German Court Dismisses Peruvian Farmer’s Climate Lawsuit but Sets Historic Legal Precedent on Corporate Emissions

In a closely watched climate justice case, a German court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Peruvian farmer and mountain guide Saúl Luciano Lliuya against energy giant RWE, ending a decade-long legal battle that tested whether corporations can be held liable for their global carbon emissions.

The Higher Regional Court in Hamm ruled Wednesday that the flood risk to Lliuya’s property in the Andean city of Huaraz was not high enough to warrant further legal proceedings. The court also barred any future appeals, effectively closing the case. However, while the farmer's personal claim was denied, the court affirmed a groundbreaking legal principle: large emitters can, in principle, be held responsible for climate-related damages under German civil law.

Lliuya had sought €17,000 (£14,250) in damages from RWE, arguing that the company’s historic carbon emissions contributed to glacial melting near his hometown, significantly increasing the risk of catastrophic flooding from the nearby Lake Palcacocha. He claimed the funds would help finance a local flood protection system to safeguard Huaraz.

Though modest in monetary terms, the case became a symbolic milestone in global climate litigation. Backed by the German environmental group Germanwatch, Lliuya’s legal team pointed to a 2013 study identifying RWE as one of the largest historic carbon emitters in Europe, allegedly responsible for 0.5% of global CO2 emissions. They argued this justified the company paying a proportional share of the estimated $3.5 million needed for flood defences.

RWE rejected the claims, stating it had no direct operations in Peru and questioning why it was singled out among global polluters. The firm also noted its ongoing efforts to phase out coal and become carbon neutral by 2040.

The initial lawsuit was dismissed by a German court in 2015, which ruled that a single company couldn’t be blamed for the complex global issue of climate change. But in 2017, the Higher Regional Court of Hamm reversed that decision, allowing the case to proceed—marking the first time a court recognized that a private emitter could potentially be liable for climate-related damages in another country.

Despite the final ruling against Lliuya’s individual claim, environmental advocates are calling the outcome a legal milestone. In a statement, Germanwatch said, “The court confirmed for the first time that major emitters can be held liable under German civil law for risks resulting from climate change.” The group expressed hope that this precedent could influence similar climate justice lawsuits worldwide.

For Lliuya, the ruling marks a bittersweet end to a 10-year quest for justice on behalf of his community, but also a victory in shifting the legal conversation toward corporate accountability for the environmental crisis.

Norway has strongly criticized Israel's conduct in the Gaza conflict, warning that its violations of international law are not only worsening the humanitarian crisis in the region but also setting a dangerous precedent for future global conflicts. Speaking out against what he described as a “very clear violation” of international law, Norway’s International Development Minister, Åsmund Aukrust, stressed that Israel's actions could normalize the use of food as a weapon and the militarization of humanitarian aid.

The warning comes amid an ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, where a UN-backed report recently revealed that all 2.1 million residents are at critical risk of famine, with half a million people already living in catastrophic conditions. In this context, Aukrust pointed to the disturbing trend of denying entry to UN agencies and NGOs, alongside the introduction of the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) – an Israeli and U.S.-supported aid initiative criticized for militarizing relief distribution.

GHF began distributing food in Gaza this week. However, chaotic scenes emerged as Israeli forces reportedly fired “warning shots” at a distribution center, resulting in the death of at least one civilian and injuries to 48 others, according to Gaza health officials.

“We are afraid and very concerned that this might become a new standard in international law,” Aukrust said. “It will make the world a lot more dangerous for all of us.” He expressed particular concern over the erosion of humanitarian norms, fearing a precedent where denying access to aid organizations or weaponizing hunger could become normalized in conflicts worldwide.

While some have suggested that Israel’s actions in Gaza might amount to genocide, Aukrust emphasized that such a designation must come from the International Court of Justice. “Genocide is the worst crime a country or politician can commit, and it should not be politicized or polarised,” he noted.

