWE — The claim was dismissed on 28 May 2025; no payment to the claimant. European Law Institute (ELI)
  • RWE — Lignite early-closure compensation of €2.6 billion, approved by the European Commission on 13 December 2023. Enerdata
  • RWE — €216 million of €317 million in hard-coal closure premiums, 1 December 2020. Börse Online / dpa-AFX
Lost
Harmed
None on record
Why?
The claim was set as RWE's share of global emissions (about 0.47%); the court dismissed it because the probability of the lake overflowing was not found high enough. European Law Institute (ELI)
How?
Civil claim in a German court; the court accepted proportional liability of large emitters in principle but not on the facts. European Law Institute (ELI)
6 of 6 questions answered from the record

What happened

The record, in order.

Saúl Luciano Lliuya, a farmer and mountain guide from Huaraz in Peru, brought a civil case against the German energy company RWE in Germany. According to the record, his house lies below Palcacocha, a glacial lake that is reported to have overflowed in 1941. He asked for €17,000, a sum corresponding to RWE's share of about 0.47% of global emissions.

On 28 May 2025 the court in Hamm accepted in principle that large emitters can be liable in proportion to their share of emissions. It nevertheless dismissed the claim because it did not find the probability of the lake overflowing high enough. A European Law Institute (ELI) commentary of 18 June 2025 carried the title "No liability yet". The probability the court used is reported as slightly above 1% over 30 years, a figure the research record flags as unverified.

The costs of Lliuya's case were met by a German foundation that works on donations. No payment was made to the claimant.

RWE appears in the same record as a recipient of public money for leaving coal. Germany decided to pay RWE €2.6 billion and LEAG €1.75 billion in early-closure compensation for lignite; the European Commission approved the payment to RWE on 13 December 2023. In Germany's hard-coal closure auction of 1 December 2020, eleven plants received premiums totalling €317 million, of which €216 million went to RWE. RWE also filed an investment-treaty claim of €1.4 billion against the Netherlands over its coal-power ban and withdrew it in autumn 2023 after a German court ruling.

As of 11 October 2026 the research record shows no later step in the Lliuya case after the May 2025 ruling.

  1. 2015RWE opens the Eemshaven plant in the Netherlands
  2. 2019The Netherlands bans coal-fired electricity from 2030; a Bundestag research service writes that the German state is not legally obliged to pay lignite-exit compensation
  3. 20201 Dec: German hard-coal closure auction; eleven plants receive €317 million in total, €216 million to RWE
  4. 2021RWE files an investment-treaty claim of €1.4 billion against the Netherlands over the Eemshaven plant
  5. 202311 Jan: RWE announces five villages and three farmsteads will remain and Lützerath will be demolished. 27 Jul: German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) rules the arbitration clause of the Energy Charter Treaty invalid within the EU; RWE withdraws its claim in autumn. 13 Dec: European Commission approves the lignite-exit compensation to RWE
  6. 202528 May: court in Hamm accepts liability of large emitters in principle and dismisses Lliuya's claim

What was said

Claims, in the words of those who made them.

Where accounts differ

Each party's account, side by side, with its source. The record does not settle these points; it shows them.

Can an emitter be held liable for a share of the risk of a glacial-lake flood, and was the risk high enough?
Courts
Court in Hamm, Germany

Accepted in principle the liability of large emitters in proportion to their emissions share; dismissed the claim because it did not find the probability of the lake overflowing sufficiently high.

European Law Institute (ELI)
Communities and civil society
Saúl Luciano Lliuya, claimant

Sought €17,000, a sum corresponding to RWE's share of about 0.47% of global emissions.

European Law Institute (ELI)
Researchers
European Law Institute (ELI)

Titled its 18 June 2025 commentary "No liability yet".

European Law Institute (ELI)
Was Germany obliged to pay RWE for the coal exit?
Government and regulators
German state

Decided to pay RWE €2.6 billion and LEAG €1.75 billion in early-closure compensation for lignite, under a contract with Germany.

Enerdata
International bodies
European Commission

Approved the payment to RWE on 13 December 2023.

Enerdata
Government and regulators
Bundestag research service

Wrote in 2019 that the state was not legally obliged to pay this compensation.

Did the Dutch coal-power ban entitle RWE to compensation?
Company or project
RWE

Filed a €1.4 billion investment-treaty claim in 2021 over the Eemshaven plant; withdrew it in autumn 2023.

Courts
Hague District Court

Found the Dutch coal law lawful and held that no compensation was required.

Courts
German Federal Court of Justice (BGH)

Ruled on 27 July 2023 that the Energy Charter Treaty arbitration clause is invalid within the EU.

How it looked

What was shown, beside what was recorded.

Shown

  • RWE announced that five villages and three farmsteads would remain and that the former settlement of Lützerath would be demolished; the record notes the energy crisis as the stated reason for the demolition.
    RWE press release, 11 January 2023 · RWE

Recorded

  • The court in Hamm accepted in principle that large emitters can be liable in proportion to their emissions share, and dismissed the claim because it did not find the probability of the lake overflowing sufficiently high.
    European Law Institute (ELI)
  • The claim was €17,000, corresponding to RWE's share of about 0.47% of global emissions.
    European Law Institute (ELI)
  • The record states that no one paid in the case: the claim was dismissed and only the principle was accepted.
  • In the hard-coal closure auction of 1 December 2020, eleven plants received €317 million in total, of which RWE received €216 million.
    Börse Online / dpa-AFX
  • The European Commission approved the German early-closure compensation for RWE's lignite exit (€2.6 billion) on 13 December 2023.
    Enerdata
  • The Bundestag research service wrote in 2019 that the state was not legally obliged to pay this compensation.
  • RWE paid no penalty in these matters and received compensation for the coal exit, according to the research record.
  • The Hague District Court found the Dutch coal law lawful and held that no compensation was required.

