Can a Belgian farmer sue a multinational for climate damage?

Increasingly, large energy companies are being held legally accountable for their part in climate change. But can an individual citizen, such as a farmer suffering crop damage from extreme weather, successfully sue an international player in the Belgian courts? Yes, under European jurisdiction rules, Belgian courts may have jurisdiction if the damage occurs in Belgium, and Belgian law recognizes a personal interest in bringing such claims.

The facts and legal context

A Belgian farmer has started legal proceedings against TotalEnergies SE, one of the largest players in the oil and gas market. The farmer claims that his farm has suffered serious material and moral damages due to extreme weather phenomena between 2016 and 2022. He argues that these phenomena are causally related to greenhouse gas emissions, to which the energy company's production of fossil fuels contributes significantly.

The farmer is supported in his action by several NGOs (including Greenpeace and FIAN), which are formulating their own demands through voluntary intervention. However, the defendant, TotalEnergies SE, with its registered office in France, challenged the jurisdiction of the Belgian court, the admissibility of the claims and asked for the case to be postponed because of ongoing, similar proceedings in Paris.

The court's decision

The Hainaut Enterprise Court, Tournai Section, issued an important judgement on these preliminary issues on March 18, 2026. The court ruled on the main legal thresholds as follows:

• Jurisdiction of the Belgian court: The court declared jurisdiction under Article 7.2 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. Although the defendant is domiciled in France, this regulation allows the plaintiff to choose the court of the place where the damage occurred. Since the agricultural damage occurs in Belgium, this is sufficient to give the Belgian court jurisdiction.
• Admissibility and interest to act: The court held that the farmer does have a personal, direct and present interest. The concrete agricultural losses distinguish him from someone who is merely pursuing an abstract or collective goal. The NGOs also have a personal interest because they claim their own compensation for the costs they have to incur as part of their social purpose (such as protecting the environment).
• Parent company liability: TotalEnergies SE argued that the emissions are caused by its subsidiaries and it therefore had no capacity to defend itself. The court rejected this, stating that the parent company determines the group's strategy, sets climate guidelines and oversees their implementation. It therefore cannot disassociate itself from the decisions underlying the alleged errors.
• Suspension of proceedings: Since there is a similar case pending in Paris against TotalEnergies with the same ultimate goal (enforcing an emission reduction), the court decided, based on Article 30 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation, to temporarily suspend proceedings on the merits. This is to avoid the risk of conflicting judgments.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling provides a fascinating insight into the evolution of private international law and procedural law in the context of climate mitigation.

First, the court reaffirms the classic case law of the Court of Justice (the Mines de potasse-ruling from 1976), whereby the place of the harmful event may be either the place where the event causing the damage occurred or the place where the damage arises. The defendant argued that greenhouse gases are diffuse, making the source difficult to locate. However, the court ruled pragmatically: as long as it is claimed that the damage occurs in the territory of the adjudicated court (Belgium), the difficulty of locating the harmful event does not matter.

In addition, the interpretation of the ‘interest to act’ in accordance with Article 17 of the Judicial Code is important. The court clarifies that Belgian law does not require exceptional exposure; an individual and concrete alleged harm (such as agricultural damage) is sufficient. This is an important demarcation from the sometimes stricter admissibility requirements for international courts, such as the European Court of Human Rights.

Finally, the so-called corporate veil is actually pierced at the level of strategic control. The holding company is held liable because it provides the “impetus” for the climate strategy of the entire group. This decision is in line with the international trend (such as the earlier Shell case in the Netherlands) in which parent companies are held accountable for their duty of care regarding the activities of their supply chain and subsidiaries.

What this specifically means

This interlocutory ruling has important strategic implications for various actors:

• For individuals and business owners (victims of climate damage): The threshold for litigating locally against foreign multinationals is lowered. If you can prove concrete, individual damage caused by extreme weather, the Belgian court will recognize your right to speak, even if you are supported by NGOs.
• For multinationals and holding companies: Merely structurally housing operational, polluting activities in subsidiaries does not provide immunity. Parent companies that outline the global climate strategy can be sued directly.
• For interest groups (NGOs): The decision confirms that NGOs can seek material damages for the time and resources they have to spend to act against alleged environmental violations to the extent that it falls within their social purpose.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Which court has jurisdiction in international climate damages?
According to the European Brussels Ibis Regulation, the plaintiff can choose: the court of the place where the event occurred, or the court of the place where the damage occurred. If a Belgian company or citizen suffers damage here, the Belgian court usually has jurisdiction.

Do I have to prove exceptional damages to sue a multinational for climate?
No. Under Belgian law, it is not necessary that you be affected in an “exceptional” way compared to others. It is sufficient that you can prove a concrete, individual and personal injury, such as loss of turnover in your business.

Can a headquarters be held liable for the emissions of its subsidiaries?
Yes, courts are increasingly looking at actual control. If headquarters sets the strategic lines, sets the climate goals and oversees implementation, it has the capacity to answer in court for the group's overall impact.

Conclusion

Thejudgement demonstrates that Belgian courts are accessible to complex climate cases and willing to examine the responsibility of international parent companies. Removing the formal barriers around jurisdiction and admissibility paves the way for a debate on the merits about the liability of large polluters.