Court Dismisses Conflict of Interest Claim in Climate Lawsuit Against RWE

The Oberlandesgericht (OLG) Hamm has ruled that a conflict of interest claim brought by a Peruvian farmer against a court-appointed expert in a climate lawsuit against the German energy company RWE is unfounded. This decision comes ahead of the scheduled announcement of the court's ruling on May 28.

The farmer, Saúl Lliuya, has been engaged in a civil lawsuit since 2015, seeking to hold RWE financially responsible for protective measures against potential flooding from the Palcacocha glacier lake, which he fears could be exacerbated by climate change. Lliuya argues that RWE's significant greenhouse gas emissions contribute to the risks posed by global warming.

In its decision made public on May 15, the court explained that the conflict of interest claim was filed outside the prescribed deadline and that the reasons for the claim had already been known to the plaintiff before the oral hearings held in mid-March. Furthermore, the court stated that the circumstances cited by the plaintiff did not substantiate any claims of bias against the expert.

The plaintiff's argument centered on the fact that RWE Nuclear, a subsidiary of RWE, had previously engaged the expert's engineering firm for projects related to the decommissioning of a nuclear power plant. However, the court clarified that the expert involved in the current case had no connection to those prior contracts.

Additionally, the OLG dismissed concerns about the expert's neutrality based on the language used during the presentation of the expert's findings in court. Lliuya is supported by the foundation Zukunftsfähigkeit and the environmental organization Germanwatch, as he contends that RWE bears a share of the responsibility for the environmental risks facing his home in Huaraz.

During the March hearings, two experts provided their evaluations, asserting that no significant risk of flooding or mudslides affecting Lliuya's property is anticipated within the next 30 years. The original announcement of the court's decision had been set for April 14 but was postponed due to the conflict of interest claim.