Court hearing

The first evidentiary question will be central in the upcoming hearing: Is there a legally relevant risk that the plaintiff's property be damaged by flooding? In other words, it is about the flood risk at the Palcacocha glacial lake and the impact on Saúl's house. The basis for the assessment of the risk is the report prepared by a court appointed expert in summer of 2023 following the on-site visit in Huaraz, as well as several statements and reports from the parties and a supplementary report from the court appointed expert.

The hearing will take place in a large courtroom at Hamm Higher Regional Court. In addition to the judges hearing the case, the plaintiff Saúl Luciano Lliuya, his lawyers and the defendant, i.e. a representative of RWE, and his lawyers will be present. In addition, each party to the proceedings may bring its own experts.

After the judges have opened the hearing and introduced all those present, they will summarise the status of the proceedings to date. Then, the result of the expert report(s) will most likely be presented by the relevant court experts. Then the judges and the parties may ask questions. However, the judges are in charge of the discussion and may limit the questions to certain aspects of the expert report in order to ensure an efficient hearing. Finally, the judges close the hearing and set a date for their decision.

The court hearing is open to the public, so it is possible to attend. Press and media representatives can register via the Hamm Higher Regional Court. The general public does not need to register with the court. However, we expect a high number of people to attend, which could exceed the capacity of the courtroom, so that attendance cannot be guaranteed. For legal reasons, live streaming is not possible. We are working on a programme of events open to the public. More information will follow.

We are currently in the planning phase and will be able to tell you more in the coming weeks and months. Until then, you can show your support for Saúl and subscribe to our newsletter so you don't miss anything.

And be sure to keep March 17 and 19, 2025 free to support Saúl in Hamm!

What happens next in the proceedings depends on the outcome of the hearing.

If a significant flood risk is recognised by the court , the court can go into clarifying the second question of evidence, by appointing an expert. This expert must then comment on the questions of evidence already submitted: To what extent have climate change and the CO2 emissions released by RWE contributed to this flood risk and the threat of damage to the plaintiff's house? This would be a major breakthrough in the proceedings and an important step towards clarifying the question whether large emitters must take responsibility for damage and risks caused by their emissions in their global neighbourhood. It would be the first time in the world that the attribution of climate change impacts is being discussed in a court.

However, the court may also dismiss the case if it finds that the  risk of flooding and damage to Saúl's property is not sufficiently high. The ruling will then contain the court's full reasoning. The question would then arise as to whether it is possible and/or reasonable to take legal action against the ruling. For example, an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court could be considered (or an appeal against the non-admission of the appeal).

The exact timing of a decision is difficult to predict. The date of pronouncement of the decision should be within three weeks after the hearing unless there are special circumstances. In its decision the court would be expected to either decide the risk is legally relevant and proceed to take evidence on whether it can be attributed to the defendant or dismiss the overall claim.The decision to dismsis the claim would then be delivered later in written form. 

Saúl hopes that the court will recognise the flood risk posed by an imminent glacial lake outburst flood as legally relevant for his civil claim and enter into the second evidentiary question on attribution, so that responsibilities can be determined and the financial contribution for the urgently needed protected measures can be secured soon. 

Climate litigation cases such as the one brought by Saúl against RWE can increase the pressure on companies to transition away from fossil to sustainable and responsible business models. Otherwise, there is a legal risk of being sued on the one hand and a potential financial risk on the other. Investors could turn away or the company value could fall as a result of climate lawsuits and corresponding court rulings.