Latest news with #Gericht
Washington Post
28-05-2025
- Business
- Washington Post
Court throws out Peruvian farmer's climate lawsuit against energy giant
A German court ruled Wednesday that one of the country's largest energy giants is not liable for alleged harm caused by climate change in Peru, throwing out a decade-long claim by a farmer who fears his mountainside home in the Andes could be destroyed by melted glacier ice. The court found that RWE, the utility firm, was not obliged to contribute to the costs of protecting Huaraz, a city of some 120,000 people in the foothills of the Andes, from the risk of catastrophic flooding made more likely by climate change. The case was brought by one of its residents, farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya. The judgment marks a blow for climate campaigners who had sought to use the German court system to establish a legal precedent for making energy firms liable for the costs of mitigating the impact of climate change globally. RWE, which has never operated in Peru, had argued that individual emitters could not be held responsible for 'universally rooted' processes like climate change. In a statement Wednesday, the energy firm welcomed the ruling, which found the risk of flooding to Luicano Lliuya's property was too low to merit damages. RWE said that if granted, the claim would have had 'unforeseeable consequences for Germany as an industrial location, because ultimately claims could be asserted against any German company for damage caused by climate change anywhere in the world.' In their case, Luciano Lliuya's attorneys cited an analysis that found RWE's mines and power stations were responsible for 0.47 percent of all emissions produced by people in the industrial era. As a result, they claimed that the energy firm was liable to pay around $20,000 toward the building of a protective drainage system for Huaraz, about 0.47 percent of its projected total cost. The city is at risk of catastrophic flooding from Laguna Palcacocha, a pool of melted glacier water that has swelled in recent decades as the nearby Palcaraju glacier melts. According to an attribution study published in the journal Nature Geoscience in 2021, the melting of the Nevado Palcaraju glacier would be virtually impossible in a world without climate change. At any moment, the lake could burst its banks and send a deluge of nearly 2 million cubic meters of water toward Huaraz below. About 50,000 people live on the banks of the Quilcay River, a high hazard zone where the flood could be strong enough to sweep away small brick and adobe homes. In 1941, a glacial lake outburst flood killed one-third of the city's population. The Palcacocha drainage project is intended to improve lake's existing flood defenses and protect thousands of Huaraz homes — including Luciano Lliuya's — from the risk of a repeat. In a statement Wednesday, Luicano Lliuya said that while he was disappointed by the ruling, he believes the judgment opened the door to holding polluters legally responsible for the harm they have caused. 'My case has shifted the global conversation about what justice means in an era of the climate crisis, and that makes me proud,' he said.
BreakingNews.ie
28-05-2025
- General
- BreakingNews.ie
German court rules against Peruvian farmer in landmark climate lawsuit
A German court has ruled against a Peruvian farmer in a landmark climate lawsuit where he claimed that global warming fuelled by energy company RWE's historical greenhouse gas emissions put his home at risk. Farmer and mountain guide Saul Luciano Lliuya said that glaciers above his hometown of Huaraz, Peru, are melting, increasing the risk of catastrophic flooding. Advertisement RWE, which has never operated in Peru, denies legal responsibility, arguing that climate change is a global issue caused by many contributors. The state court in Hamm, in western Germany, dismissed the lawsuit on Wednesday. The case has been going on for a decade. Mr Lliuya cannot appeal the ruling further. Experts said that the case had the potential to set a significant precedent in the fight to hold major polluters accountable for climate change. RWE argued that the lawsuit is legally inadmissible and that it sets a dangerous precedent by holding individual emitters accountable for global climate change. Advertisement It insists climate solutions should be addressed through state and international policies, not the courts. Judges and experts from Germany visited Peru in 2022.
