Trade & Customs

Trade lawyers par excellence

Van Bael & Bellis has the largest and most expert team of lawyers in Brussels handling EU and WTO trade law, with more than 30 years of experience in the field.

Discover our expertise
  • "Clearly the leading firm in the field of trade remedies in Brussels"

    Chambers Global

Latest news

Sign up for updates
    • 14/07/2021
    • News

    Gabriele Coppo, Mats Cuvelier and Elyse Kneller participate in seminar on export control compliance

    On the first of July, Gabriele Coppo, Mats Cuvelier and Elyse Kneller spoke at a seminar, co-hosted by Van Bael & Bellis, on key compliance risks for companies exporting military goods and dual-use items, including intangible technology transfers. Their presentation also covered international and European regulatory initiatives related to corporate and social responsibility duties affecting trade. The seminar was part of a meeting of the Belgian Security and Defence Industries (“BSDI”), the national trade association bringing together companies in the defence, aerospace, (cyber-) security sectors. The seminar was the first in-person event BSDI had organized in more than a year, providing the VBB team with an eager and engaged audience.

    Read more
    • 14/07/2021
    • News

    Brussels Court Issues Judgment against Belgian Federal and Regional Governments in Climate Change Litigation

    On 17 June 2021, the French-speaking Brussels Court of First Instance (Franstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel / Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles; the Court) handed down its judgment in the so-called “Klimaatzaak” case, in which it found that the federal government as well as the governments of the three regions (i.e., Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels) breached Article 1382 of the Belgian Civil Code on tort liability and Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the ECHR) by failing to take the necessary measures to limit the adverse effects of climate change on the country’s population. On 27 April 2015, the environmental non-profit association “Klimaatzaak” representing 58,000 Belgian citizens (the claimants) filed a lawsuit against the Belgian federal government as well as against the governments of the three regions, alleging that these authorities breached their general duty of care and the citizen’s human rights by failing to implement their commitments in terms of fighting climate change. In its judgment, the Court first addressed the admissibility of the claim brought by the claimants. It held that the 58,000 Belgian citizens showed a personal and direct interest in the legal action in view of the real threat of climate change and of its present and future adverse consequences on the daily lives of citizens in Belgium and elsewhere. In addition, the Court considered that the non-profit association “Klimaatzaak” had an independent personal and direct interest in the legal action in accordance with its statutory object, clearly aimed at combating climate change. On the merits, the Court considered that both the federal government and each of the governments of the three regions were individually liable for failing to implement their climate obligations. The Court based its reasoning on three findings. First, Belgium showed mixed results in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (the GHG emissions) and therefore failed to meet international, European and national GHG emissions reduction targets. More specifically Belgium failed to comply with: • international targets laid down in the 2012 Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1997; • European targets set out in the Decision No 406/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the effort of Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions; • internal targets that Belgian authorities have set for themselves. In addition, experts projected that Belgium will also not meet the targets for 2030 set by the EU Regulation 2018/842 of 30 May 2018 on binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions by Member States from 2021 to 2030, even if additional internal policies were implemented. Second, the Belgian authorities failed to implement a strong climate governance. In particular, the Court considered that since climate policy is a competence shared between the federal government and the governments of each of the three regions, these entities should have taken appropriate coordinated actions to ensure that their climate obligations were met. Third, the Court noted that Belgium received repeated warnings from the European Union concerning its failure to meets its climate commitments. These findings, together with the fact that the Belgian authorities had full knowledge of the risks of climate change on the country’s population led the Court to conclude that neither the federal government, nor the governments of the three regions acted with the degree of care and diligence required by Article 1382 of the Belgian Civil Code. In addition, the Court considered that the same authorities breached the claimants' rights to life and right to privacy enshrined in Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR. In that respect the Court stressed that the authorities did not take appropriate measures to prevent the risks and adverse consequences of climate change on the claimants’ life and privacy. The Court nonetheless rejected the claimants’ request for an injunction to further reduce the GHG emissions by 48% (or at least by 42%) in 2025, by 65% (or at least by 55%) in 2030, and by 100% in 2050. In particular, it found that whilst it could be determined that the federal government and the government of the three regions were liable for breach of their legal obligations, the principle of separation of powers did not allow the Court to intervene in political decisions and set specific GHG emission reduction targets. The claimants communicated their intention to appeal this part of the judgment before the Brussels Court of Appeal and to bring the case before the European Court of Human Rights.

