Latest news with #Germanwatch
Canada Standard
3 days ago
- Business
- Canada Standard
BREAKING: Landmark German Court Ruling Could Bring Corporate Climate Liability to Canada
A landmark court ruling against a German utility could open the door to corporate liability for climate pollution in Canada, a leading environmental lawyer says. In Hamm, Germany earlier today, the Higher Regional Court ruled that major emitters can be held liable for the consequences of climate change, even though it threw out the specific civil case by Peruvian mountain guide Sal Luciano Lliuya against energy giant RWE. "Today the mountains have won," Luciano Lliuya declared. "Even if my case doesn't go any further, it has reached an important milestone, and that makes me proud. This ruling shows that the big polluters driving the climate [emergency] can finally be held legally responsible for the harm they have caused." While the judges concluded that the flood risk to Luciano Lliuya's home below a melting glacier was not sufficient to warrant compensation, "it confirmed for the first time that major emitters can be held liable under German civil law for risks resulting from climate change," Germanwatch wrote. "This sets a legal precedent with far-reaching implications, potentially influencing similar cases in countries like Switzerland and Belgium, and applicable in other jurisdictions such as the UK, the Netherlands, the USA, or Japan." Or in Canada, said Ecojustice Climate Director Charlie Hatt. "There is every chance this principle will eventually become a precedent in Canadian courts, as well," Hatt said in a release. "Investors and fossil execs take note-it is only a matter of time before the bill for climate harms will come due." Already, "as governments and large corporations fail to control their climate pollution, claimants are increasingly finding success holding them accountable in the courts, including examples like the youth-led Mathur case here in Canada," he added. "The principle is simple: it is wrong to produce and burn fossil fuels in excess of the limits defined by climate science because it harms people, and anyone harmed may get a legal remedy against the wrongdoers." International legal experts heaped praise on what Jasper Tuelings, strategic advisor at the Climate Litigation Network, declared a "historic judgement". "The Peruvian mountain guide has paved the way for a new era of holding fossil fuel companies accountable," said Sebastien Duyck, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law. "For too long, these heavy emitters have been able to harm our environment with no regard to the consequences," but "that time is over," Ducyk said. "Sal's breakthrough opens up a well of opportunities for the more than 40 similar cases ongoing. It makes it more likely that those living at the sharp edge of climate change, such as Saul and his community, can succeed in holding heavy emitters to account for the damage they cause." Source: The Energy Mix
DW
3 days ago
- Business
- DW
German court rejects climate case against energy giant RWE – DW – 05/28/2025
Judges have dismissed a climate case brought by a Peruvian farmer against RWE seeking damages from the German utility for endangering his home due to melting glaciers. In a decision that has been ten years in the making, judges in the western German city of Hamm have thrown out the case of a Peruvian farmer seeking damages from energy giant RWE for the risk of flooding connected to melting glaciers. Delivering its verdict in the David versus Goliath case, judges said the damage to Saul Luciano Lluiya's property from a potential glacier flood was not high enough. They ruled out an appeal. But in a legal first, the court did rule that companies can be held liable for the impacts of their emissions. Lluiya's lawyer Roda Verheyen said that although the court had not recognised the risk to her client's home, the verdict was a "milestone" that would "give a tailwind to climate lawsuits against fossil fuel companies." "For the first time in history, a high court in Europe has ruled that large emitters can be held responsible for the consequences of their greenhouse gas emissions," she added. The environmental NGO Germanwatch, which has supported the plaintiff throughout the long legal proceedings, said the ruling marked "a great success." "The court's decision, which at first glance sounds like a defeat due to the dismissal of the case, is actually a historic landmark ruling that can be invoked by those affected in many places around the world," the nonprofit said in a statement. "This is because there are very similar legal requirements in numerous other countries, such as the UK, the Netherlands, the USA and Japan." A long road of litigation It is almost a decade since Saul Luciano Lluiya first filed a lawsuit against German energy giant RWE, calling on the company to pay its fair share to protect his home in Peru. Lliuya's town of Huaraz is located in the west of the country, in a valley below