Belgian environmental law is structured around three levels (federal, regional, local), with strong (and progressive) regionalisation.

The subject matter, which is constantly evolving, is essentially governed by a European framework (directly applicable regulations, transposed directives) and common climate/energy policies.

The subject is legislated and enforced according to a specific division of powers. The Constitution and the Special Law on Institutional Reform of 8 August 1980 organise this division.

Regional competences (Brussels, Flanders, Wallonia) are central (e.g. environmental permits, waste, soil, inspection/sanctions, air and climate to a large extent).

The powers of the federal authorities are residual but remain significant in certain areas (e.g. ‘product standards’, nuclear power and federal monitoring mechanisms for certain matters, often in conjunction with EU law).

Municipalities have their own powers with regard to the issuance of certain administrative authorisations (e.g. Class II environmental permits in Brussels).

In the Walloon Region, the Operational Directorate-General for Agriculture, Natural Resources and the Environment (DGARNE) of the Walloon Public Service — in particular the Department of Police and Controls (DPC) — is the central authority.

Its role covers the examination of permits (environment, water), the control of classified installations, the monitoring of polluted soils, waste and industrial emissions, and the enforcement of the Walloon environmental decree. The DPC has a strong enforcement role: unannounced inspections, formal notices, administrative sanctions, fines, temporary closures and referral to the public prosecutor’s office in the event of serious infringements.

In Flanders, environmental policy is structured around two main players: the Vlaamse Milieumaatschappij (VMM), which is responsible for water, air quality and the technical environment, and the Departement Omgeving (central administration responsible for regulation, permits and monitoring of polluted sites).

Controls are carried out by the Milieu-inspecteurs (environmental inspectors) of the Departement Omgeving, who have very extensive powers (visits, seizures, protective measures, coercive administrative decisions).

Flanders is characterised by frequent use of administrative environmental sanctions (environmental GAS) and digital compliance systems (mandatory digital reporting, automated monitoring).

In Brussels, the reference authority is Brussels Environment — the environment and energy administration.

This administration issues environmental permits and supervises the management of polluted soil, waste, noise, water and industrial emissions. The Brussels Environment Inspection Service exercises active control, with regular visits, coercive measures, administrative penalties and referrals to the public prosecutor’s office. These measures are provided for in the ‘Inspection Code’.

The federal level still intervenes in certain areas (cross-border transport of waste, product standards, Seveso industrial risks, marine pollution), but it is the Regions that are responsible for most of the enforcement and monitoring.

As a direct consequence of the regionalisation of environmental competences in Belgium, the regulatory framework applicable to the environmental authorisation regime differs according to the Region of the country concerned (Brussels-Capital Region, Flemish Region and Walloon Region).

In the Brussels-Capital Region, the environmental permitting regime is mainly governed by the Order of 5 June 1997 on environmental permits and its implementing decrees. The Brussels system is based on a classification of installations into different categories, according to the significance of their environmental impact. Installations most likely to cause significant nuisance are subject to environmental permits, while activities with a more limited impact are subject to a prior declaration system. The significance of the environmental impact of the activity also determines the authority issuing the authorisation (either the municipality or Brussels Environment).

In the Flemish Region, the main principles and rules applicable to environmental permits are laid down in the Decree of 25 April 2014 on environmental permits. This decree has profoundly reformed permit law by merging planning permits and environmental permits into a single permit, the omgevingsvergunning. The material content of environmental obligations is specified by the VLAREM, which mainly consists of VLAREM I (procedural provisions) and VLAREM II (general and sectoral operating conditions). These texts establish, as in the Brussels system, a classification system for facilities and activities likely to have an impact on the environment, which affects both the complexity of the procedure to be followed and the issuing authority (municipality, provincial deputation or regional executive).

In the Walloon Region, this matter has historically been governed by the Decree of 11 March 1999 on environmental permits. This decree is currently supplemented by the Environment Code and the Territorial Development Code (CoDT). As in other regions, this framework organises a system of facilities and activities classified according to their potential impact on the environment. Here too, this classification will have a significant impact on the identification of the issuing authority (municipal council or regional technical official).

2.3 The basic principle is the same in all three regions of the country: environmental permits are linked to a specific operator and activity, meaning that they are not freely transferable. However, a change of operator is possible provided that the administrative procedure for doing so is followed (this procedure varies depending on the region concerned).

In the Brussels-Capital Region, the ordinance on environmental permits provides for the possibility of a change of operator subject to notification to the competent authority (Brussels Environment or the municipality). The transfer is not automatic: it must be formally requested, recorded and may require the provision of information about the new operator. The conditions of the permit continue to apply without change, unless a separate amendment procedure is followed.

