‘The Farmer Case’: Belgian court confirms jurisdiction in landmark climate case against a multinational energy company

On 18 March 2026, the Enterprise Court of Tournai (the Court) confirmed that it has jurisdiction to rule on the climate case brought against TotalEnergies SE but has stayed the proceedings until 9 September 2026, pending the outcome of a parallel case before the Paris court, expected on 25 June 2026.  

The judgment makes important findings on gateway questions of jurisdiction and standing in relation to claims involving allegations about the impact of companies operating across borders. In particular, the Court’s reasoning confirms that: 

The decision marks a notable further step in the climate litigation landscape in Belgium and, given the court’s reliance on principles of European law, signals heightened legal risks for enterprises in the context of climate-related claims across Europe. 

Context  

In March 2024, a Belgian farmer, Mr. Hugues Falys, launched a groundbreaking climate lawsuit against TotalEnergies SE, as one of the world’s largest energy companies, to hold it liable for its contribution to anthropogenic climate change. The claim seeks not only compensation for damages allegedly caused by climate change but also far reaching injunctions aiming to reshape the company’s future operations. 

The legal battle opposes farmer Mr. Falys, supported by three intervening NGOs, the Belgian Human Rights League, FIAN and Greenpeace (together, the Claimants), against TotalEnergies SE. This is the first climate action in Belgium targeting a multinational corporation and uniquely, the first attempt to hold a private company financially liable for harm linked to climate change. Mr. Falys claims compensation for material damage to his harvest caused by specific extreme weather events, as well as moral damage in the form of ecoanxiety. No claim of this type has ever succeeded in obtaining a judgment that awards compensation of this nature.  

The case is also notable for its procedural setting. Rather than being brought before the headquarters of TotalEnergies SE in France, Claimants chose to initiate proceedings before the Court in Tournai, where the alleged damage occurred.  

The Claimants’ claims are rooted in extra-contractual civil liability (Art. 1382 and 1383 of the former Belgian Civil Code). They allege that TotalEnergies SE committed five faults, breaching the standard of care informed by human rights considerations and scientific and political consensus. These alleged faults include the massive production of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, an inadequate transition plan, manufacturing doubt about the harmfulness of fossil fuels and even the existence of climate change, anti-climate lobbying activities, and greenwashing practices. 

Beyond seeking redress for past and present harm, the Claimants are demanding four injunctions, requiring TotalEnergies SE to:  

The Court’s judgment – Key elements 

Jurisdiction  

The claim is grounded in Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation and the longstanding Mines de Potasse case law, which allows a claimant in tort matters to bring proceedings either at the place of the causal event or at the place where the damage materialised. The Court confirmed that this framework applies fully in the context of climate litigation, notwithstanding the diffuse and cross border nature of GHG emissions, a point contested by TotalEnergies SE. The Court found that the forum chosen by the Claimants corresponds to the place where the alleged damage occurred, thereby satisfying the criteria of proximity, foreseeability and sound administration of justice. In applying the prima facie test that governs the preliminary jurisdictional assessment, the Court held that it was sufficiently plausible that extreme weather events (EME) caused the damage and are causally linked to GHG emissions. 

The Court held that the interpretation of Article 7(2) in this context was clear and did not warrant a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), thus confirming that it considered that of the provisions of the existing Brussels I bis Regulation were appropriate for addressing allegations of cross border climate harm. 

Admissibility 

On the legal standing of Mr. Falys, the Court found that he demonstrated a legitimate, direct, personal and actual interest. The Court assessed Mr. Falys' standing relied on the Klimaatzaak ruling of the Brussels Appeal Court, which held that this provision can be interpreted in light of the Aarhus Convention to facilitate access to justice in environmental and climate matters. Mr. Falys asserted personal damage and sought compensation, citing agricultural losses due to three specific EME and moral harm linked to the working conditions on his farm. The Court found that these individual elements set him apart from a claimant invoking a purely abstract or collective interest. The Court noted that his support from NGOs and his expressed wish to see his claims for injunctions succeed rather than obtain compensation did not undermine his legitimate interest. Under Belgian law, the requirement of a personal interest does not demand exceptional circumstances where individual harm is alleged, making the European case law invoked by TotalEnergies irrelevant. 

On the legal standing of the NGOs, the Court recognises their personal interest, as they seek compensation for personal harm resulting from the faults attributed to TotalEnergies SE, which compel them to devote resources and activities within the scope of their statutory mission, thereby causing them potential damage. 

Regarding the capacity to defend of TotalEnergies SE, the Court considered that the parent company plays a decisive role in shaping the group’s overall strategy. The judge observed that TotalEnergies SE’ own arguments about its commitment to the Paris Agreement, as well as its annual reports, confirm that it controls all group entities and sets the strategic orientations and concluded that TotalEnergies SE cannot be deemed external to the faults attributed to it. 

Stay of the proceedings 

Relying on Article 30(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, the Court decided to exercise its discretion to stay the proceedings, which it may do when actions pending in different Member States are closely connected with a risk of irreconcilable judgments if heard separately. The Court considered this to be the case given the parallel proceedings in Paris. Although the two actions are brought on different legal grounds, both proceedings seek to compel TotalEnergies SE to reduce its global GHG emissions, lower fossil fuel production and refrain from new investments. Proceeding in parallel therefore raised a genuine risk of conflicting outcomes, particularly with respect to potential injunctions affecting the group as a whole. 

The Court further noted that the Paris proceedings are expected to conclude within a reasonable timeframe, with a judgment anticipated on 25 June 2026. For the Court, the stay does not involve relinquishing jurisdiction because it remains fully seized of the case, will not be bound by the Paris decision, and will resume the case independently in September 2026. However, it is likely that the Court will have regard to the Paris court’s approach on comparable issues, such as the treatment of Scope 3 emissions and the requests for injunctions. 

Looking ahead: What to expect when proceedings resume in September 2026 

When proceedings resume in September 2026, the Court will turn to the merits, assessing whether TotalEnergies SE breached its duty of care through the alleged faults relating to emissions, transition planning, lobbying, and public communications. Key questions will include: 

The Court will also assess the evidence for the farmer’s claim for material and moral damages, as well as the NGOs’ mission-related harm, and consider whether the case on causation advanced by the Claimants — linking emissions to global warming, extreme weather events, and individual loss — has a sound legal basis . In this context, the Court will need to determine whether the “equivalence of conditions” theory (or “but-for” test) should be applied in cases such as this or whether a different approach should be taken to avoid the risk of  so called “limitless” causation, as argued by TotalEnergies SE. 

Another crucial aspect will be the Claimants’ far reaching injunction requests, which may require the Court to evaluate whether a scientific or political consensus supports measures aligned with a 1.5°C trajectory. The Court will also have to consider the admissibility of such remedies under Belgian civil liability law and the limits imposed by the separation of powers on judicial intervention in corporate strategy and energy policy. 

Next steps