Norway has long played a significant role in Middle Eastern diplomacy, most notably by facilitating the Oslo Accords in 1993. In May 2024, the country took a bold step by recognizing the State of Palestine—joining a minority of European nations in doing so. Aukrust explained the move as a message of hope and a sign of Norway’s commitment to a peaceful resolution.

Despite the gravity of the situation, Aukrust maintained that Norway is keeping an “open line” of dialogue with all parties involved in the conflict, including Hamas. “Dialogue is the most important word when it comes to peacemaking,” he said. “We want to talk with those responsible—whether it’s Israel, Hamas, or others.”

He reiterated Norway’s long-term commitment to rebuilding Gaza, stating: “We will be there for the long run.”

Meanwhile, the Norwegian Oil Fund—the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund—has blacklisted 11 companies for contributing to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories. However, the Norwegian parliament is expected to reject a proposal to ban the fund from investing in companies operating in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Aukrust clarified that while the fund is guided by rules set by parliament, its investment decisions are made independently by the bank. “The rules are very clear,” he said. “The fund should not invest in anything that contributes to a violation of international law.”

As the conflict continues, Aukrust encouraged Europeans to maintain pressure on those responsible. “Keep protesting and keep believing in politics,” he urged. “We will constantly ask ourselves: what more can we do? What new initiatives can we take to send a clearer message?”

With its clear condemnation of Israel’s tactics in Gaza, Norway is positioning itself as a vocal advocate for international law, humanitarian norms, and long-term peace in the Middle East.

Amid escalating fears of a renewed Russian offensive, Ukraine has expanded its evacuation efforts in the northeastern Sumy region, ordering residents of 11 more villages to leave their homes on Saturday. This latest move brings the total number of settlements under evacuation orders in the region to 213, reflecting the growing concern in Kyiv over Moscow’s military build-up along the border.

Ukrainian authorities say more than 50,000 Russian troops have been massed near the Sumy border, with repeated shelling placing civilian lives at constant risk. The regional administration cited these dangers as the key reason for the expanded evacuations, which cover a roughly 30-kilometer zone from the border.

Russia’s Defense Ministry announced on Saturday that its forces had seized another village in the Sumy region, Vodolagy, following a series of reported gains in recent weeks.

This escalation comes just days before a potential new round of Russia-Ukraine peace talks in Istanbul, scheduled for Monday. While the Kremlin has confirmed its delegation’s participation, Ukraine remains hesitant, demanding that Moscow present its peace terms in advance. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday accused Russia of deliberately undermining the proposed negotiations by withholding its conditions.

Kyiv suspects that Moscow’s expected peace memorandum will contain unacceptable demands, including the surrender of Ukrainian-held territories and abandonment of Ukraine’s NATO aspirations. These points have previously been dismissed by Kyiv as nonstarters.

Russia, however, insists it will present its peace terms in person during Monday’s meeting in Istanbul. In a statement to the United Nations, Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia hinted that the proposal could include calls for a halt to Western arms deliveries to Ukraine and the cessation of Kyiv’s ongoing military mobilization.

Washington has backed diplomatic efforts to end the war, with U.S. President Donald Trump leading the charge for a peace deal. Nonetheless, mutual accusations between Moscow and Kyiv continue to cloud any meaningful progress.

The nearly three-year war, which began with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, has devastated large portions of the country. Tens of thousands of lives have been lost, and vast stretches of the east and south, including Crimea and four other regions claimed by Moscow, now remain under Russian control.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has taken on a central role as mediator, leveraging his relationships with both Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin. In a recent call with the Ukrainian leader, Erdoğan emphasized the need for both sides to send “strong delegations” to the talks in Istanbul and maintain momentum toward peace. Turkey has also offered to host a high-level summit between Trump, Zelensky, and Putin, though the Kremlin has rejected the invitation.

Despite international appeals for a ceasefire, including a proposed 30-day unconditional truce, Putin has continued to resist any such pause in hostilities.

As the Istanbul summit approaches, Ukraine braces for possible military escalation in its border regions while simultaneously weighing the diplomatic path forward. The coming days may prove critical in shaping the future trajectory of a war that has left deep scars on Europe and continues to threaten broader geopolitical stability.