    Read more

Subscribe to our updates

Please select the practice areas you are interested in: *

Get in touch

Please fill out the form below along with your query and someone from the team will get back to you. Alternatively you can email [email protected]

Recommendations

  • Respected firm headquartered in Brussels known for its outstanding work in all aspects of Europe-wide international trade and WTO.

    Chambers Global
  • Specialist knowledge and experience of EU trade law and anti-dumping investigations.

    Legal 500
  • They are really top in their knowledge of the field.

    Chambers Europe
  • The practice given is extremely well tailored and it is effectively oriented to the specific issues required.

    Legal 500

Team focus

With 9 partners, 4 counsel and 19 associates, Van Bael & Bellis is the EU law firm with the largest team of specialised trade lawyers.

Get in touch with our Trade & Customs team today

Recent publications

Sign up for updates
    • 03/08/2021
    • Articles

    Brussels Court of Appeal Upholds Attachment Order against Kazakhstan

    On 29 June 2021, the Brussels Court of Appeal (the Court of Appeal) handed down a judgment in which it upheld a protective attachment order over more than USD 500 million worth of assets, owned by Kazakhstan, and held with the Brussels subsidiary of the Bank of New York Mellon (the BNYM). Background The proceedings before the Belgian courts result from the efforts of two Moldovan investors (Anatolie and Gabriel Stati (the Investors)) who seek to enforce an arbitral award handed down in their favour in 2013. The arbitral tribunal (chaired by Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel) had found Kazakhstan liable for a harassment campaign against the Investors which ultimately resulted in a violation of the Energy Charter Treaty provisions on Fair and Equitable Treatment. As a result, the arbitral tribunal had ordered Kazakhstan to pay USD 508 million to the Investors as compensation for the damage suffered. In the absence of voluntary payment from Kazakhstan, the Investors sought a protective attachment order from the Brussels Court of First Instance in 2017 enabling them to freeze assets owned by Kazakhstan held with BNYM pending the outcome of the proceeding leading to the recognition and enforcement of their arbitral award in Belgium. The protective attachment order was obtained in ex parte proceedings (i.e., without notice to Kazakhstan). However, upon notice of the attachment order, Kazakhstan lodged a third-party opposition (tierce opposition / derdenverzet) challenging the validity of the protective order. After the Brussels Court of First Instance dismissed the third-party opposition, Kazakhstan appealed that decision before the Court of Appeal.

    Read more
    • 28/06/2021
    • Articles

    The EU’s upcoming sustainable corporate governance rules: What can businesses expect?

    The growing political focus on the protection of the environment, human rights and labour rights may soon translate into additional obligations on companies in order to ensure the respect of such societal values throughout their entire supply chains. The European Commission (“Commission”) is likely to publish a legislative initiative on sustainable corporate governance,1 which would set out rules that require companies to address adverse sustainability impacts within their operations and international value chains. The Commission is also contemplating regulating the remuneration of corporate directors and enforcing them to integrate stakeholders’ interests and corporate sustainability risks into the implementation of the corporate strategy. This client alert sets out what businesses can expect from the upcoming sustainable corporate governance initiative and its potential impacts on company operations and value chains. In section 1, we explain what the sustainable corporate governance initiative is before turning to the rules that the Commission is considering in section 2. Finally, in section 3, we briefly discuss the effects that these rules might have on businesses.

    Read more
    • 08/01/2021
    • Articles

    German Government prohibits Chinese acquisition under foreign direct investment rules

    On 2 December 2020, the German Government prohibited on public security grounds the sale of the German Institut für Mobil- und Satellitenfunktechnik (“IMST”), a specialist in satellite and communications technologies, to Addsino, a subsidiary of State-owned defence group China Aerospace Science and Industry Corp (“CASIC”). This is only the second time that the German Government has decided to prohibit a transaction on the basis of the Foreign Trade and Payments Ordinance, and is technically the first prohibition to take effect as the first transaction had been abandoned once it became clear that the prohibition was imminent.

    Read more
Keep updated Sign up for VBB insights

Be the first amongst your peers to get the latest publications and insights in Trade & Customs law.