Answers to your questions about Klimaatzaak

Climate change is caused by the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases easily allow sunlight to pass through, but are not very permeable to infrared rays (heat) that reflect off the Earth and are sent into space. The heat retained as a result leads to the greenhouse effect. Various greenhouse gases are naturally present in the atmosphere. The so-called natural greenhouse effect ensures that the average temperature on Earth remains relatively moderate, making life on Earth possible. However, when man-made greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect increases and the Earth becomes warmer than it is naturally. This man-made global warming is mainly caused by human use of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, gas and lignite. Humans burn these fossil fuels because they release energy, but this combustion also releases greenhouse gases as a by-product.

In 2018, the United Nations Climate Panel devoted a special report to the consequences of warming above 1.5 °C compared to pre-industrial levels. It shows that all dangers above that threshold become more intense and more frequent. These include heat waves, floods, droughts, an increase in tropical disease vectors, rising sea levels and other forms of ecological damage and human suffering. The risk of tipping points also increases significantly with warming of more than 1.5 °C (see below for more information about tipping points).  It is therefore in all our interest to avoid such warming. If we continue on our current course (the Business As Usual scenario), we run the risk of warming of 3.6°C or more by 2100. This will make life on Earth more difficult at best, and impossible in many areas.

Our climate is kept more or less stable by a number of natural systems, such as the Amazon rainforest, the monsoon and the permafrost. Due to current warming, these stabilisers themselves are at risk of being thrown out of balance, which could have irreversible consequences. For example, there is an enormous amount of greenhouse gases trapped under the permafrost that could be released suddenly as soon as it thaws. This threatens to cause so-called runaway climate change: warming that we can no longer control.

Like all other countries, Belgium must take its share of responsibility to avoid dangerous global warming of more than 1.5°C. To this end, our country must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030, as ordered by the courts. Our politicians have known perfectly well for many years what needs to be done, but they are not taking sufficient climate action. That is why Klimaatzaak brought this court case. Binding reduction targets appear to be the only lever that can ensure that Belgium takes its share of responsibility to prevent the climate crisis from spiralling further out of control.

There is a linear relationship between global warming and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is useful because it allows scientists to calculate how much ‘emissions budget’ we still have to stay below the agreed danger threshold of 1.5°C warming. We know that we need to reduce our global CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030 (compared to the reference year 1990) and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Because we cannot manage that budget globally, it must be converted into national targets. Western countries bear the greatest responsibility for causing the climate crisis and also have the most resources to contribute to the solutions. It was therefore agreed that they should take the lead in solving it. At the request of Klimaatzaak, the judges of the Court of Appeal obliged Belgium to reduce its emissions by 55% by 2030 (compared to the reference year 1990). In order not to violate the separation of powers, the judges did not take into account arguments of fairness, which would dictate that Belgium, as a rich country and historically significant polluter, should do much more. What was imposed by the court is therefore the absolute minimum of a reasonable distribution of the remaining carbon budget.

Everyone agrees that net zero emissions by 2050 are necessary to avoid catastrophic consequences. Opinions differ on how to get there. Some believe that innovation will enable us to develop technologies in time that can remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, meaning we will not have to reduce our emissions (drastically). However, these technologies do not yet exist on a sufficiently scalable level. It therefore seems unwise to make the future of our planet dependent on them. In its ruling on the Urgenda case, the Dutch Court of Cassation decided that scenarios based on such technologies have a low degree of realism.

When discussing global warming and climate change, reference is often made to the “IPCC”. The acronym IPCC stands for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was tasked with examining and evaluating the most recent climate data published worldwide, with the aim of making it available to policymakers. The IPCC's scientific reports are highly authoritative and set the standard for global warming. The IPCC currently has 195 member states, including Belgium, which has been a member since its inception in 1990. Belgium has therefore been systematically kept informed of scientific, technical and socio-economic knowledge on climate change since 1990.

In its ruling of 30 November 2023, the Court of Appeal confirmed, on the same legal grounds as in the first instance, the inadequacy of the 2020 and 2030 greenhouse gas emission reduction targets of the Belgian federal government and the Flemish and Brussels regions, but not of the Walloon region. In addition, it imposes a minimum greenhouse gas reduction target of 55% by 2030 (compared to 1990) on the convicted authorities. Below are the Court's main findings.
 

