West-Vlaanderen

Brabant wallon

Luxembourg

Limburg

Antwerpen

Hainaut

Vlaams-Brabant

Oost-Vlaanderen

Namur

wallonne, Région

Liège

Vlaams Gewest

Bruxelles-Capitale, Région de

Belgium

energy and climate neutral federal goverment buildings by 2040

7% first generation biofuels in the mix between 2021-2030

10.45% biofuels reached in degree of admixture by 2030

4GW installed offshore wind capacity by 2030

32.5 Mtoe final energy consumption by 2030 (-12% compared to BAU)

42.7 Mtoe primary energy consumption by 2030 (-15% compared to BAU)

17.5% renewable energy consumption by 2030

35% GHG emission reduction in non-ETS sectors by 2030 relative to 2005 levels

Increase renewable energy sources by 17.5 per cent of final gross energy consumption.

Reduction of GHG-ETS emissions by 35% compared to 2005. 




GHG emission reductions in buildings in the residential and tertiary sectors per region by 2030 against a 2015 baseline

In March 2024, a legal action was launched by Hugues Falys, a farmer and several associations (FIAN, Greenpeace, Ligue des droits humains) against Total Energies. The summons was filed on March 13, 2024, with the Commercial Court of Tournai. The legal basis is Belgian extra-contractual civil liability (articles 1382 and 1383 of the former Civil Code). The court has set April 16, 2024 as the date for the introductory hearing so that both parties could agree on the timeline for the legal proceedings (exchange of pleadings, hearings, etc.).
This is the first time that a citizen has taken a multinational to court in Belgium over a climate dispute.

In order to repair past damage and prevent the occurrence of future and certain damage, the plaintiffs request that TotalEnergies be ordered to: 
- immediately halt investment in new fossil fuel projects (gas and oil); 
- reduce its GHG emissions linked to the production and delivery of fossil fuels by at least 60% by 2030, compared with 2023 levels; 
- reduce oil production by 47% by 2030, 75% by 2040 and 90% by 2050 compared to 2020 levels; 
- reduce its gas production by 47% by 2030, 75% by 2040 and 85% by 2050 compared with 2020; 
- adopt and communicate to the applicant a realistic transition plan, including the above three points, based on the best current scientific knowledge and aligned with the objectives of the Paris Agreement. 

The plaintiffs request that all these injunctions be accompanied by a penalty of one million euros per month of delay in complying with the injunctions to be issued. 

In 2021, Flemish authorities announced their approval of petrochemicals giant INEOS’ plastics plant project ('Project One') in the Port of Antwerp, Belgium. 

ClientEarth and 13 other NGOs argue that this project would have tremendous and inadequately assessed environmental impacts, namely in the form of plastic pollution and climate change exacerbation. As a consequence of these concerns, these NGOs submitted an appeal against the permit to the Flemish Ministry of the Environment in early 2022. They argued, in particular, that the permit’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) failed to meet the legal requirements and should not be granted. 

This appeal was dismissed in June 2022. A month later, the NGOs announced that they would bring the Flemish authorities to court to challenge this decision to dismiss their appeal. They argue that "INEOS has so far failed to present an adequate assessment of how the project would impact the climate, nature and surrounding air quality – all of which are likely to suffer significantly if the project goes ahead," and that "the Flemish authorities approved the project without first fully assessing its impacts – making the approval illegal according to EU and national laws." 

In July 2023, the Council of Permit Disputes ("Raad Voor Vergunningsbetwistingen") ruled in a parallel case brought by Dutch authorities in Belgium that INEOS failed to tell Flemish authorities the full extent of its project's predicted impact on the environment, so much so that these authorities should not have granted the project's approval. Accordingly, the project has been suspended, and ClientEarth and others' case is concluded since the underlying permit is now void.

In December 2022, Carbon Market Watch, a not-for-profit association, launched a complaint against the international governing body of association football, beach football, and futsal (FIFA) before the Belgian advertisement ethics panel. Similar claims have simultaneously been launched in France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland. Carbon Market Watch alleges that FIFA's advertising of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar as "carbon neutral" is misleading and false, and violates the rules of codes of the Belgian advertisement ethics panel. In particular, they argue that the "carbon neutral" nature of this World Cup has not been certified or validated by any independent body, that the methodology used by FIFA to measure its "carbon neutrality" was erroneous and resulted in a significant underestimation, and that FIFA also failed to meet its obligations in terms of offsetting to support its carbon neutrality communication.

The relevant authorities in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland announced that all five complaints would be examined jointly by the Swiss authorities.

Three individuals stole two large advertising banners for BMW and Volvo electric car models to reuse them at a protest against the tax policy favoring electric vehicles. The defendants applied for acquittal on the grounds of necessity, arguing that the right to health and the protection of a healthy environment (Article 23 of the Constitution and Article 2 of the ECHR) clearly outweighed the right of ownership of the two advertising banners, the value of which was trivial in relation to the interest being protected, and that the climate emergency represented a certain, serious, and present danger.

In a decision dated December 14, 2023, the judge rejected the plea of necessity, stating that the offenses committed were not likely to prevent or stop the damage to the environment. On the other hand, the judge noted that punishing such acts could be contrary to freedom of expression (Article 10 of the ECHR). The judge believes that the exercise of freedom of expression may, under certain conditions, provide grounds for an absolute or mitigating excuse. In this case, the judge found that the offenses committed were part of a debate of general interest aimed at raising public awareness and alerting the State to the consequences of pollution, global warming, and tax incentives for purchasing cars marketed as low-polluting.

The judge regarded the theft of a symbolic object as relatively minor when weighed against the goal pursued by the defendants and determined that convicting them would constitute a disproportionate infringement on their freedom of expression. Therefore, the judge acquitted the defendants and accepted the benefit of an excuse. The district attorney appealed this decision.

Geography

Belgium

Recent cases