Brussels – The Belgian state has failed to fulfill its obligations under international law to prevent genocide in Gaza and must take action, particularly regarding the transfer of arms and dual-use goods. This time it is not the streets that are saying it, but a ruling by the Brussels Court of Appeal in the face of legal proceedings brought by jurists, lawyers, and members of the “Droit pour Gaza” collective, the Belgian-Palestinian Association (ABP), the National Coordination for Action for Peace and Democracy (CNAPD), SOS Gaza, and two Palestinian victims. The Court acknowledged the actions, albeit belated, taken by Brussels to impose, via a Royal Decree of 18 January, a ban on overflights of Belgian territory and technical stopovers by aircraft carrying arms and/or military equipment destined for Israel or the Occupied Palestinian Territories. However, it also specifies that this measure does not include the transfer of dual-use goods, i.e., those which are or may be intended, in whole or in part, for military purposes. Therefore, next Monday, 30 March, the State will be summoned to a hearing to clarify whether or not it has acted in this regard.
It is likely that, in that context, Brussels will cite interpretative ambiguities and difficulties in implementing EU rules (in particular Regulation 2021/821 regarding the control regime for exports, brokering, technical assistance, transit, and the transfer of dual-use items). At that point, the Court may decide to ask the Member State to adopt measures to prohibit the transfer of dual-use goods or to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the EU to seek its opinion on the application of EU rules in the light of international conventions and norms of international law: a step which would prolong the process, but, at the same time, the opinion of the judges in Luxembourg would carry weight across all 27 Member States of the European Union.
Meanwhile, organisations are celebrating the outcome. A “historic,” “strong” decision that “could be replicated in all EU Member States,” said Anne-Laure Losseau, a lawyer and co-founder of Droit pour Gaza, with enthusiasm. “We are very pleased,” she added. Above all, because “to our knowledge, this is the first time a court has declared itself competent to assess, at the request of victims and NGOs, whether Belgium is fulfilling its obligations under international law.”
The NGOs and victims brought the case against the Belgian State on 22 July aiming to compel the country “to adopt, as a matter of urgency, three measures required under international law:” the closure of Belgian airspace to the transport of arms and military equipment; a ban on all trade with Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories; and Belgium’s denunciation (or, alternatively, suspension) of the Association Agreement between the EU and its Member States (the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement) and Israel. At first instance, in September, the President of the Brussels Court dismissed the application, and the organisations lodged an appeal. On 16 March 2026, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision, overturning the first-instance ruling.
In particular, the judgment makes it clear that the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions have “direct effect in domestic law” and that, “where a breach of those provisions is alleged, the court is required to assess” how the State, in this case Belgium, acted. Furthermore, in light of the 2024 orders of the International Court of Justice, the Court recognises that “the Belgian State did not immediately do everything within its power to prevent the transfer of arms and military equipment to Israel or the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which could be used to commit crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and serious violations of the Geneva Conventions in the Gaza Strip, thereby breaching its obligations under those conventions.” Specifically, “as of the date on which the case was heard at first instance (15 September 2025), eighteen months after the order of the International Court of Justice of 26 January 2024, no binding measures had been adopted by the Belgian State.”
For the organisations – which funded their campaign through crowdfunding – the Court of Appeal’s ruling “affirms something fundamental: judges can compel a state to fulfill its obligations in the face of genocide, a war crime, or a crime against humanity” and “it is a historic decision” that “changes something essential: the inaction of our states can be judged and condemned.“
English version by the Translation Service of Withub