the Palcacocha mountain lake. As greenhouse gas emissions have caused global temperatures to rise, glaciers in the region have been melting. Water in the lake above Lluiya's home has increased more than fourfold since 2003 alone, leading experts to warn of an increased risk of flooding, with potentially dire consequences for the region. They say if large blocks of ice were to break off the glacier and fall into the lake, it could trigger meter-high flooding in lower-lying urban areas. As the air temperatures increase due to the burning of fossil fuels, the lake near Lliuya's home fills with water from a melting glacier, increasing the risk of overflowing and causing flooding Image: Alexander Luna/Germanwatch e.V. Lliuya has been suing RWE under a German neighborhood law, which works to protect residents from disturbances resulting from the actions of their neighbors — for example, from tree roots causing damage from an adjacent property. His initial lawsuit was rejected in 2015 by a court in Essen, the western German city where the energy company is headquartered. But in 2017, a higher court in the nearby city of Hamm granted an appeal. In March this year, judges at that court heard evidence over whether Lliuya's house was really in jeopardy and whether RWE can be held responsible. "I feel a great responsibility," Lliuya said ahead of this year's hearings. For him, the case is about fighting climate change and the melting of glaciers and "holding those who have caused the damage to account." The Peruvian farmer was calling on RWE to cover a pro rata percentage of the estimated costs to build flood defenses to protect the village from the rising lake water. This would equate to around €17,000 ($19,000). RWE, which is not active in Peru, says it has always complied with national legal regulations and has repeatedly questioned why it has been singled out. In a statement to DW earlier this year, the multinational said "if there were such a claim under German law, every car driver could also be held liable. We consider this to be legally inadmissible and the wrong approach from a socio-political point of view." Corporate responsibility for global emissions? As an energy powerhouse with a history of largely using coal to generate electricity, RWE is one of Europe's biggest polluters. A 2023 analysis found the company to be responsible for just under 0.4% of global emissions — more than twice that of Greece. In ruling the case as admissible in an earlier hearing, experts saw the court as effectively recognizing the transboundary effects of climate change — even if the damage occurs thousands of kilometers away. "Some of the arguments made in the case are of course transferable, even if not directly applicable in any other jurisdiction," said Petra Minnerop, a professor of international law at Durham University. "And this is what we see in litigation generally that litigants have tried to transfer the arguments and also learn from the court outcomes and then provided improved evidence and the adjusted legal argument," she added. Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya took German energy giant, RWE, to court over rising temperatures that are increasing the risk of flooding from the glacier lake near his home Image: Alexander Luna/Germanwatch e.V. Could it still set a precedent? Speaking ahead of Wednesday's decision. Noah Walker-Crawford, a research fellow at the London-based Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said the case set an important precedent, adding that there were likely to be "repercussions around the world." Since the proceedings began, Walker-Crawford says around 40 cases have sprung up challenging big companies over their responsibility for climate change in countries such as Belgium, Indonesia and the United States. "There has been insufficient political progress on climate change over the past decades, especially at an international level and especially in terms of loss and damage, in terms of the devastating impacts that communities are facing around the world and that's why we're seeing more and more that communities are turning to the courts, really out of desperation," Walker-Crawford explained. Sébastien Duyck, senior attorney with the Center for Environmental Law (CEIL) said the judgement shatters the "wall of impunity for major polluters." He added that "this precedent provides a legal spark to accelerate the pursuit of climate justice. The recognition that a company can, in principle, be held accountable in court for climate harms halfway across the planet will buttress the arguments presented in dozens of pending cases as well as embolden impacted communities to seek justice through the courts." Edited by: Tamsin Walker
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
German court rejects Peruvian farmer's landmark climate case
