Ortstermine take courts out onto the street, into the world beyond the negotiating rooms. The view should give a better impression of the circumstances. In the case of Saúl Luciano Lliuya, the Hamm Higher Regional Court wants to take a closer look at Lake Palcacocha in the Andes. The fifth civil chamber embarks on a journey that trekking tourists in particular choose otherwise. Judges, lawyers and appraisers will board a plane to Peru. It takes almost 15 hours to Lima. The drive to Huaraz, home of the plaintiff, Luciano Lliuya, takes seven hours, and it is another two hours by off-road vehicle to the mountain lake.
The glaciers are melting and causing the water level to rise. Should the dam break, the mudslide could destroy parts of Huaraz and with it the house of the mountain guide Luciano Lliuya. He demands that the German energy company RWE participate in a small part of the protective measures. The amount in dispute is low at 20,000 euros, but the signal effect is huge.
It’s a case that probably didn’t exist before. Because RWE was never active in Peru. The fact that the court even allowed the lawsuit in 2017 surprised many lawyers. The chamber thus accepted the plaintiffs’ argument that the group, as Europe’s largest carbon dioxide emitter, has made a decisive contribution to climate change – and thus to the threatened destruction of Huaraz. Developing countries are following the process with interest. At the climate conference in Glasgow in November, the representative of an African country spoke of the Hamm Higher Regional Court as a matter of course. Hopefully there will be a decision by the next meeting in Egypt at the end of the year. Poor countries hope for a boost in the negotiations on compensation payments. So far, the industrialized countries have given money, but relatively little and only on a voluntary basis.
Karlsruhe derived a generation right
Courts now have a strong influence on climate policy. In the Netherlands, they forced the government to act tougher in 2019. In Germany, it has been the case at the latest since the Federal Constitutional Court ruled on April 29, 2021 climate activists. As a result, the climate protection law that the grand coalition passed in 2019 was not sufficient. From Article 20a of the Basic Law, which defines the protection of the foundations of life for future generations, the judges derived a generational right: If politics does not act now, it restricts the possibilities of young people and thus their basic rights.
The Berlin lawyer Remo Klinger, who represented the lawsuit among others, still speaks enthusiastically of the decision today. She was groundbreaking. Previously, similar proceedings before the European Court of Justice or the Berlin Administrative Court had failed: “That showed the Federal Constitutional Court: The other avenues have been exhausted – it depends on you,” says Klinger.
Help the state on the jumps
Klinger is convinced that courts have to give the state a helping hand when it comes to climate and environmental policy. In the past few years he fought, financed by the German environmental aid, especially for air purity. With the procedures that led to driving bans and speed limits, Deutsche Umwelthilfe, represented by its managing director Jürgen Resch, became the object of hatred for some motorists and some politicians. Klinger and Resch covered the whole country with complaints. You yourself say that you helped enforce the law.
.
#Environmental #lawsuits #German #courts #save #climate