In the Flemish Region, an omgevingsvergunning (integrated environmental permit) may be transferred to a new operator. This transfer is only enforceable against the administration after notification or authorisation, depending on the classification of the authorised activities. Until the transfer has been recorded by the administration, the original operator remains legally responsible for compliance with the conditions of the permit.

In the Walloon Region, the environmental permit (and the single permit) may also be transferred in the event of a change of operator. This transfer must be formally requested. It does not entail any change in the operating conditions unless a request for modification is submitted at the same time. Here again, the former holder remains liable until the transfer has been officially registered.

Finally, in all three regions, a distinction must be made between the transfer of a permit and a substantial change in the activities authorised by that permit. If the change of operator is accompanied by a modification of the facilities or operations that is likely to have an environmental impact, a procedure to modify the permit (or even a new application) may be required.

In practice, during transactions (asset transfers, mergers, demergers or share deals), issues relating to environmental authorisations are subject to specific due diligence checks. It is advisable to anticipate administrative delays and to provide for the distribution of risks relating to the transitional period between the signing and formal acceptance of the transfer by the competent authority in the contract.

In Brussels, an administrative appeal may be lodged against decisions on environmental permits before the Environment College, a court composed of various experts appointed by order of the Government of the Brussels-Capital Region.

The decisions of this court may be challenged before the Government of the Brussels-Capital Region, whose decisions may be referred to the Council of State for review (for annulment and suspension of the contested decision).

In Flanders, decisions on omgevingsvergunning (environmental permits) may be subject to administrative appeal before the Council for Permit Disputes, a specialised administrative court with jurisdiction to hear appeals for annulment and suspension of decisions relating to environmental and urban planning permits. An appeal before the Council of State is possible against the decisions of this court. However, this is an administrative cassation appeal, as the Council of State can only censure the decision if it involves an error of law.

Finally, in the Walloon Region, decisions on environmental permits may be challenged before the Walloon Government. As in Brussels, the latter’s decisions may be referred to the Council of State for review (for annulment and suspension of the contested decision).

Yes. The EIA requirement stems from European Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. Each Region has transposed the directive (as this is essentially a regional matter). For example, in Brussels, the EIA of projects is governed by the Order of 5 June 1997 on environmental permits.

With regard to urban planning projects, the Brussels Code on Spatial Planning (CoBAT) stipulates that impact assessments take two forms: impact studies (projects listed in Annex A of the CoBAT) or impact reports (Annex B), depending on the type/scale of the project.

EIAs generally contain a description of the project, the location of the site concerned in the environment (zoning plan, Natura 2000 area, etc.), identification and analysis of impacts on all areas of impact, reasonable alternatives, avoidance/reduction/compensation measures (if the project involves the destruction of certain habitats of protected species, which may require species surveys), etc.

In practice, the EIA is challenged indirectly through an appeal against the permit decision (or against the plan/programme) that led to its implementation.

EIAs can thus be challenged indirectly by local residents consulted as part of a public inquiry (this happens frequently, for example, in the context of building “demolition/reconstruction” projects). These projects sometimes require a carbon assessment to demonstrate the project’s CO2 impact.

An environmental and/or urban planning permit may be revoked by the Council of State due to shortcomings in the EIA (e.g. failure to analyse all impacts). Case law expressly provides for this: “The purpose of an impact assessment is to enable the authority to assess the nature and effects of the proposed development on the environment, so that deficiencies in the assessment only vitiate the authority’s decision if they are significant, i.e. if they do not allow the authority to assess these effects, even approximately.”

As issues related to soil pollution are environmental issues, the applicable legal regime differs depending on the region in question.
In the Brussels-Capital Region, the Order of 5 March 2009 on soil management and remediation and its implementing decrees determine the steps to be taken and the procedures to be followed in relation to soil pollution and remediation.

In the Flemish Region, the applicable legal framework is enshrined in the Decree of 27 October 2006 on soil remediation and its implementing decrees.

In the Walloon Region, the Decree of 1 March 2018 on soil management and remediation establishes an administrative system for identifying polluted land, mandatory investigation, registration in public databases and mandatory remediation and/or decontamination.

The fundamental principle enshrined in these legal regimes is that of the polluter pays. The operator or polluter is primarily responsible for the costs of investigation and remediation. However, regional regimes also provide for subsidiary liability mechanisms for the owner or holder of the land (particularly when the polluter cannot be identified and/or is insolvent). The above-mentioned regulations distinguish between the concepts of “new pollution” (after the legislation came into force) and “historical pollution”. Depending on the type of pollution, different rules apply in terms of intervention thresholds and the intensity of obligations.

