On 18 March 2026, a Belgian court (the Hainaut Enterprise Court) delivered a significant decision in the so-called "Farmer’s Case", a climate liability action brought by Belgian farmer Mr. Hugues Falys, together with three NGOs (Ligue des droits humains, Greenpeace Belgium and Fian-Belgium), against TotalEnergies (“TE”).

In these proceedings, the Belgian farmer seeks both material and moral compensation for past and future damage to his farm resulting from extreme climatic events. But crucially, the claim also includes a series of injunctions, such as requiring TE to cease investing in fossil fuels, reduce greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions from its oil production, and implement other related measures.

In the interim decision of 18 March 2026, the court notably ruled on its jurisdiction and on the legal standing of the parties.

1. Jurisdiction

The court accepted jurisdiction to hear the case on the basis of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation, which offers claimants in tort matters the possibility to start proceedings either at the place of the causal event or where the damage materialised (as established by the Court of Justice of the EU since the 1976 Mines de Potasse case). TE argued that the diffuse nature of GHG emissions made it impossible to identify a single location for the causal event. However, the court dismissed this argument, holding that if damage is alleged to have occurred within the court’s territory, this constitutes a sufficient connecting factor for jurisdiction, even if the precise location of the causal event cannot be determined.

2. Legal standing

The court found the claimants to have legal standing under Belgian law, as both Mr. Falys and the NGOs demonstrated a personal, direct, and legitimate interest in bringing the claim.

The court also confirmed that the holding company of the TotalEnergies group (TotalEnergies SE) has standing to defend against the claim, despite the argument that GHG-generating activities are mainly carried out by subsidiaries of the group over which the defendant exercises no control. Referring to TE’s annual reports and the precedent set in the Shell case in the Netherlands, the court found that, in its opinion, the holding company appears to direct the group’s overall strategy (in particular regarding the energy transition) and to exercise de facto control over its subsidiaries, thereby potentially incurring liability for their actions. It remains to be seen whether the court will take the same view on this issue at the merits stage.

3. International connexity

At TE’s request, the court decided to stay the proceedings until the Paris judicial court issues its decision (expected on 25 June 2026) in a similar case against TE. Relying on Article 30(1) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation, the court found that there were sufficient links between the two cases – despite the French proceedings being based on a different legal ground (the duty of vigilance law) – to create a risk of conflicting judgments, as both actions ultimately seek to force the company to reduce its GHG emissions and fossil fuel production globally.

The court emphasised, however, that this stay does not constitute a waiver of jurisdiction, a delegation of judicial authority, or subordination to the French court. It indicated that this decision was taken solely to ensure a good administration of justice and avoid conflicting court rulings, and that will exercise its jurisdiction independently when the proceedings resume, without being bound by the findings of the French court.

4. Next steps

The Enterprise Court of Hainaut will now await the decision of the Paris court, expected at the end of June. The parties will then reconvene before the court in September 2026 to determine the subsequent steps in the proceedings.