In a long-awaited ruling delivered on 17 June 2021, the Brussels Court of First Instance condemned the Belgian authorities (the Federal State and the three Regions) for their negligent climate policy.
In this case, known in Belgium as “l’affaire climat / Klimaatzaak”, the non-profit organisation Klimaatzaak and 58,000 citizens summonsed the Belgian authorities for not having adopted appropriate measures (whether legislative or executive) to prevent dangerous global warming and its consequences on fundamental rights. The plaintiffs asked the Court to declare that the Belgian authorities committed a fault by not pursuing their climate policy diligently and to order them to take specific measures to achieve specific greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
Firstly, in the analysis of its jurisdiction to hear the case, the Court rejected the argument raised by the defendants that the plaintiffs’ claim would be in contradiction with the principle of separation of powers. In this context, the Court recalled that “the judiciary is competent to prevent or remedy any wrongful infringement of a subjective right by a public authority in the exercise of its discretionary power”. Therefore, the Court declared itself competent “to hear an action aimed at settling the dispute as to whether or not the State and the three Regions have adopted a wrongful conduct”.
Secondly, on the admissibility of the complaint, the Court confirmed that the plaintiffs have a direct, personal and real interest. It recognised, among other things, that the non-profit organisation Klimaatzaak has a legitimate interest in acting in accordance with its specific purpose of combating climate change.
Finally, the Court analysed whether or not the Belgian authorities have complied with their international, European and national environmental obligations. In that respect, the Court noted that the defendants did not meet their emission reduction targets for 2018 and 2019. Furthermore, according to projections for the next few years, it is foreseen that the emission reduction targets will also not be met. In light of this, the Court declared that the Belgian authorities have breached their general duty of care and did not act with prudence and diligence within the meaning of Article 1382 of the Civil Code. In particular, the Court found that neither the Federal State nor the Regions have taken the necessary measures to prevent the effects of dangerous climate change on the life of the plaintiffs in accordance with Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, these 4 entities of the Belgian federal structure are individually liable. However, the Court does not require the authorities to take specific measures to reduce Belgium’s greenhouse gas emissions, as this would be contrary to the principle of separation of powers. It states that “the Court cannot determine the content of the obligations of a public authority and thus deprive it of its power of interpretation”.
While it is true that this judgment does not impose any particular objectives to help meet climate targets on the Belgian authorities, it does contribute to sending an important message in the wake of the Urgenda case in the Netherlands and “l’affaire du siècle” in France.
Please contact Pierre de Bandt, Jeroen Dewispelaere or Raluca Gherghinaru for further information about this case and/or for general legal advice relating to environmental law.