Although Lliuya's lawsuit was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of a concrete danger to his property, the court acknowledged that claims for climate damage could still be pursued if a risk is demonstrated.

This upcoming ruling marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing conflict between environmental advocates and major energy corporations.

Experts have mixed opinions on the potential influence of this ruling on other jurisdictions, with some believing it could provide guidance for future cases while others remain skeptical.

A German court is poised to make a significant ruling on a climate lawsuit filed by Peruvian farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya against energy giant RWE, claiming the company's greenhouse gas emissions have heightened flooding risks in his hometown of Huaraz.

RWE has denied any responsibility, arguing that climate change is a global issue with many contributors, not solely their emissions.

Lliuya's legal team contends that RWE's contribution to climate change is approximately 0.38%, leading to a demand for around €13,000 to fund protective measures against risks that could exceed $3 million.

The case was reopened by the Hamm court in 2017, allowing for the presentation of evidence and the commissioning of expert reports.

Prior to the ruling, Lliuya's legal team indicated that extensive documentation and a visit by the judges to Peru demonstrated the seriousness with which the court is treating the case.

The court's decision emphasized that while a causal link between emissions and climate impact cannot be entirely dismissed, each case must be evaluated on its specific facts to determine liability.

The outcome of this case reflects broader discussions about accountability and the legal frameworks necessary to address climate change.

The court's decision effectively concludes legal options in Germany for this case, meaning no further appeals are possible.

Regardless of the ruling, Lliuya's case represents a significant shift towards greater corporate accountability for environmental harm.