Finally, the non-contractual civil liability of the operator/owner/holder of a polluted plot of land may be engaged in the event of fault causing environmental or property damage. Environmental criminal law (which has also been largely regionalised but is still based in part on offences established by the federal state) may also punish damage to soil and groundwater.

It should be noted that Directive 2004/35/EC on environmental liability (Environmental Liability Directive – ELD) has been transposed into Belgian law and establishes an administrative regime for the remediation of serious environmental damage, applicable in particular to damage affecting water and soil.

In all three Regions, soil investigation measures are mandatory in the event of a transfer of ownership of a high-risk site, the cessation of activity at a classified establishment, an application for a permit for certain activities, or when there are serious indications of contamination.

In Flanders, a soil study is mandatory in certain triggering events (in particular, the transfer of land included in the inventory of high-risk activities).

In Brussels and Wallonia, comparable mechanisms exist, with the obligation to carry out a soil study, in several steps depending from the results of the samplings.

The reports produced in accordance with these obligations must be submitted to the competent authority (OVAM in Flanders, Brussels Environment in Brussels, and DGO4 in Wallonia). The authority validates the study and may require further investigations or a remediation/decontamination project.

When contamination is discovered, particularly if it poses a risk to human health or the environment, or if it is likely to migrate to neighbouring plots, there is an obligation to notify the competent authority under the three regional schemes mentioned above. This duty also lies on the soil surveyors.

Depending on the scale and extent of the pollution, the operator/owner/holder of the polluted plot of land will be required to carry out preliminary studies (soil condition assessment, preliminary guidance study, detailed study) and, if necessary, carry out risk management, soil remediation or decontamination operations.

Furthermore, if the contamination constitutes an environmental offence (illegal discharge, accidental pollution), it may trigger an immediate reporting obligation, particularly where the conditions of the environmental permit so require. Migration to neighbouring land may also give rise to civil liability on the part of the operator or owner.

A current owner of land affected by historical pollution may, in principle, be exempted from its legal obligations provided that it can identify with certainty the authorof the discovered pollution and that the latter is likely to ensure the effectiveness of the measures to be taken. It is therefore necessary that the historical polluter still exists (whether a legal or natural person) and that the latter has sufficient solvency.

It is also possible to bring a civil action against a former owner if they caused the pollution through negligence or an activity for which they are liable. Such an action will be based on non-contractual liability, subject to the rules of limitation. In this case, the burden of proof (fault, damage, causal link) lies with the claimant. In practice, actions are often complex due to the age of the facts and the difficulties of proving them. Contractual clauses (environmental guarantees in deeds of sale) play an important role in the allocation of risk between private parties.

Please note that the level of decontamination can be softened for historical pollutions for which the current owner has no responsibility. In Flanders, a specific mechanism organizes that the regional administration bears the cost of such decontamination under strict conditions.

The waste regime is a constantly evolving area of law based mainly on European legislation (Directive 2008/98/EC, recently amended in 2025, and European Commission Decision 2000/532/EC of 3 May 2000 establishing a list of waste).

These European standards are transposed into domestic law and powers are mainly distributed at regional level:

o Flanders: waste management is governed by the Decree of 23 December 2011 on the sustainable management of material and waste cycles (VLAREMA) and by the Decree on integrated permits. This decree imposes obligations in terms of sorting, collection and recycling and incorporates the permit conditions into a single system.

o Wallonia: the Decree on Waste of 27 June 1996, supplemented by the Environmental Code, defines waste categories and collection and treatment obligations. The Decree on Soil of 1 March 2018 sets out obligations for the management of contaminated soil.

o Brussels: This matter is governed by the Waste Ordinance of 14 June 2012 and its decree of 1 December 2016 (“Brudalex”, recently amended).

These laws impose traceability, take-back and recycling obligations on waste producers and operators. They include criminal penalties of up to 24 months’ imprisonment or a fine of €25,000 for serious breaches (Articles 48 and 49 of the 2012 Waste Ordinance).

Each region has integrated permit systems for waste treatment facilities and applies the European directive on industrial emissions. Municipalities play a supervisory and sanctioning role.

Yes. The polluter pays principle means that the original producer may be held liable if the waste is not managed in accordance with the regulations or if the third party goes bankrupt.

