New trouble for RWE: Farmers from Pakistan have sued the former coal company for damages before the Heidelberg Regional Court. They demand a partial compensation for flooded fields and destroyed crops from the year 2022, triggered by extremely heavy monsoon rains intensified by climate change. At that time, rainfall was three times higher than normal — 1,700 people died in the floods, 33 million became homeless, an area under water equaling two-thirds of Germany.
Also named as defendant is the cement company “Heidelberg Materials”. The farmers aim for around one million euros; the lawsuit is supported by the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR). Lukas Kemnitz, presiding judge at the regional court, confirmed to the receipt of the indictment: “We are now examining the indictment.”
RWE has already faced liability claims related to climate change. In 2015, a Peruvian farmer argued that a glacier lake threatened his village because glacial melt could trigger a flood wave. To prevent this, it was necessary to pump out the additional water. RWE should contribute half a percent to the costs, since the company was responsible for 0.5 percent of all global greenhouse gases. The nine-year-long case ultimately concerned only a few thousand euros.
Although the Higher Regional Court of Hamm rejected the claims of the Peruvian farmer in May of last year, the judges nevertheless ruled that large emitters can in principle be held liable for climate-related damage abroad. And that is exactly what the ECCHR human rights lawyers now invoke: the Civil Code and “a simple, but fundamental legal principle: Whoever causes damage must be held responsible.”
RWE Responds Vehemently
Perhaps for this reason the group reacted vehemently this week: “The lawsuit is another attempt to shift climate policy demands into German courtrooms,” RWE said, claiming it has operated its power plants at all times in accordance with the applicable law. It continued: “It would be an irreconcilable contradiction if the state allows CO2-emissions, regulates them in detail by law and even demands them in individual cases, but at the same time retroactively allows civil liability for them.”
In Munich, a separate lawsuit this week concerns not liability but speed: the city administration had repealed a 30 km/h limit on a section of the Mittlerer Ring. Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) is suing with several residents in a fast-track procedure before the Munich Administrative Court. 30 km/h is enshrined in the currently valid air-quality plan, “even a mayor must respect the law in Germany,” said DUH chief Jürgen Resch. As long as the city council does not amend the air-quality plan, 30 km/h may not be scrapped “by whim.”
The DUH relies on figures from the European Environment Agency (EEA), according to which Munich experiences more than 1,900 premature deaths each year due to too high fine particulate matter and NO2 burden. For years, the measuring station on Landshuter Allee has shown the highest or second-highest NO2-burden in Germany.
The federal government will be compelled to improve its climate policy.
Remo Klinger, DUH lawyer
Before the Federal Supreme Administrative Court stands a landmark decision for Germany next week: “On Thursday in Leipzig it is first about whether an association like Deutsche Umwelthilfe can actually scrutinize the climate protection program in court,” explains Remo Klinger, DUH lawyer.
The Traffic Light Coalition Failed to Deliver Immediate-Action Programs
In spring 2021, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the climate policy of the federal government violated the rights of future generations. After the ruling, Angela Merkel’s government (CDU) tightened the Climate Protection Act: In order to reach the target by 2030 — minus 65 percent greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990 — immediate climate protection programs were envisaged. They were supposed to kick in if there was no progress in a sector — buildings, transport, agriculture.
Despite failing to meet the target, the Traffic Light government did not present such an immediate program. In response, the Deutsche Umwelthilfe sued—and won before the Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Administrative Court.
If the Federal Administrative Court also determines that the DUH lawsuit was lawful, a second supreme court decision could have far-reaching consequences for the government of Friedrich Merz (CDU): The court would then rule whether and if so, how concretely the federal government must design climate protection measures to achieve the statutory climate targets.
The Higher Administrative Court had rejected the plans of the Traffic Light coalition as too unambitious, Black-Red might now be pushed toward more climate protection. DUH lawyer Klinger is certain: “The federal government will be compelled to revise its climate policy.”
Case number of the lawsuit against RWE: 8O310/25