ECHR - human rights

With regard to the ECHR, the Court ruled that the authorities concerned had violated Articles 2 (the right to life) and 8 (the right to family life and home) of the Convention. The main basis for this was that neither the emission reduction targets nor the policy measures were in line with the minimum thresholds emerging from the scientific and political consensus for the periods up to 2020 and 2030 respectively. In its analysis of the positive obligations under Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR, the Court stated that:

• the authorities concerned did not revise their 2020 emission reduction target to 30% (compared to 1990) in line with the scientific and political consensus at the time in the period from 2013 to 2020, nor did they succeed in achieving this minimum emission reduction of 30% in 2020.
• for the period 2021 to 2030, a reduction target of 55% for 2030 (compared to 1990) at the level of the Belgian State is the ‘minimum required by the best available science if the Belgian State wants to do its part’ to prevent the dangerous warming threshold from being exceeded.
   

(Old) Civil Code - duty of care

The Court then examined whether the authorities had fulfilled their obligations under the (Old) Civil Code, referring to its analysis and findings in its assessment of the ECHR. The Court found that the Belgian federal government, the Flemish Region and the Brussels-Capital Region had violated Articles 1382 and 1383 of the Old Civil Code:

• for the period 2013-2020, for the same reasons as set out in its assessment of the ECHR.
• for the period 2021 - 2030, insofar as the upward revision of Belgium's climate ambitions for this period has not yet taken place and it is currently unlikely that the policy actually pursued will achieve the target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 55 % by 2030 (compared to 1990).

As explained in the answer to the above question, the Court divided its analysis into different periods, setting a minimum emission reduction of 30% compared to 1990 for the period 2013 to 2020, and for the period from 2021 to 2030, a minimum reduction target of 55% compared to 1990. Given that the Walloon Region achieved a reduction of 38.5% compared to 1990 in 2020 and enshrined the reduction target of 55% compared to 1990 in a decree, there were no grounds for condemning it.

Court cases such as ours are like marathons, requiring a great deal of stamina. Although the process started in June 2015 and we have won all steps of the procedure, we are unfortunately still unable to close the books today, pending the Flemish government's appeal in cassation. Most of the time was lost due to a language incident at the start of the procedure. At the preliminary hearing in 2015, the Flemish Region requested a change of language, which was rejected by the French-speaking court of first instance. The Flemish Region unsuccessfully challenged this decision before the district court and the Court of Cassation. Our country's language laws clearly stipulate that a case such as ours must be conducted in French, because one of the defendants (the Walloon Region) is not domiciled in the bilingual area of Brussels, but in the monolingual French-speaking territory of Namur. Only after the appeal in cassation was rejected on 20 April 2018 could the proceedings on the merits begin. Read more about the course of the proceedings on the page The court case.

The Climate Judgment sets a particularly important legal precedent, as it is only the second time worldwide that a court has issued a judicial order with a quantified minimum reduction target. The first time this happened was in the rulings of the Dutch court and the Dutch Court of Appeal in the Urgenda case, which were also confirmed by the Dutch Court of Cassation (the “Supreme Court”) in 2019. The reasoning of the Court of Appeal in the Climate Judgment regarding why human rights and liability obligations require a minimum level of national emission reductions is largely consistent with the reasoning of the Dutch Supreme Court.

In particular, the Climate Judgment confirms that governments are legally obliged to protect their populations from the consequences of dangerous climate change, and that the scientific and political consensus on the minimum preventive measures to achieve this can be enforced by means of a court order. There are currently around forty similar cases to the Belgian Klimaatzaak worldwide, including in Italy, Australia, Canada and Poland. 

The Flemish Region lodged an appeal with the Court of Cassation in April 2024. The Court of Cassation only assesses the legality of the judgment handed down and does not re-examine the facts of the case. In the event of illegality or violation of a formal requirement prescribed on pain of nullity, the Court of Cassation may overturn the Climate Judgment and refer it to a differently composed Court of Appeal for a new assessment of the merits. A ruling in cassation is expected in mid-2026. The cassation procedure does not have suspensive effect: the ruling of the Court of Appeal must be implemented in full pending the cassation appeal. Support the Klimaatzaak to finance the cassation appeal.

According to Flemish Minister Zuhal Demir, the implementation of the Climate Judgment is unfeasible and unaffordable, but that is not true.

