The Belgian Climate Case: From Federalism Idiosyncrasies to Arboreal Novelties

Abstract

VZW Klimaatzaak v Kingdom of Belgium & Others is a climate lawsuit brought in Belgium in 2015. It was modelled on the famous Dutch Urgenda case. In this groundbreaking judicial procedure, over 60,000 plaintiffs argued that Belgian public authorities have undertaken insufficient climate action and called for its enhancement. On June 17, 2021, the Tribunal of First Instance of Brussels rendered its decision in partial favour of the plaintiffs, consolidating a climate ‘duty of care’ for public authorities. This article puts forward a succinct summary of the complaint introduced by the NGO Klimaatzaak and the main findings of the Tribunal. In doing so, it attempts to make the idiosyncrasies of Belgian federalism intelligible to an international audience. It also highlights a number of notable features of the case, including the Tribunal’s reliance on the Aarhus Convention to interpret broadly the provisions on legal standing for environmental NGOs, and a third-party intervention request introduced on behalf of over a hundred trees with long lifespans. Finally, the article focuses on an apparent flaw in the reasoning of the Tribunal in its 2021 judgment and points out what to look out for in the appeal proceedings that are ongoing at the time of writing.