BRUSSELS/PNN/
A Belgian appeals court has ruled that the state failed to meet its international obligations to prevent serious crimes that could amount to genocide in the Gaza Strip, in a decision plaintiffs described as a landmark in domestic law.
In a preliminary ruling issued on March 16, the Brussels Court of Appeal said it has jurisdiction to assess whether Belgium acted in line with its duties under international law, citing a “serious risk” of genocide and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. The decision partially overturns an earlier ruling by a lower court that had dismissed the case.
The court said Belgian authorities did not take, in a timely manner, “all measures reasonably within their power” to prevent and halt crimes being committed in Gaza, concluding that the failure constitutes a breach of the country’s international obligations.
The case was brought in July 2025 by rights groups, including “Right for Gaza,” the Belgian-Palestinian Association and the National Coordination for Peace and Democracy, along with two Palestinian victims. The plaintiffs accused Belgium of failing to take urgent steps to prevent genocide and serious violations of international law.
The lawsuit focused on three main demands, including closing Belgian airspace to the transit of weapons and military equipment to Israel, including dual-use items, banning trade with Israeli settlements, and suspending the EU-Israel Association Agreement.
In its ruling, the court found there was urgency regarding the transit of arms, given the risk they could be used in committing war crimes or crimes against humanity in Gaza. It also said Belgium’s obligation to act dates back to Jan. 26, 2024, when the International Court of Justice issued an order recognizing a serious risk of genocide.
The court noted that Belgium did not take effective steps to prevent arms transit until a royal decree was issued in January 2026, concluding that the delay amounted to a failure to act promptly.
Regarding dual-use goods, the court said existing measures do not clearly cover them and ordered the issue to be reopened for further argument at a hearing scheduled for March 30.
However, the court rejected requests to compel the government to ban trade with settlements or suspend the EU-Israel agreement, saying such decisions fall within the executive’s discretionary powers and cannot be imposed by the judiciary under the principle of separation of powers.
Plaintiffs said the ruling sets a precedent by affirming that states can be held accountable before national courts for failing to prevent genocide and war crimes, and by directly linking arms transfers to states’ obligations to prevent such crimes.
