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.