Legal deep dive into the Belgian Climate Case – Part I, the Climate Case and the admissibility of the claim

08 Dec 2023

In a ruling reminiscent of the Dutch Urgenda case, the Brussels French-speaking Court of Appeal has issued a groundbreaking verdict in the Belgian climate case, VZW Klimaatzaak v. the Federal State of Belgium and others. The Court found Belgian authorities fell short in their global climate change efforts and has mandated substantial greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions by 2030.

1. The context of the Belgian climate case

The case began in 2015 when non-profit organization Klimaatzaak, joined by nearly 60,000 individuals (hereafter called ‘the Plaintiffs’), challenged the four public Belgian authorities (the Belgian federal government, the governments of the regions of Brussels, Flanders and Wallonia hereafter called ‘the Defendants’) in front of the judicial courts, citing inadequate climate measures. 

Seeking a 48-65% greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction by 2030, the Plaintiffs argue that the insufficient action of the respective Defendants in the fight against climate change violates: 

  • human rights, in particular the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life (Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR);

  • Articles 1382 and 1383 of the former Belgian Civil Code, which form the legal basis for extracontractual liability. 

In the initial 2021 judgment, Brussels Court of First Instance essentially agreed with the Plaintiffs’ reasoning and acknowledged the Belgian state and the regional governments were responsible for their lack of efforts related to climate change, violating the rights of the plaintiffs. However, the Court of First Instance refrained from imposing binding emission reduction targets, referring to the separation of powers.

2. Rapid Recap – EU and National Climate Commitments

a. EU

In 2019, the European Green Deal set a binding target of at least a 50% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 and a commitment to climate neutrality by 2050 for the EU (enshrined in the European Climate Law in 2021). 

In order to meet its 2030 intermediate target, the EU adopted the ‘Fit For 55’ package, proposing a large set of legislative measures contributing to the intermediate emission reduction target.

The Effort Sharing Regulation, adopted in 2018, establishes a national target for each EU Member State for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. With the adoption of the European Climate Law and its ambitious targets, the Effort Sharing Regulation had to be amended accordingly. The amendments were made in 2023 resulting in an increased target for Belgium (a 47% GHG emission reduction by 2030).

b. Belgium

At national level, in 2019, Belgium adopted a new National Energy and Climate Plan (PNEC) covering the period until 2030 and committed to reducing GHG emissions by 55%. However, when the plan was adopted, it took the previous target for Belgium set under the Effort Sharing Regulation as a basis. The PNEC was not updated to the increased target of 2023. In addition, the country’s strategic institutions highlighted substantial gaps in the PNEC in February 2023. 

As of the date of the decision of the Court, however, the Belgian government did not take the initiative to update the PNEC

c. Regions

Turning to regional measures, each of Belgium’s regions —Brussels-Capital, Flanders, and Wallonia— has undertaken specific initiatives contributing to the national climate objectives. In the Brussels-Capital Region and in Flanders, a commitment to a 40% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030 is part of both Energy and Climate plans (PRACE in Brussels, VEKP in Flanders). 

Wallonia’s Energy and Climate Plan (PACE) targets a 47% reduction in emissions by 2030. Additionally, Wallonia is in the process of approving a new Climate Decree, with a goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 and an interim target of a 55% reduction in emissions by 2030. Consequently, the Court of Appeal deemed this region compliant with the climate obligations, making it the sole defendant among the four to receive such acknowledgment.

3. The preliminary part of the procedure – admissibility and power of jurisdiction

In its reasoning, the Court starts by addressing questions of admissibility and the jurisdictional power. Key developments in this part of the judgment pertain to both the jurisdictional power and the admissibility of the Plaintiffs’ claims.

a. The power of jurisdiction 

As concerns the Court’s jurisdictional power, the Defendants argue that the claim lacks the necessary subjective right, a prerequisite for introducing a judicial action.

The Court, however, rejects this argument and affirms its jurisdictional power to hear the case.