For example, in Brussels, Article 24 of the 2012 Ordinance provides that “In accordance with the polluter pays principle, the costs of waste management, including those related to the necessary infrastructure and its operation, shall be borne by the original waste producer or by the current or previous holder of the waste.

If the holder of a waste permit fails to comply with their obligations, the authorities may pursue the original producer, but the current holder is also subject to possible treatment obligations in the event of default by the previous holder/original producer:

“§2. Without prejudice to Articles 26 and 26/1, the Government may decide that the costs of waste management shall be borne in whole or in part by the producer of the product that generated the waste and share these costs among the distributors of that product.”

This will generally be assessed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the waste (and its classification) and the extent of any breaches of the management measures imposed by legislation.

This matter is governed by the principle of extended producer responsibility schemes. This scheme makes producers responsible for the prevention and management of waste generated by their products.

The costs are passed on in the price of the products, thus promoting the polluter pays principle. The types of waste concerned have been chosen in particular because of the importance of their flow or their harmfulness to the environment and health.

Belgium applies numerous extended producer responsibility schemes, which allow the use of certain specific management organisations:

o Packaging: producers or importers of packaging must join a collective system (e.g. Fost Plus for household packaging and Valipac for industrial packaging) or have an individual plan approved by the Flemish agency OVAM. They must finance selective collection, sorting and recycling, comply with recycling quotas and draw up a prevention plan every three years.

o Electrical/electronic equipment: the Recupel organisation manages the take-back of equipment; producers pay an eco-tax to finance collection and recycling.

o Batteries: Bebat organises the collection and recycling of batteries and accumulators; producers are required to finance these operations.

o Used oils and lubricants: Valorlub coordinates the collection and recovery of used oils. Other channels exist for tyres, oil filters, etc.

o Textiles: the Flemish VLAREMA decree requires the separate collection of textiles and the conclusion of agreements with an approved collector. In Brussels, from 2025 onwards, producers and retailers will be obliged to collect and take back textiles (Brudalex).

The application of this regime is mandatory for producers within the identified waste categories (e.g. Article 26 of the Brussels Waste Ordinance).

Obligations relating to asbestos and hazardous materials are mainly covered by legislation on well-being at work (federal competence) and regional regulations on waste and the environment.

Employers are required to identify the presence of asbestos in buildings where employees work, assess the risks and, where necessary, draw up an asbestos inventory. The establishment of an ‘asbestos inventory’ is gradually becoming mandatory in the case of the sale of old buildings. Work involving the removal of asbestos is strictly regulated and must be carried out by approved companies. It is also subject to temporary environmental permits and/or environmental declarations.

Owners and occupants must ensure that hazardous materials do not pose a risk to public health and must comply with the rules for the disposal of hazardous waste. Failure to comply may result in administrative and criminal penalties.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a family of chemical compounds used for their non-stick, waterproof and heat-resistant properties. They are found, for example, in certain non-stick frying pans (such as Teflon), fire-fighting foams and food packaging.

These substances are known as “forever chemicals” because they degrade very slowly in the environment.

This makes them a significant environmental issue that is being addressed at several levels. Currently, public authorities at EU and Member State level are working to strengthen the way PFAS are regulated in the EU and to reduce their presence in the environment and food chain. These measures aim to mitigate the potential long-term health and environmental consequences of exposure to PFAS.

The EU is significantly strengthening the regulation of PFAS, in particular through the REACH regulation managed by ECHA (European Chemicals Agency), with a proposal for a general ban expected by 2026–2027. Certain PFAS such as PFOA and PFOS are already banned under REACH and the POP Regulation. The EU also sets strict limits in drinking water and in several foods. It is still taking action on industrial discharges and is preparing bans in cosmetic , packaging and fire-fighting foams. The European Commission’s overall objective is a massive reduction in European exposure to these “forever pollutants”.

For example, in October 2025, a European regulation (No 2025/1988) imposed restrictions on fire-fighting foams containing PFAS with a five-year transition period.

In Belgium, each region is developing its own policy on this issue based on the European framework:

o Flanders: following the discovery of contamination, in 2025 the Flemish government withdrew its temporary framework of 2023 and published a circular proposing thresholds based on the risks to soil and groundwater. OVAM publishes intervention values differentiated according to the area (industrial/residential or natural area) and is preparing an amendment to the Soil Decree in order to legally enshrine these thresholds.

o Wallonia: the Decree of 1 March 2018 on soil management, its orders and a guide to good practice require PFAS analysis during orientation studies and define remediation techniques; there are no specific standards yet, but analyses are mandatory for projects likely to contaminate the soil.