Who gained

Money that reached nature, beside money that stayed elsewhere.

Reached nature or the ground

€0m
No payment was made in the Lliuya case.
Awarded to the claimant (claim of €17,000 dismissed)€0m

Gained elsewhere

Not totalled
Lignite early-closure compensation to RWE, approved by the European Commission€2.6bn
Recorded as payable over 15 years. The research record's case table gives €4.35 billion for RWE and LEAG together.
Hard-coal closure premiums to RWE (1 December 2020 auction)€216m
Part of €317 million paid to eleven plants.
Reached the ground
€0m
Currency: EUR · Window: 2020–2025. All figures cover the same period. * Estimate built from cited figures.

Responses on record

  • RWE (2023-01-11): Announced that five villages and three farmsteads would remain and that the former settlement of Lützerath would be demolished. · RWE
  • RWE (2023): Withdrew its €1.4 billion investment-treaty claim against the Netherlands in autumn 2023 after the German Federal Court of Justice ruling of 27 July 2023.

In court and with insurers

Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

Lawsuits and rulings

  1. 2025-05-28Defendant won€17bn Amount claimed
    Lliuya v RWE
    Court in Hamm · Civil · Saúl Luciano Lliuya (Peruvian farmer and mountain guide) → RWE

    The court accepted in principle that large emitters can be liable in proportion to their share of emissions and dismissed the claim because it did not find the probability of the glacial lake overflowing high enough. The share used was about 0.47% of global emissions. European Law Institute (ELI)

  2. 2021–2023Outcome not on record€1400000bn Amount claimed
    RWE v Netherlands (Eemshaven coal plant)
    ICSID · Arbitration · RWE → Netherlands

    RWE filed in 2021 after the Netherlands banned coal-fired electricity from 2030. After the German Federal Court of Justice ruled on 27 July 2023 that the arbitration clause of the Energy Charter Treaty is invalid within the EU, RWE withdrew the claim in autumn 2023. The Hague District Court found the coal law lawful and held that no compensation was required.

Insurers

No insurer decision on record.

What nature saw

Outcomes measured on the ground, and nature's note.

Nature's report opens this page. Below: further outcomes measured on the ground.

Amount claimed
€17,000
A sum corresponding to RWE's share of about 0.47% of global emissions
Amount awarded
None
Claim dismissed on 28 May 2025; liability accepted in principle
Flood probability
Below threshold
The court did not find the probability of the lake overflowing high enough
Glacial lake risk
Continues
The research record states that the risk persists

What we don't know

Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.
Court ruling exists

Nature

  • Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.

Court

  • Unclear RWE v Netherlands (Eemshaven coal plant): outcome not on record.

Figures

  • Insufficient Flood probability 30yr: Reported probability of overflow over 30 years; not independently verified.

Accounts

  • Disputed Can an emitter be held liable for a share of the risk of a glacial-lake flood, and was the risk high enough?
  • Disputed Was Germany obliged to pay RWE for the coal exit?
  • Disputed Did the Dutch coal-power ban entitle RWE to compensation?

Record

  • Insufficient The probability figure used by the court (slightly above 1% over 30 years) is reported but not independently verified.
  • Insufficient The number of deaths in the 1941 overflow and the volume of the lake are reported but not independently verified.
  • Insufficient The donors behind the foundation that met the costs of the case are reported but not independently verified.
  • None on record No flood is recorded: the case concerned the risk of an overflow, not a flood that had occurred.
  • Disputed Sources conflict on the formal status of RWE's investment-treaty file: one records a withdrawal in autumn 2023, while the sources reviewed list its official status among open items.

Did the harm stop?

No overflow is recorded. The glacial-lake risk continues, and the claim was dismissed with no payment.

Who paid?

No payment was made to the claimant. In the opposite direction, German public funds were approved for RWE's lignite exit (€2.6 billion, Commission approval 13 December 2023) and hard-coal closure (€216 million of €317 million, 1 December 2020).

Sources

Voices on record: ✓ Company or project— Government and regulators— Courts✓ Press and investigations— Communities and civil society✓ Researchers

Company or project

Press and investigations

Researchers

Connected cases

Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.
Terms used on this page

Insurance

Premium
The price paid for an insurance policy.

Law and courts

Arbitration
A private dispute process in which an appointed arbitrator, instead of a court, decides the case.
Similar cases
Law, regulation and treaties · Protected area / relocation · Peru · 2024–2025
Peru Ley 31973 forest clearing amnesty and Constitutional Court
Same type: Law, regulation and treatiesSame countryCourt: outcome not on record
Law, regulation and treaties · Colombia · 2013
Council of State lets 60 informal neighbourhoods stay in Bogotá reserve buffer
Same type: Law, regulation and treatiesSame regionCourt: outcome not on record
Law, regulation and treaties · Brazil · 2023
Brazil Senate passes amendment limiting Indigenous land claims to 1988 occupants
Same type: Law, regulation and treatiesSame regionCourt: lost by claimant
Law, regulation and treaties · Peru · 1960–2018
Vicuna fell to about 5,000 by 1960 and reached about 200,000 in Peru
Same type: Law, regulation and treatiesSame countryHarm to nature not measured
Law, regulation and treaties · Protected area / relocation · United States · 2025–2026
US Endangered Species Act rollbacks 2025–2026 (God Squad Gulf exemption, critical habitat rules)
Same type: Law, regulation and treatiesCourt: outcome not on recordHarm to nature not measured
Law, regulation and treaties · Water use · Spain · 2022–2026
Mar Menor legal personhood (Spain)
Same type: Law, regulation and treatiesCourt: lost by claimantHarm to nature not measured