The Federal Government has been ordered to adjust the flight routes above the municipalities around Brussels Airport in Zaventem (just outside the capital). In response, Belgium's new Mobility Minister, Jean-Luc Crucke (Les Engagés) has stressed that a "clear procedure for determining routes" is now needed.
While Brussels Airport is located in Flanders, it falls under the competency of the Federal Government. Studies have repeatedly shown that the health of thousands of people living in the vicinity of the airport, in both Flanders and the north of Brussels, is harmed by noise pollution from its activities.
Previous court rulings also found that the current flight routes – as established in 2012-2014 by then-State Secretary Melchior Wathelet – have to be stopped. However, the Federal Government never executed these court orders.
In 2018, the Flemish municipalities in the northern periphery around Brussels (Wemmel, Grimbergen, Vilvoorde, Meise, and Machelen) brought a case before the Brussels Court of Appeal, arguing that the existing distribution of flight routes from Brussels Airport caused an unfair concentration of noise pollution over their areas. They claimed that the government had failed to establish a balanced allocation of air traffic, to the detriment of local residents.
Learning their lesson
After several legal setbacks in the years that followed, the Court of Appeal finally ruled in their favour in April 2025, finding that key legal and procedural requirements had not been met when the Federal Government determined first drew up the flight paths. Specifically, the judgement pointed to the lack of an adequate environmental impact analysis, structured consultation with the parties concerned, and the airport's non-compliance with EU regulations on noise standards and environmental protection.
Minister Crucke stated that "this judgement confirms that the State retains the authority to determine flight routes, but at the same time emphasises that this must be done within a legal framework that protects the environment and the rights of citizens. We must take that lesson seriously."
Additionally, he emphasised that these determined shortcomings are "the result of decisions that predate the current mandate, and cannot therefore be attributed" to him. The ruling obliges the government to revise these routes within two years to better distribute the noise burden.
Credit: Belga
The judgment of 14 April 2025 also has important financial consequences, Crucke stressed. The decision annuls the "heavy financial sanctions imposed on the Belgian State": a total of €7,702,606.91 in financial sanctions is therefore being nullified.
"My office is currently investigating, in collaboration with our legal advisors, the possibilities and desirability of recovering the sanctions that were already paid," he said.
At the same time, Crucke emphasised that the judicial ruling should not be an end point, but an opportunity for sustainable reform. "This case once again proves the need for a legal and transparent framework for the organisation of flight routes in our country."
"As provided for in the coalition agreement, an aviation law – which will include a clear procedure for determining routes – is needed for this," he said. "The challenge is: how do we distribute noise pollution in a balanced way, with respect for people, the environment and aviation safety?"
'Disappointed, astonished, sceptical and surprised'
Also in April, Brussels Airport announced a €500 million investment plan – which led to heavy criticism. Federal mediator responsible for Brussels Airport Philippe Touwaide said he was "very disappointed, astonished, sceptical and surprised" by the new half-billion-euro investment plan and regrets that the projects unveiled do not include investments to reduce noise and pollution caused by the infrastructure.
"I am in favour of a balance between the economy, the environment and health. I have nothing against the airport, but a private company cannot, in 2025, want to develop its economic activity without making any concrete efforts to protect the environment," Touwaide said in a statement.
The ruling has not yet been served, which means that the period for a possible appeal in the cassation courts has not yet started. The Belgian State is still keeping the possibility of an appeal open, pending a full analysis of the ruling and the strategy of the other parties involved.