Decrees of 2023 and 2025 amending the Water Code transposed the European Directive (EU) on the quality of water intended for human consumption (No. 2020/2184) and set quality limits for PFAS in water.

A new decree in force since 20 February 2025 sets the PFAS standard at 100 ng/l (0.10 μg/l) in distribution water. This decree covers a list of 20 PFAS or “PFAS-20”, referring to the 20 perfluorinated molecules that comprise it.

In terms of environmental policy, PFAS monitoring is being stepped up and now covers distribution water, raw water, groundwater, soil, sewage sludge and surface water, with reinforced protocols.

o Brussels: the ordinance of 5 March 2009 (amended in 2017) provides the framework for soil remediation (and pollution) management. A code of good practice in force since 24 January 2022 (revised in September 2025) requires experts to analyse PFAS during studies and proposes treatment procedures.

Brussels has published an online map of sites that are polluted or suspected of being polluted with PFAS.

In terms of water management, the Order of 1 February 2024 amending the Order of 20 October 2006 establishing a framework for water policy with a view to transposing Directive (EU) 2020/2184, as well as the decree of the Government of the Brussels-Capital Region of 22 February 2024 on the quality of water intended for human consumption, transpose European Directive (EU) (No. 2020/2184).

Article 18 of this decree stipulates that by 12 January 2026 at the latest, water intended for human consumption must comply with certain parametric values for total PFAS. This new requirement must be taken into account by water suppliers.

Belgium directly applies European regulations on substances and chemicals. The following regulations are applicable:

• REACH on the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals;
• CLP on classification, labelling and packaging;
• Various regulations relating to biocides, plant protection products and POPs.

These regulations are directly applicable and have therefore not been transposed into Belgian law.

The competent Belgian authorities (in particular the FPS Public Health at federal level and the regional authorities for certain aspects of control) ensure market surveillance. Companies must guarantee the compliance of their substances and products placed on the Belgian market.

In Belgium, the legal framework for energy efficiency derives mainly from European law (Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency, amended by Directive (EU) 2018/2002) transposed into the three Regions.

Each of the three Regions has developed its own regulatory instruments covering the energy performance of buildings, mandatory audits and long-term renovation trajectories.

In Brussels, the regulations are structured around the Ordinance on the Energy Performance and Indoor Climate of Buildings of 7 June 2007 and its implementing decrees, which impose strict requirements for both new constructions and major renovations.

EPB certification is mandatory when selling or renting a property and must be issued by an approved certifier.

The Order of 2 May 2013 on the Brussels Code for Air, Climate and Energy Management also provides for mandatory periodic energy audits for large companies and certain categories of tertiary buildings, in accordance with the European directive.

In addition, the ‘tertiary sector scheme’ imposes a progressive obligation to monitor consumption and implement action plans aimed at reducing energy consumption in large non-residential buildings (commerce, services, etc.).

In Wallonia, the PEB Decree and the Walloon Energy Code form the basis of the applicable regime. As in Brussels, PEB requirements apply to new buildings and major renovations, and a PEB certificate must be provided for all property transactions.

Large companies are subject to a four-yearly energy audit requirement, unless they have an ISO 50001-certified energy management system.

Wallonia has also developed the ‘Housing Audit’, a standardised audit which, although not mandatory for private individuals, is required in order to benefit from certain renovation grants. Public authorities are subject to stricter obligations aimed at gradually improving the energy performance of their building stock.

In Flanders, the EPB regulations and the Energy Decree govern the energy performance of buildings and the related obligations. The issuance of an EPC certificate is mandatory for sales and rentals, and energy performance standards are particularly demanding. Large companies must carry out a periodic energy audit (EBO) every four years, unless they can demonstrate compliance through a recognised energy management system.

The Flemish Region has also introduced obligations for the renovation of the least efficient residential buildings, in particular through the mandatory improvement of the EPC label within a specified period after acquisition. For non-residential buildings, a specific EPC and a mandatory renovation process complete the system.

Beyond these regional powers, the federal level retains certain levers, particularly in terms of product standards, energy taxation and the regulation of specific industrial sectors.

Throughout the country, PEB/EPC certificates are required for property transactions, large companies must comply with the energy audit obligations imposed by European law, and public authorities are committed to long-term national and European renovation strategies. Progressive targets have already been set for 2030 onwards.

In Belgium, climate policy is based on a European foundation and a highly regionalised Belgian implementation (regions with jurisdiction over large parts of energy, climate and environmental permits, with significant federal powers, particularly for offshore wind power, certain tax/energy instruments and European representation).

