If you find this post interesting, you can sign up for the firm’s monthly newsletter here. Each month’s newsletter contains a roundup of blog posts and commentary on climate news, law, and policy.

A Belgian court ruled last week that in failing to meet its emission-reduction targets, the nation’s federal government, and three regional governments, violated Belgian civil law and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), to which Belgium is a party. Notwithstanding the ruling, the court declined to impose any remedial order on constitutional separation of powers grounds.

The decision can be found in (imperfectly-translated) English here, courtesy of plaintiff environmental group Klimaatzaak (Climate Case). The ruling follows a string of recent climate litigation victories in Ireland, France, Germany, and the Netherlands.

Klimaatzaak’s prevailing argument alleged that all four governments’ insufficient climate action violated a Belgian civil code provision requiring government to act as a “prudent and diligent authorit[y]”, as well as articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR, which, respectively, guarantee Europeans’ right to life and respect for the “private and family life, home and correspondence”. Similar arguments prevailed in the Dutch Royal Dutch Shell and Urgenda cases.

Klimaatzaak says it will appeal the court’s refusal to impose remedial measures, though Belgium’s backlogged judicial system could delay an appellate ruling for years. In the meantime, the ruling serves as yet another persuasive precedent that may influence foreign courts encountering similar climate action cases with increasing frequency.