The Court starts with the claim based on Article 1382 and seq. of the former Civil Code. Contrary to what the Defendants try to argue, the Court asserts that the appellants’ claim extends beyond merely establishing fault, as they repeatedly provide evidence of damage and express the intent to prevent further harm. Both reparation of damage and prevention of future damage are linked to the fault. The Court also clarifies that the question of whether the damage is sufficiently proven is a substantive matter, not one of admissibility.

In addition, when addressing the Defendants’ argument on Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR, the Court emphasizes that national courts have jurisdiction over disputes concerning civil and political rights. It rejects a restrictive interpretation, affirming that the court’s jurisdiction encompasses infringements of subjective rights, even when authorities act with discretionary powers.

The Court reiterates that extracontractual liability of authorities are under the power of jurisdiction of the judicial courts if they relate to subjective rights. The fact that an authority must behave, and act as a normally careful and diligent authority constitutes a sufficient specific legal obligation. Any person has a subjective right to reparation where an authority has breached this duty of care. Therefore, disputes about rights under the ECHR fall within the power of jurisdiction of the Court.

b. Admissibility requirements and the Defendants’ claims

The Belgian judicial code requires any judicial action to present an interest that is present, direct, and individualized. Declarative actions are allowed in severe and serious threats to rights. Declarative actions are actions where the plaintiffs only ask for a declaration or confirmation of rights without any other measures.

The Defendants call for dismissal, asserting that the claim is an actio popularis pursuing the prevention of pure ecological damage, which is not allowed in Belgian law. 

The Court rejects the argument on interest and considers that the Plaintiffs do have an interest in bringing this case to the Court. 

Invoking the Aarhus Convention, the Court recalls the imperative nature of public access to justice in environmental matters, emphasizing that such access is a mandate of the treaty. In this context, national provisions must not restrict access to justice or be interpreted in that way.

Building on its argument, the Court references Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR, declaring that the rights under these provisions are infringed by the authorities' insufficient action on climate change. 

Furthermore, the Court emphasizes the distinction between environmental associations and individuals when assessing the admissibility criteria. According to the Court, such environmental associations should be granted the ability to initiate legal actions based on moral damages.

The Court rejects the argument that there is no personal, direct damage demonstrated by the Plaintiffs. On the contrary, the Court acknowledges that damages due to climate change exist. It does so by relying on the scientific consensus on the consequences of human activities on climate and the call for urgent action.

c. Individual plaintiffs

The Court also accepts the admissibility of the claims from the individual claimants, pointing to the sufficiently described potential impact of climate change. Some consequences are already unmistakably clear in Belgium. According to the Court, the predictions for Belgium in 2100 are also sufficient proof of the potential damaging impact of climate change. Individual damages such as food and water supply issues, infrastructure damage and impacts on physical health are mentioned.

The Court affirms that the individualized criteria are met, given the judicial certainty of the consequences of climate change and the extent of the related risks. Therefore, any physical person has an interest in bringing a claim against the public authorities for the failing climate policy or for failing to meet the admissibility requirement, especially in the light of the Aarhus Convention.

Conclusion

By assessing the Plaintiffs’ claims based on Articles 1382 and 1383 of the former Civil Code and on Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR, the Court considered these provisions as conferring sufficient rights under national law. Therefore, the Court affirmed the case was admissible and under its power of jurisdiction.

In next week’s newsflash, we will delve deeper into the Plaintiffs’ first argument presented in the case – the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life (Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR). We will explore how the Court considered these rights in the context of insufficient climate action in Belgium. The discussion on admissibility also touches on the discussion on the separation of powers, a subject on which many legal experts disagree. The Court further explores this issue in its assessment on the merits, which will also be discussed in our next newsflashes on the case.

Should you have any questions regarding this case and the potential impact on private businesses, or for any sustainability legal related matters, don't hesitate to reach out. 

Els Empereur, Karel Veuchelen, Hadrien Bosly, Imane El Arnouki 

Contact us

Els Empereur

Lawyer - Director, PwC Legal BV/SRL

+32 494 57 15 50

Email

Karel Veuchelen

Lawyer - Managing Associate, PwC Legal BV/SRL

+32 479 21 60 66

Email

Follow us