Abstract
The judgment handed down in the Klimaatzaak case by the French-speaking Court of First Instance of Brussels on 17 June 2021 was largely confirmed by the well-reasoned 160-page judgment of the Brussels Court of Appeal of 30 November 2023. This judgment raises fundamental issues relating to the judicial review of inaction by public authorities that leads to a failure to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In reviewing the Belgian climate change policies in the light of the fundamental rights to life and private and family life and the general duty of care inherent in fault-based civil liability, the Court of Appeal narrowed the gap between Belgian GHG emission reduction targets and public mitigation measures. It follows that political rhetoric must be fleshed out into legal instruments that are properly designed to counter the impacts of climate change on life and privacy.
Publisher
sofia - Society for Institutional Analysis
Reference9 articles.
1. De Sadeleer, N. (2012). ‘Enforcing EUCHR Principles and Fundamental Rights in Environmental Cases’ 81 (2012) Nordic Journal of International Law 39–74.
2. De Sadeleer, N. (2014). EU Environment Law and the Internal Market (Oxford: OUP), 350-358. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/157181011X618758
3. De Sadeleer, N. (2020a). Environment Principles, 2nd. ed. (Oxford: OUP) 260-264.
4. De Sadeleer, N. (2020b). ‘The Hoge Raad judgment of 20 December 2019 in the Urgenda case: an overcautious policy for reducing GHG emissions breaches Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights’, elni Review 2020, Vol. 20, pp. 7 – 11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46850/elni.2020.002.
5. De Sadeleer, N. (2021). « De la réparation du dommage environnemental individuel à celle du dommage collectif. Quelques réflexions sur des arrêts récents », Responsabilité, risques et progrès, in C. Delforge (dir.) (Brussels, Larcier) 8.