In a judgment, which is 10 years old, judges in the West German city of Ham have expelled 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 Laliyu’s property from a potential glacier flood was not sufficient. He refused an appeal.
But first in a legal, the court ruled Companies can be held labels for the effects of their emissions.
Speaking after the verdict, Lliuya’s Advocate Roda Verhane said that although the court did not recognize the risk for its customer’s house, the ruling was a “milestone” that would give a tailwind to climate cases against fossil fuel companies. ,
He said, “The decision we have heard means that every community and every person who is influenced by the climate is seen to take a responsibility, and it is a magnificent historical shifting of the dial that made the doy happy,” he told DW.
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
It has been a decade Sion Saul Luciano Lliuya The first case was filed against the German energy veteran, 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 amount of water in the lake above LLIUYA’s house has increased more than four times since 2003, leading experts warning of growing risk of floods, with potential direct respect for the 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.
The Peruian farmers, who told DW earlier this year, was “about catching the account who had damaged the account,” RWE was calling RWE to cover a supporter Rata of projected costs to protect his house from the growing lake water. This will be equal to about € 17,000 ($ 19,000).
RWE, who is not active in Peru, said that he has always complied with national legal rules and repeatedly questioned why it is single.
In a statement after the verdict, the energy veteran said Always search citizens “climate liability” were considered unfair under German law. “This will be an unexpected consequences for Germany as an industrial space, as the claims eventually claim for damage caused by climate change against any company anywhere in the world.”
However, LLIUYA’s lawyer said that his customer’s The problem that is not going away.
“Palkococha Glacier Lakes and all over the world the risk from glacial lakes is really still and everyone needs to do something about it, just people cannot live in danger areas,” Verhane Told DW.
Corporate responsibility for global emissions?
RWE is one of the largest pollutants in Europe, as an energy powerhouse with the history of large -scale coal to generate electricity. 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 not directly implemented in any more jurisdiction,” said Petra Minnerop, a professor of international law at Durham University in UK.
“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?
Since the RWE proceedings began, London-based Grand Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, a research, Fellow Noah Walker-Kroford, a research, said that there is an SPR in about 40 cases. They are challenging big companies on their responsibility for climate change in countries like Belgium, Indonesia and the United States.
“In the last decades, inadequate political progress on climate change, especially in terms of damage and damage, in terms of impacts of devastation, which are facing communities, and that’s why we are more and more forcibly that the communities are turning into courts, actually out of frustration,” they explained.
Sebastian Duke, senior advocate of the Center for International Environmental Law, said that Jajam shattered the “wall of impurities for major pollutants”.
He said that “This example provides a legal spark to accelerate climate justice. A company, in principle, that is recognized, the climate on the planet can be held accountable in court for half a path, will be presented in dozens of pending cases and wells influenced communities to seek justice.”
Edited by: Tamsin Walker
This article has been updated to include comments from the plaintiff’s lawyer and RWE.
Correction, May 29, 2025: Remember the name of the first version of this article Saul Luciano Laliyuya. DW waiver for error.
