LEZ postponement thrown out by court, but no immediate fines

Belgium’s constitutional court has thrown out the Brussels region’s decision to postpone the introduction of stricter low-emission rules for two years, citing public health concerns.

The stricter low-emissions zone (LEZ) rules technically apply again immediately, but fines will not be issued just yet.

The court said that postponing the LEZ extension presented "a significant deterioration in the level of protection of the right to health and the right to a healthy environment, and that deterioration is not reasonably justified".

“The court is allowing a little time and we have asked the administration to convene the LEZ taskforce as soon as possible," said environment minister Alain Maron (Ecolo).

"This is a working group that brings together the various administrations to see how we are going to translate this into concrete terms.

“But what is clear is that we obviously don't want to trap all those who are acting in good faith. We are not going to hold them hostage or penalise them like that, it would be unfair.

"So we have to find a way forward. In the coming days and weeks, we will see how we can follow up on this court ruling in practical terms."

The Brussels parliament decided in October 2024 to postpone the next planned tightening of the LEZ by two years, meaning diesel cars with the Euro 5 emission standard and petrol cars with the Euro 2 standard would still be allowed to drive in the region until 2027.

The move, in the midst of government formation negotiations, led to outrage at the time and several groups took the matter to the courts: Bral, Les Chercheurs d'Air, the Fédération des Maisons Médicales and the Human Rights League, together with three residents who said that their health was personally affected by the postponement.

The constitutional court agreed with their arguments on both an individual and collective level.

“The court emphasises that numerous scientific studies show that children are a vulnerable group that is susceptible to the effects of air pollution,” the ruling notes.

“According to the court, the postponement of a measure to improve air quality, the effectiveness of which is known, even if limited to two years, could lead to a significant deterioration in the health of a child who is already seriously affected by the current air pollution. The court concludes that the contested ordinance may cause irreparable harm.”

The constitutional court also agreed with the argument that the "standstill principle" had been violated. This principle means that a government cannot introduce a policy that significantly reduces the existing level of protection for residents.

“The court further emphasises that the timetable introduced by the [initial LEZ] decision of 30 June 2022 aims at a sustained and gradual long-term effort, taking into account future generations,” the statement continues.

“The 2023 report on the evaluation of the low-emission zone shows that this timetable has produced results. The court concludes that the postponement provided for in the contested ordinance entails a significant deterioration in the level of protection of the right to health and the right to a healthy environment.”

The court also disputed claims that low-income families would be unduly burdened by the stricter LEZ rules.

“There is no evidence that the purchase of a second-hand vehicle that is at most a few years newer than the older vehicle – a purchase that could already be envisaged in 2018 and even more so in 2022 – constitutes a significant obstacle,” it said in the ruling.

“Numerous studies also show that the population group that the contested ordinance aims to protect is also the group that is most vulnerable to air pollution and the resulting health problems.”

Brussels Environment said that its lawyers were studying the ruling and that consultations will follow with the other administrations involved and minister Maron.

An estimated 30,000 vehicles registered in Brussels are in violation of the stricter LEZ rules.

Maron for his part was pleased with the ruling. “The suspension of the measure sends a strong signal: it is necessary to maintain ambitious air quality standards, given the challenges in the areas of public health and the environment,” he said.

Mobility minister Elke Van den Brandt (Groen) agreed, calling the ruling "a victory for the health of our children and vulnerable residents".

“Targeted measures must now be put in place, such as a mobility budget for people with financial problems,” Van den Brandt said. “No more delays, but rapid targeted support for those who need it. You can't mess around with our children's health.”

The postponement of the LEZ was approved at the time by MR, Open VLD, PS, Les Engagés, Team Fouad Ahidar and Vlaams Belang.

Groen, Ecolo and DéFI voted against, while Vooruit, N-VA and CD&V abstained.

Les Engagés leader Christophe De Beukelaer said the parties in favour of postponing the stricter LEZ must now find a solution.

“Adjustments will have to be considered, in line with the court's conclusions,” said De Beukelaer.

“The goal is clear: to respect the court's decision while avoiding unfairly penalising some motorists.”

The ruling also has consequences for the postponement of the tightening of low emission zones outside of Brussels, such as in Ghent and Antwerp, according to the Bond Beter Leefmilieu (Better Environment Association).

The Flemish government wants to postpone the tightening by law, but according to the Better Environment Association, this is not possible in light of the new ruling.

Flemish environment minister Jo Brouns (CD&V) said in a response that he was studying the ruling and that he will "soon discuss the reform of the LEZ within the Flemish government".

In terms of what will happen in Brussels, Maron said that the relevant authorities were currently studying the technical and practical modalities of implementing the ruling and various scenarios are likely to be presented next week.

In previous phases of the tightening of LEZ rules, offenders first received a warning. The first fines were only issued three months after the first offence and only in the event of a repeat offence with an unauthorised vehicle.