Saul Luciano Lliuya, a Peruvian farmer, is suing RWE in a German court for climate change damages to fund flood defenses in Huaraz. He argues RWE’s fossil fuel emissions contribute to the risk. Initial legal proceedings faced delays, but hearings are now set to assess potential flooding risks and RWE’s responsibility. The outcome may redefine corporate liability in climate-related cases.
In Germany, Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya is engaged in a landmark legal battle against energy giant RWE, seeking compensation for climate change damage incurred in his hometown of Huaraz. The farmer asserts that RWE, as a significant emitter of carbon dioxide, should contribute 17,000 euros ($18,400) to flood defenses necessary due to the risk from a glacial lake that has been affected by climate change. He is demanding accountability for the flood risk which he claims is exacerbated by the fossil fuels burned to generate the company’s electricity.
Lliuya’s case has been progressing at a slow pace. He initially filed his lawsuit in 2015, which was dismissed by a court in Essen in 2016. However, in 2017, a higher court in Hamm allowed for an appeal. The hearings are now set to take place from Monday to Wednesday, after facing delays due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Lliuya expressed surprise at the prolonged nature of the legal process, indicating he had not expected such delays.
Central to the hearing will be whether Lliuya’s property is at significant risk of flooding, examined through evidence presented by court-appointed experts who evaluated the region in 2022. Only if this risk is substantiated will the court proceed to address RWE’s potential liability. Lliuya references a 2014 study attributing 0.47 percent of all global carbon emissions to RWE since the industrial era, arguing that the company should bear part of the estimated 3.5 million euros cost needed to mitigate the flooding risk.
Founded in 1898, RWE generates power from various sources including coal, gas, solar, and wind energy. Francesca Mascha Klein, a legal officer at Germanwatch, asserts that it is time for corporations like RWE to contribute fairly towards the damage costs they have partly caused. RWE, on the other hand, has warned that a ruling in Lliuya’s favor could create a legal precedent that may unjustly hold companies accountable for environmental impacts beyond their immediate operational areas.
The Essen court previously dismissed Lliuya’s case on the grounds of unattainable causation between emissions and damage. However, the Hamm hearings present an opportunity to examine these legal interpretations, amidst a broader context where there are currently 43 climate damage cases underway globally, as indicated by research from Zero Carbon Analytics. RWE’s legal representation, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, highlighted that while the financial implications of this case may seem minimal, the precedent it sets could have significant repercussions.
The ongoing court battle between Saul Luciano Lliuya and RWE highlights the complex legal and ethical responsibilities of corporations contributing to climate change. Lliuya seeks to hold RWE accountable for the environmental damage impacting his community. The results of the hearings in Hamm could significantly influence future legal frameworks concerning corporate responsibility in climate-related issues, marking potential shifts in how such cases are approached legally.
Original Source: www.rfi.fr