A court in Germany has rejected a lawsuit brought by a Peruvian farmer against German energy giant RWE in a long-awaited decision. Saúl Luciano Lliuya had argued that the firm's global emissions contributed to the melting of glaciers in Peru - threatening his hometown of Huaraz with flooding. He was seeking €17,000 (£14,250) in compensation - money he said he would use to pay for a flood defence project to protect the city. However, the higher regional court in the German city of Hamm on Wednesday blocked the case from proceeding further and ruled out any appeals, putting an end to Mr Lliuya's 10-year legal battle. RWE said it was not active in Peru and questioned why it was singled out. It also pointed to its plans to phase out its coal-fired power plants and become carbon neutral by 2040. In their ruling on Wednesday, judges deemed that the flood risk to the property of Mr Lliuya was not high enough for the case to proceed. However, in what climate change groups have hailed as a win, they did say that energy companies could be held responsible for the costs caused by their carbon emissions. World's glaciers melting faster than ever recorded A simple guide to climate change Venezuela may be first nation to lose all its glaciers While the sum demanded by Mr Lliuya was very low, the case has become a cause celebre for climate change activists, who hope that it will set a precedent for holding powerful firms to account. The 44-year-old mountain guide and farmer said he had brought the case because he had seen first-hand how rising temperatures were causing glaciers near Huaraz to melt. He said that as a result, Lake Palcacocha - which is located above the city - now has four times as much water than in 2003 and that residents like him were at risk of flooding, especially if blocks of ice were to break off from Palcacocha glacier and fall into the lake, causing it to overflow. He alleged that emissions caused by RWE were contributing to the increase in temperature in Peru's mountain region and demanded that the German firm pay towards building a flood defence. Mr Lliuya also said that he chose the company because a 2013 database tracking historic emissions from major fossil fuel producers listed the German energy giant as one of the biggest polluters in Europe. Mr Lliuya's original case was rejected by a lower court in Germany in 2015, with judges arguing that a single firm could not be held responsible for climate change. But in a surprise twist, Mr Lliuya in 2017 won his appeal with judges at the higher regional court, which accepted there was merit to his case and allowed it to proceed. His lawyers previously argued that RWE was responsible for 0.5% of global CO2 emissions and demanded that the energy firm pay damages amounting to a proportional share of the cost of building a $3.5m-flood defence for Huaraz. Germanwatch, an environmental NGO which backed Mr Lliuya's case, celebrated the court's ruling saying it had "made legal history". "Although the court dismissed the specific claim - finding flood risk to Luciano Lliuya's home was not sufficiently high - it confirmed for the first time that major emitters can be held liable under German civil law for risks resulting from climate change," it said in a statement. The group said it was hopeful that the decision could positively influence similar cases in other countries. Montana top court upholds landmark youth climate ruling Shell wins landmark climate case against green groups in Dutch appeal
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
German court rejects Peruvian farmer's landmark climate case
A court in Germany has rejected a lawsuit brought by a Peruvian farmer against German energy giant RWE in a long-awaited decision. Saúl Luciano Lliuya had argued that the firm's global emissions contributed to the melting of glaciers in Peru - threatening his hometown of Huaraz with flooding. He was seeking €17,000 (£14,250) in compensation - money he said he would use to pay for a flood defence project to protect the city. However, the higher regional court in the German city of Hamm on Wednesday blocked the case from proceeding further and ruled out any appeals, putting an end to Mr Lliuya's 10-year legal battle. RWE said it was not active in Peru and questioned why it was singled out. It also pointed to its plans to phase out its coal-fired power plants and become carbon neutral by 2040. In their ruling on Wednesday, judges deemed that the flood risk to the property of Mr Lliuya was not high enough for the case to proceed. However, in what climate change groups have hailed as a win, they did say that energy companies could be held responsible for the costs caused by their carbon emissions. World's glaciers melting faster than ever recorded A simple guide to climate change Venezuela may be first nation to lose all its glaciers While the sum demanded by Mr Lliuya was very low, the case has become a cause celebre for climate change activists, who hope that it will set a precedent for holding powerful firms to account. The 44-year-old mountain guide and farmer said he had brought the case because he had seen first-hand how rising temperatures