The data-driven PATHS2050 report by the Energyville study consortium, in which more than 200 researchers participated, contains cost-optimal roadmaps for Belgium to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. In their most balanced “central” scenario, Belgium will achieve a 57% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030 (compared to 1990). In their SHIFT scenario, which focuses more on behavioural change, Energyville believes a 60% reduction is possible by 2030. The report by the Federal Public Service Climate, in which the research institutes CLIMACT and VITO collaborated, also arrives at a reduction of just over 55% in 2030 in its most balanced and technically feasible CORE 95 scenario. According to the federal administration, this time in collaboration with CLIMACT, KULeuven and Uliège, the climate transition will result in a net increase of 1 to 1.7% in employment by 2030. How to ensure that no one is left behind was described in detail in the Just Transition Report of the High Committee for Social Justice. There is no lack of support for greater climate ambition. A Nature study shows that 89.8% of Belgian citizens believe that their governments should do more to combat climate change. 61.4% would even be willing to give up 1% of their salary to fight global warming. Read more in our opinion (pdf). And support Klimaatzaak to finance the appeal to the Court of Cassation.

In the Climate Judgment, the Court offered Klimaatzaak the opportunity to resubmit the case as soon as we have the figures on greenhouse gas emissions for the years 2022 to 2024 and the most recent National Energy and Climate Plan (NEKP), in order to rule on the payment of a penalty. In concrete terms, this means that if the authorities fail to take sufficient action and show sufficient ambition, Klimaatzaak can request the Court in 2025/2026 to impose a penalty payment after all. In the appeal proceedings, a penalty of one million euros per government per month of delay in the implementation of a judgment in our favour was demanded, but the Court may adjust this amount either upwards or downwards.

No. On the contrary. Klimaatzaak wants to be a vehicle, an activator for sustainable social and political change. We are not using this legal remedy against a minister or a government, but out of love for society and for the climate. Not against, but for. Together, if possible.

Co-claimants are legally involved in the court case as full claimants (on an equal footing with the initiators of the court case). They have given the non-profit organisation power of attorney to take all necessary decisions on all their behalf, in consultation with the solicitors. However, the risk is borne exclusively by the non-profit organisation, not by the individual co-claimants. 

Supporters do not legally join the court case, but support Klimaatzaak morally. Like the co-claimants, they do not run any financial or legal risk.

No. It was possible to become a co-claimant until 27 May 2019. After that date, we closed the registrations and submitted the powers of attorney we had received to the court registry. Now you can only support us by becoming a supporter or by making a donation.

Yes, you can. We would love you to! Because the more supporters we have, the clearer the message to our governments. 

No. The non-profit organisation will cover all legal costs. No co-claimant or supporter will have to pay any of the legal costs, regardless of the verdict. So you run no risk whatsoever.

No, only individuals can become supporters in the court case. As a company or organisation, you can support Klimaatzaak by informing your employees or members about the possibility of becoming a supporter or providing financial support. You can also help raise awareness of Klimaatzaak by sharing our message via email or social media.

There are several things you can do. You can become a supporter to make it clear to our politicians that this is a widely supported initiative. And you can spread the message by talking to your neighbours, colleagues, family, etc., so that more and more people become convinced of the need for a rapid climate transition. Make your money climate-proof and invest sustainably. Support other actions, such as demonstrations, if you feel comfortable doing so. Vote for the political party that you believe can make a difference. And support us financially, if you can afford to. This court case is like a marathon, costing a lot of money, and we are completely dependent on donations.

No. Unfortunately, Klimaatzaak cannot issue tax certificates. According to current regulations, we do not meet the criteria for receiving tax-deductible donations.

That is impossible to predict. Both the law firm Baeyens & Billiet and Dutch lawyer Roger Cox will receive remuneration. Both have agreed to work at a reduced rate. You can find all our financial information on the About us page.

Support our action if, like us, you are concerned about the future of our planet. We are asking the Belgian authorities to take the necessary measures to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our country. This must be done now in order to achieve a low-carbon society by 2050.

All donations will be used to finance the non-profit organization Klimaatzaak. On the one hand, there are legal costs, such as the fees of the legal team, bailiff costs, file costs, etc. On the other hand, there are the operating costs of the non-profit organization: the personnel costs of one full-time employee, the costs of maintaining the website, organizing events, communication, etc. You can find all our financial information on the About us page.