The main reference framework is therefore Regulation (EU) No 2021/1119, which sets the EU’s climate neutrality target for 2050 and an interim milestone of at least 55% net emissions reduction by 2030 (compared to 1990). Belgium’s deployment is part of European energy and climate governance via the National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP): Belgium has finalised a ‘definitive 2025’ update of the NECP 2021-2030, agreed in consultation between the federal state and the federated entities (Regions) and forwarded or to be forwarded to the Commission.

With regard to GHG reduction instruments, Belgium applies the emissions trading system for the sectors covered (industry/electricity, etc.; this system is also known as the “EU ETS”).

The application of the new EU emissions trading system (known as ‘ETS 2’) is planned for 2027 and relates to the building, road transport and small industry sectors and is currently being prepared.

In this context, concrete administrative measures are being put in place and/or are due to be put in place. One example is the adoption by the Walloon Region of a decree of 17 April 2025 transposing this directive. These instruments are linked to other aspects of the European Green Deal (effort sharing, LULUCF, etc.), which are then translated into regional/federal policy s and plans (energy efficiency measures, mobility, construction, industry, etc.) within the PNEC.

For the increase in renewable energies, the framework is mixed: at regional level, support mechanisms (e.g. green certificates or equivalent mechanisms) exist and are evolving according to the Regions, while the federal government’s intervention focuses on offshore wind power in the North Sea.

With regard to offshore wind power, it should be noted that the “Princess Elisabeth” zone (PEZ) is structured in lots and receives public financial support (state aid). In 2024, the Commission approved a measure valued at €682 million to support the development of a wind farm in this zone.

Belgium is legally bound by the 2050 climate neutrality target set by the EU through Regulation (EU) No 2021/1119.

Internally, the structuring tool is the PNEC, which aggregates federal and regional contributions and describes the policies and measures intended to enable the achievement of the 2030 trajectories (and consistency with 2050).

Some federated entities have also enshrined their climate objectives in their own normative texts:

– In the Brussels-Capital Region, the central legal framework is the Brussels Code on Air, Climate and Energy Management (COBRACE), adopted by order of 2 May 2013 and amended several times. This Code is a truly cross-cutting regulatory instrument in the field of climate change. It sets regional targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and provides a framework for the adoption of the Brussels Air-Climate-Energy Plan (PACE).

– In the Walloon Region, the Decree of 20 February 2014 on climate (as amended) constitutes the regional legal framework. This decree provides for the setting of greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in the Walloon Region, the development and updating of an Air-Climate-Energy Plan (PACE), and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. It organises the cross-cutting integration of climate objectives into regional policies falling within Walloon competences, such as energy, housing, mobility and spatial planning.

– In the Flemish Region, the Flemish Decree of 20 December 2029 on climate policy forms the legal basis for Flemish climate policy. It sets a greenhouse gas emission reduction target in line with European commitments and provides for the periodic adoption of a Vlaams Energie- en Klimaatplan (VEKP). The decree imposes obligations on the Flemish Government to monitor, report and evaluate regularly, as well as to set up an internal climate governance system.

In Belgium, the use of terms such as “green”, “sustainable”, “carbon neutral” or similar is mainly governed by European Union law, transposed and applied in the Belgian legal system, and supplemented by specific sectoral rules. At this stage, there is no specific regional regime for greenwashing: jurisdiction is essentially federal ( ), with uniform territorial application in the three Regions (Flanders, Wallonia, Brussels-Capital).

The general framework is based on Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices, transposed into the Economic Law Code. Any environmental claim must be clear, precise, verifiable and substantiated. A vague or unprovable claim (“ecological”, “100% sustainable”, etc.) is likely to be classified as a misleading practice. Directive (EU) 2024/825 further strengthens this framework by explicitly prohibiting certain generic environmental claims that are not based on recognised evidence.

Enforcement is primarily the responsibility of the FPS Economy (Directorate-General for Economic Inspection), which has jurisdiction over the whole of Belgium. It may impose cease and desist orders, administrative fines or initiate legal proceedings. Civil and commercial courts may also be seized (cease and desist actions).

In the financial sector, regulation is the responsibility of the FSMA, which supervises the application of Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 (SFDR) and Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (Taxonomy). It monitors sustainability claims made about investment products and can intervene in cases of misleading communication.

There is no autonomous ‘climate competition law’ in Belgium.

However, in October 2025, the Belgian Competition Authority published a document entitled “Draft guidelines on sustainability agreements” to explain how environmental initiatives can be structured without infringing antitrust rules and encouraging access to prior guidance/information.
The aim of this document is to create an analytical framework for assessing the sustainability benefits and proportionality of restrictions on competition, with a view to providing legal certainty for businesses.

