Climate Case summons the governments to appear in court.

During the introductory hearing, the Flemish Region requests the language of proceedings to be changed to Dutch. If that is not possible, the region wants proceedings to be divided. That would entail two separate proceedings: one in Dutch and one in French. Besides doubling the cost, there would also be a considerable risk of two different judgements being handed down.

The Flemish Region doesn’t accept the decision and appeals it in the district court, a court of law with Dutch- and French-speaking judges. They consider whether the language law was violated by the French-speaking judge in the court of first instance in Brussels.

Flemish minister Joke Schauvliege tells the Environmental Commission that she will be appealing. She wants to overturn the district court’s decision via the Court of Cassation.

The judgement is again postponed at the hearing, until 20 April. The court has therefore taken almost eight months longer than average to reach a decision. In April 2018, it will be two years since Joke Schauvliege lodged her appeal.

The main conclusions are the first and most important response of governments to our summons. The discussion will now build on this. In their conclusions, the authorities try to refute the inadequacy of the Belgian climate policy. We will argue that, among other things, science contradicts this.

We can share with you the main conclusions of the Brussels-Capital and Walloon Regions. Unfortunately, the federal and Flemish ministers objected to the publication of their arguments.

Our principle argument is that we want the competent authorities to be condemned for failing to act on climate policy. In our main conclusions, we are demanding a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions on Belgian territory of at least 42 to 48% in 2025 and at least 55 to 65% in 2030, each time compared to the base year of 1990. In 2050, we must continue to move towards zero net emissions. Indeed, science agrees that these reduction percentages are necessary to prevent dangerous global warming of +1.5°C. Given the importance and urgency of the matter at hand, we are asking for a penalty payment of EUR 1 million for every month of delay in enforcing the judgment.

In our final synthesis conclusions, we argue that the inadequate climate policy pursued by the Belgian authorities constitutes a violation both of the standard of care and of human and children's rights. A warming of more than 1.5°C is dangerous, which is precisely why the international community and Belgium have decided that we must stay below that level. But the Belgian authorities fall short in this respect. What's more, our climate policy threatens to sink further and further into the rearguard internationally.

Our summary conclusions only exist in Dutch and French, but we have provided an English summary of our main arguments.

The long-awaited plea dates have finally been set. The climate case will be heard in court from 16 to 26 March 2021. Time for action!

Climate case proceeds to appeal

In the months following the verdict, there was no indication that our authorities are taking the verdict seriously. In the meantime, our country has known 41 climate deaths and scientists predict that the suffering will only increase, also in Belgium. Climate Case is therefore appealing, to protect the human rights of the 58,000 co-plaintiffs of Climate Case and all other citizens of this country. We go to court again, asking for binding emission reduction targets to be imposed on governments, obliging them to do their part to prevent dangerous global warming.

Read our original petition in French here, or the (unofficial) translation in English here.

With these main conclusions, the federal government responds to our appeal petition. Unfortunately, the Federal Minister has objected to the publication of her arguments, so we cannot share them with you.

Our main conclusions contain the main arguments by which we intend to convince the judges of the Court of Appeal to grant our demands. This would entail imposing on our governments a mandatory pathway of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by which our country would assume its minimum share of responsibility to prevent dangerous global warming. We share the original French version and the machine-translated English version.