Forward-thinking setback
In a historic legal ruling, Saul Luciano Lliuya, a Peruvian mountain guide and small farmer from Huaraz, has seen his lawsuit against RWE, Europe's largest greenhouse gas emitter, reach an important milestone. The case, which centers on Lliuya's claim that RWE should contribute to the costs of protecting his home from potential flooding due to climate change, has now entered the evidence phase.
Lliuya originally filed the civil lawsuit in 2015, arguing that since RWE is a major contributor to climate change, the company shares responsibility for the consequences of its actions, including the increased risk of a glacial lake outburst threatening his property in Peru. The Higher Regional Court of Hamm in Germany admitted the lawsuit in 2017, marking a significant victory for Lliuya and his legal team.
Environmental law specialist Roda Verheyen, who represented Lliuya and was appointed by the non-governmental organization Germanwatch, said at the time that the ruling would have a worldwide impact. Verheyen's prediction has proven accurate, as the court's legal opinion has been referred to in five international rulings, most recently in New Zealand.
The court has now confirmed that an owner can defend themselves against disturbances and demand cessation, including protective measures or their payment by the disturber. However, the court also stated that the risk of Lliuya's house being destroyed by a potential glacier flood is only around one percent, making it insufficient to require RWE to participate in protective measures in proportion to its emissions. Lliuya remains disappointed by this aspect of the ruling.
Germanwatch, an environmental and development organization, sees Lliuya's case as a significant milestone in climate liability litigation. According to the organization, it is the only lawsuit worldwide on entrepreneurial liability for climate risks that has made it to the evidence phase, marking legal history.
While RWE considers itself the winner of the process, the court's reasoning suggests that the potential for similar lawsuits against major emitters remains. Judge Rolf Meyer stated that such lawsuits can occur in states with a functioning rule of law, an observation that Lliuya echoes, praising the German judicial system for its independence and its support of climate justice.
As the legal landscape around climate liability continues to evolve, Lliuya's case may prove to be a pivotal moment in recognizing the accountability of corporations for climate change impacts. Although the specific outcome of the case may be disappointing to some, the court's ruling provides a clear legal framework for similar cases, potentially opening the door for more climate liability lawsuits globally.
- In light of this case, the field of environmental science could witness a surge in studies investigating the consequences of industrial emissions on the environment and climate-change.
- The ruling could also foster financial market discussions addressing the roles and responsibilities of corporations in terms of energy consumption and climate-change impacts, with potential implications for investment decisions.
- This legal development in climate-change litigation might alter industry practices, as companies might be compelled to consider the long-term environmental and climate-change implications of their actions and implement more sustainable practices to minimize potential liability.