Several recent decisions and/or ongoing cases are worth mentioning here.

– At the federal level, on 30 November 2023, the Brussels Court of Appeal handed down a ruling in the “Climate Case – Klimaatzaak” case. In this ruling, the Court deemed the climate policy of the federal state and certain federated entities (notably the Flemish Region) to be insufficient in light of the supranational commitments of these authorities. An appeal has been lodged against this decision by the Flemish Region and is currently being processed.

– In the same vein, it is interesting to note that in November 2025, a Walloon farmer sued the Total Énergie group before the Tournai Commercial Court and sought compensation for damages related to the consequences of global warming.

– In the Brussels-Capital Region, on 29 October 2025, the French-speaking Court of First Instance in Brussels handed down a judgment ordering the Brussels-Capital Region to “take the necessary measures to suspend the urbanisation and sealing of undeveloped sites and land larger than 0.5 ha on its territory, until the adoption of the PRAS currently under review and, at the latest, until 31 December 2026”. This ruling echoes a draft order not adopted by the Region and introducing a moratorium on several identified sites in the Region. With this ruling, the court is therefore ordering a de facto moratorium on the urbanisation of certain undeveloped sites. As the ruling is time-limited, it is important to remain attentive to possible developments in this area.

Given the international/EU commitments and the constantly evolving European architecture, it is reasonable to expect substantial changes in Belgium in the short term.

On the one hand, the operational implementation of the ETS/ETS2 reforms (procedures, authorities, controls, coordination with the Social Climate Fund) is already underway at regional level, which requires ongoing regulatory and administrative adjustments.

On the other hand, in terms of ‘sustainable communication’, the period 2026-2027 will be structured by the transposition and entry into force of new European anti-greenwashing standards (including Directive (EU) No 2024/825) and by the outcome (or otherwise) of the future European instrument on the justification/verification of ‘green claims’, which should increase compliance pressure for companies operating in Belgium.

Finally, in the energy sector, the continuation (and adjustment) of offshore tenders and grid integration (including federal projects related to the North Sea) suggests that changes in support mechanisms and implementation frameworks are likely, in a context of costs, market design and acceptability.

(a) A company may be held liable under both civil and criminal law. Under civil law, traditional liability law requires anyone who causes damage (including a moral person) to repair it; failure to comply with a legal or regulatory obligation (as set out in sectoral legislation on environmental protection) constitutes a fault.

European Directive 2004/35/EC (which enshrines the “polluter pays” principle) and the regional laws transposing this directive allow, for example, the authorities to impose remediation measures on companies that cause pollution (and are therefore liable for repairing the environmental damage caused).

The company will be held liable either for its wrongful act or simply for its activities, if these are included in the list of operations considered to be potentially highly polluting. In both cases, it will be required to pay for the remedial measures, which cover both administrative costs and compensation for damage caused to nature.

However, it will be exempt from this liability if there is no causal link between the event giving rise to the damage and the damage itself. Causality may be presumed in a law, provided that it is based on plausible evidence such as the proximity of the company to the pollution observed, the correspondence between the pollutants found and the components used by the operator in the course of its activities, etc.

These principles are enshrined in Directive (EU) 2024/1203 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 11, 2024, on the protection of the environment through criminal law and replacing Directives 2008/99/EC and 2009/123/EC. As this directive must be transposed into Belgian law before May 21, 2026, the current legal framework is subject to change.

Finally, in Belgium, the criminal liability of moral persons has been enshrined in the Criminal Code (Article 5) since a law of 4 May 1999.

(b) Shareholders generally enjoy limited liability: they are only liable to the extent of their contribution. However, the courts may lift the corporate veil and seek to hold shareholders personally liable where they directly control the operations that caused the pollution or commit fraud. This also depends on the legal form of the company (S.A., SRL, etc.).

Shareholders who themselves participate in the acts giving rise to the damage (e.g. by giving instructions that result in an offence) may also be prosecuted.

(c) The same applies to the company director, who is generally a shareholder of the company. If this is not the case, and if the latter has undertaken acts in the name and on behalf of the company but not ratified by it, the director may also be held personally liable.

(d) As with shareholders, the parent company is separate from its subsidiaries. However, Belgian courts may disregard the separate legal personality and hold the parent company liable when it exercises direct control over the subsidiary or dictates certain decisions taken by the subsidiary that caused the damage.