Daily Mail
14-05-2025
- Daily Mail
House is set to be demolished by German authorities after four-year legal battle because it is 3ft too tall
A house in Germany is set to be demolished after local officials said its roof is 3ft too high, violating building regulations. Tenant Jens Riediger, a 57-year-old engineer, his partner and their four children have until spring next year to find a new home after the Bavarian administrative court in Munich made the demolition order final. The ruling has put an end to a lengthy four-year court battle between Riediger and local authorities, but the father-of-four claims that other houses in his village of Wolfratshausen, south of Munich, have taller roofs. 'Living space worth millions of euros is going to be destroyed. And this only because the roof is [3ft] too high, and because a garage was built instead of a carport [roofed shelter] and the ground was filled in,' Riediger, 57, told German outlet Bild. The dispute has been ongoing since 2021, after a court confirmed the demolition of the house. The house's developers suggested a plan to correct the property's regulatory defects, but the offer was rejected by the local court, which looked into the possibility of turning the house into a women's shelter. A spokesman for the Wolfratshausen district office defended the demolition decision, telling Bild that the house had serious defects. 'The significant deviations [from planning regulations] consisted of embankments, higher walls, roofs with different pitches and the construction of a garage instead of a carport,' they said. Riediger's house is one of three homes such under demolition orders in Upper Bavaria. It comes after a British woman was ordered to demolish her newbuild six-bedroom home by her local council after it was called 'unneighbourly and overbearing'. Neighbours complained the 'eyesore' property in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, blocks all the light from their garden and was not built in accordance with planning regulations. The dispute centres on a two-storey extension at the back of the house on Marlow Road which comes out further than what was approved in the original plans. Locals on Marlow Road have accused the homeowner of 'trying their luck' and said it appeared to be a case of 'build what you want now and ask for forgiveness later'. They suggested they may have got into 'competition' with an even bigger home that was recently approved by the council and built on the road. Documents on Buckinghamshire Council's website show that permission was last year granted for a six-bed home with three parking spaces to be built on the site. But subsequent plans for a similar sized home on the plot of land were refused by the local authority in March. Now the owners have been told they must demolish the new property or comply with the conditions of the approved plans. In an enforcement notice issued last month, Buckinghamshire Council said: 'By reason of its size, depth, height and design, the rear two storey projection results in a significant loss of light to the adjacent residential properties. '[It] appears as an unneighbourly and overbearing structure when viewed from both adjacent properties, significantly diminishing the outlook and general amenity previously enjoyed by their existing residents.
Telegraph
13-05-2025
- General
- Telegraph
German court orders demolition of house for being 36cm too high
German authorities have ordered the demolition of a Bavarian house because the roof is 36 centimetres too high. Jens Riediger, the house's tenant, says he was devastated after local officials claimed the roof and other irregularities were serious violations of building regulations. The Bavarian Administrative Court in Munich warned that its ruling is 'binding and final', ending a four-year court battle between the developers and local authorities. The house is one of three such cases under demolition orders in Upper Bavaria, despite the region suffering from a housing shortage, according to local media. Mr Riediger, a 57-year-old engineer, was bitterly disappointed by the decision. He told Germany's Bild newspaper: 'Living space worth millions of euros is going to be destroyed. And this only because the roof is 36cm too high, and because a garage was built instead of a Carport [roofed shelter] and the ground was filled in.' The Bavarian resident of Wolfratshausen, south of Munich, also claimed there are other houses in the village with taller roofs than his home. His family has got some time to find a new place to live, with the demolition crew not set to arrive until spring 2026. 'We'll have moved out by then. We now live in 180 square meters, it will not be easy to find a house like that for the same rent,' he told Bild. The row over the height of the building's roof has dragged on since 2021, when the developers offered to remedy the problem by removing the property's regulatory defects. The offer was reportedly rejected by the local court, which instead looked into the possibility of turning the building into a women's shelter, an idea that was also abandoned. A spokesman for Wolfratshausen's district office defended the decision in a statement to Bild, arguing that the house had many serious defects. 'The significant deviations [from planning regulations] consisted of embankments, higher walls, roofs with different pitches and the construction of a garage instead of a Carport,' they said. It is not the first time that a German house has fallen foul of planning rules that some might view as draconian. In 2014, a German pensioner was ordered to tear down her home because it had been built in 1939 without planning permission, due to the chaos of the Second World War breaking out. The pensioner resisted the ruling and launched a long court battle, which ended in victory after local officials backed down on the demolition order.