were causing glaciers near Huaraz to melt. He said that as a result, Lake Palcacocha - which is located above the city - now has four times as much water than in 2003 and that residents like him were at risk of flooding, especially if blocks of ice were to break off from Palcacocha glacier and fall into the lake, causing it to overflow. He alleged that emissions caused by RWE were contributing to the increase in temperature in Peru's mountain region and demanded that the German firm pay towards building a flood defence. Mr Lliuya also said that he chose the company because a 2013 database tracking historic emissions from major fossil fuel producers listed the German energy giant as one of the biggest polluters in Europe. Mr Lliuya's original case was rejected by a lower court in Germany in 2015, with judges arguing that a single firm could not be held responsible for climate change. But in a surprise twist, Mr Lliuya in 2017 won his appeal with judges at the higher regional court, which accepted there was merit to his case and allowed it to proceed. His lawyers previously argued that RWE was responsible for 0.5% of global CO2 emissions and demanded that the energy firm pay damages amounting to a proportional share of the cost of building a $3.5m-flood defence for Huaraz. Germanwatch, an environmental NGO which backed Mr Lliuya's case, celebrated the court's ruling saying it had "made legal history". "Although the court dismissed the specific claim - finding flood risk to Luciano Lliuya's home was not sufficiently high - it confirmed for the first time that major emitters can be held liable under German civil law for risks resulting from climate change," it said in a statement. The group said it was hopeful that the decision could positively influence similar cases in other countries. Montana top court upholds landmark youth climate ruling Shell wins landmark climate case against green groups in Dutch appeal
Euronews
3 days ago
- Business
- Euronews
German court dismisses RWE climate case but opens door to others
A court in the German city of Hamm has dismissed a high-profile lawsuit brought by Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya against energy giant RWE, ending a ten-year legal battle that sought to link one of Europe's biggest emitters to climate change unfolding in the Andes. Lliuya, a farmer and mountain guide from Huaraz, argued that RWE's historic carbon emissions had contributed to the melting of nearby glaciers, raising the risk of deadly flooding from the swollen Lake Palcacocha above his home. He sought partial damages in line with the company's share of global emissions, estimated at nearly 0.5 per cent since the industrial era by the Carbon Majors database. The court ultimately ruled that the risk to Lliuya's property was not sufficiently imminent to justify damages and dismissed his case without the possibility of appeal. But experts say the ruling from the Higher Court established that communities that can demonstrate a concrete threat of harm induced by climate change can seek compensation from fossil fuel majors under German civil law. Despite the outcome, Lliuya called the ruling a step forward for climate accountability. 'Today the mountains have won,' he said in a statement. 'This ruling shows that the big polluters driving the climate can finally be held legally responsible for the harm they have caused… This case was never just about me. It was about all the people who, like us in Huaraz, are already living with the consequences of a crisis we did not create. This ruling opens the door for others to demand justice.' The judges said they couldn't award damages in this specific case because the flood risk to Lliuya's home wasn't high enough. But they also made several important points that could help future lawsuits in countries with similar legal requirements, such as Japan and the US. They confirmed that big polluters like RWE can, in principle, be held responsible for their role in climate change, even if their emissions are a relatively small share of the global total. They also pushed back on a common defence used by fossil fuel companies that only governments can deal with climate change. 26/⚡️⚖️🎉What a stunning victory for climate justice: the Higher Court has established that communities that can demonstrated a concrete threat of harm induced by climate change can seek compensation from fossil fuels major under the regime of civil liability. The case was among the first to try to hold a single fossil fuel company financially responsible for specific climate damages. Although it was ultimately dismissed, the implications of this ruling are already rippling outward. Germanwatch, the NGO that backed Lliuya's case from the start, called the decision 'ground-breaking' and noted that more than 40 similar lawsuits are ongoing worldwide. 'The court's decision … is actually a historic landmark ruling that can be invoked by those affected in many places around the world,' the NGO said in a statement.