(e)/(f) In principle, these entities cannot be held liable unless they actively participate in the management or polluting operation. If the bank becomes the de facto manager (e.g. by making operational decisions) or acquires control of the polluted asset, it may be considered the operator and held liable. In project financing practices, lenders often impose environmental compliance clauses and guarantees to protect themselves from these risks.

Various sector-specific laws now require the mandatory disclosure of a set of information in the context of a sale (disposal of a real right).

More specifically, certain rules under administrative law now affect the validity of the sales contract, in that they impose a specific duty of disclosure on the seller.

This concerns, in particular, information relating to soil pollution (Articles 12 and 76 of the Order of 5 March 2009), the PEB, and urban planning information, the provision of which is mandatory in the context of a sale (Article 276/1 of the CoBAT). In practice, the notary acting as the instrumenting officer requests and gathers all of this information.

Failure to provide this information may invalidate the contract (fraudulent concealment of essential information) and/or engage the seller’s pre-contractual liability (breach of the duty to provide prior information).

In the context of an asset deal, the exchange of this information is not mandatory, but in practice takes place as part of environmental due diligence, particularly with regard to buildings owned by the company. Due diligence is very common in Belgium, particularly when it comes to the acquisition of an entire building (rather than a single lot).

Insurable environmental risks include civil liability for accidental pollution, clean-up costs, and damage to third parties. Specific environmental impairment liability policies exist, covering in particular clean-up costs and defence costs.

In practice, environmental insurance is not systematically taken out, but it is common in high-risk industrial sectors or in real estate transactions involving a risk of historical soil pollution.

All municipalities keep urban planning and environmental information (broadly defined) in their archives (applicable regulations, permits issued, etc.).

Most of this data is accessible to the public in accordance with the administration’s disclosure rules. Anyone can request an extract of the information held by the local authority by submitting a request electronically or by email. Historical (archived) permits can also be consulted for a fee. Copies of the documents consulted can then be obtained.
Each Region also keeps an inventory of polluted land; a soil certificate must be requested when selling land and is issued by the competent regional agency.

Each region also has an online tool providing access to a wide range of information on this subject (Brugis and Openpermit for Brussels, WalOnMap for the Walloon Region, Geopunt for Flanders).

Finally, Belgium participates in the Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR), which is accessible to the public and provides information on emissions from industrial facilities, and publishes maps of PFAS sites (Brussels) and permit databases.

There is no requirement to justify a specific interest or to obtain the consent of the owner of the building or site concerned in order to carry out the above procedures (obtaining a copy of permits, plans, complete files, etc.), since, by definition, the environmental interest is common to all (Article 23,4° of the Belgian Constitution also proclaims the “right to protection of a healthy environment” as a fundamental freedom linked to the right to human dignity).

However, some municipalities (particularly urban planning departments) require a specific agreement or proof of a concrete interest (beyond environmental interest), which is illegal under the Convention on Access to Information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (known as the “Aarhus Convention”) and Directive 2003/4/EC (itself transposed into domestic law by the three Regions).

In certain exceptional cases, however, access to information may be refused in whole or in part if the information does not exist; it falls within the remit of another authority (we will redirect you); the request is too vague or abusive; the information is still being prepared; disclosure would undermine commercial confidentiality, privacy (e.g. certain information, such as infringement files, remains confidential while a criminal investigation is ongoing), public safety or environmental protection.

Ultimately, disclosure is only possible if the protected interest outweighs the interest in publicising the environmental information.

The refusal must always be justified. In this case, an appeal may be lodged with the Federal Appeals Commission for Access to Environmental Information (the “CRAIE”).

Over the past three years, there have been significant developments concerning the implementation of the European Green Deal, the strengthening of climate obligations, changes to regional frameworks relating to soil and the intensification of asbestos policies (particularly in Flanders).

In the short and medium term, further adjustments are expected due to the ongoing implementation of European law (notably CSRD, green taxonomy, carbon market reform) and the strengthening of energy transition and climate reporting requirements.

For example, in the Brussels region, the Regional Land Use Plan (PRAS) is an instrument that sets out the permitted uses for each part of the regional territory. This spatial planning instrument is a fundamental tool in Brussels law, as it is not possible to derogate from its provisions when applying for a permit.

The ongoing reform aims to make the PRAS more sustainable by incorporating environmental protection into its requirements as far as possible.

This reform also has a significant impact in light of the ruling handed down on 29 October 2025 by the French-speaking Court of First Instance in Brussels, imposing a de facto moratorium on the urbanisation of certain undeveloped sites pending the adoption of this reform.