In a judgment, which has been ten years to make, judges in the West German city of Hamm have excluded the Peru farmer’s case, seeking loss from the energy giant RWE for the risk of floods associated with glaciers.
Give your verdict in David vs. Golith caseJudges stated that the damage to Saul Luciano Lluya’s property from a glacier flood was not sufficient. He refused an appeal.
But first in a legal, the court ruled Companies may be a hero leable for the effects of their emissions.
Lluiya’s lawyer Roda Verhane said that although the court did not re -achieve the risk for its customer’s house, the decision was a “milestone” that would strengthen a tailwind for climate cases against fossil fuel companies. ,
“For the first time in history, a High Court in Europe has ruled that large emitters may be attributed to the results of their greenhouse gas emissions,” he said.
Environment NGO Germanwatch, who has supported the plaintiff during long legal proceedings, stated that “a big success” is marked.
Non -profitable said in a statement, “The court verdict, which at first glance seems like a necklace, is a real historical historical historical ruling, which can be invited by many places affected at many places around the world.”
“This is because many other countries have very similar legal requirements, such as UK, Netherlands, USA and Japan.”
A long road of litigation
This is almost a decade. Saul Luciano Laluiya filed a case against the German energy legend RWE for the first time, calling the company to pay its proper part to protect its home in Peru.
The city of LLIUYA Huaraz is located in the west of the country, in a valley below the Palkochocha mountain lake. Since the global temperature has increased due to greenhouse gas emissions, glaciers in the area are melting.
The water in the lake above Lluiya’s house is more than the faufold alone since 2003, leading experts warns of growing risk of floods, with potential serious consequences for this region. They say that if large snow blocks are used to break the glacier and fall into the lake, it can trigger meter-urchi floods in the lower level urban area.
LLIUYA is sueing RWE under a German neighborhood law, which works to protect the residents from disturbances arising out of their neighbors – for example, causes damage from a adjacent property from the roots of the tree. His initial trial was rejected by a court in Essen, West German city in 2015, where the energy is the company’s headquarters.
But in 2017, a High Court gave an appeal in the nearby city of Ham. In March this year, the judges of that court heard evidence on whether Laliyu’s house was in danger and whether RWE could be held responsible.
“I feel a great responsibility,” Lliuya said before this year’s hearing. For that, the case is about climate change and melting of glaciers and “catching those who have damaged the account.”
Peru farmers were calling RWE to cover the Rata percentage of the estimated costs to construct flood rescue to protect the village from increasing lake water. This will be equal to about € 17,000 ($ 19,000).
RWE, which is not active in Peru, states that it always complies with national legal rules and has repeatedly questioned why it is single.
In a statement to DW earlier this year, multinational said, “If such a claim under the German law, every car driver is labeled. We consider it legally inappropriate and misinterpret it from a socio-political perspective.”
Corporate responsibility for global emissions?
RWE is one of the largest pollutants in Europe, using coal to generate large -scale electricity as an energy powerhouse. A 2023 analysis found that the company is responsible for Under 0.4% of global emission – More than twice from Greece.
In the case of accepting the case in earlier hearing, experts saw the court to effectively recognize the transboundary effects of climate change – even if the damage is thousands of kilometers away.
“Some arguments made in the case are certainly transferable, even if it is not directly implemented in any jurisdiction,” said Petra Minnerop, a professor of international law at Durham University.
“And this is what we normally see in litigation that the ligants have tried to move arguments and therefore learn from the results of the court and then proved better evidence and adjusted legal arguments,” he said.
Can it still set an example?
Speaking before Wednesday’s decision. A research Fellow Noah Walker-Croford, a research from London-based Grand Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said the case set an important example, stating that “the worldwide result” is likely to be.
Since the onset of proceedings, Walker-Cofford says about 40 cases have challenged big companies for their responsibility for climate change in countries such as Belgium, Indonesia and the United States.
“In the last decades, inadequate political progress on climate change, especially in international level and period loss and damage, under the influence of destruction, which are facing communities, are facing communities around the world and that is why we are actually out of frustration,” walker-cristed.
However, other experts suspect that it may have an effect.
“This is something that provides orientation for other courts or something that is quite powerful and courageous and it can encourage to follow other courts. […]But if we are not allowed to guess how other jurisdictions would rule it, “Minerop said.
Edited by: Tamsin Walker
