A new trial has been launched with the Brussels Court of First Instance in the context of noise pollution due to the overflight of Brussels, confirmed to La Libre Laurent Wysen, lawyer for the plaintiffs. Nearly 400 families residing in the municipalities of Woluwe-Saint-Pierre, Crainhem and Wezembeek-Oppem might claim 40 million euros in compensation from the State.
On October 22, 2020, the Brussels Court of Appeal issued a judgment condemning the State compensation in the amount of 9.45 million euros for 93 families, victims of excessive use of runway 01. The court found that the state had committed a fault by including the track in an operating plan at night, on Saturday and Sunday, in particular because he did not make his decision on the basis of scientific studies.
The new plaintiffs hope to be compensated on the same basis, which in this case might cost the Belgian State almost 40 million euros.
“In all, 392 families, which are not the same as the first 93, filed the same appeal, on the same grounds. The Belgian State will therefore undoubtedly have to compensate these families, which will then cost it four times more than the first time.“, continues Frédéric Petit (MR), mayor of Wezembeek-Oppem.
A possibility that these 400 residents will win their case
Contacted by the RTBF, the airport mediator, Philippe Touwaide indicates that this new action has a chance of succeeding. “Since this action is modeled on a first action which lasted more than ten years, but which was successful, there is a possibility that these 400 residents will win their case. There is a first judgment of the Court of Appeal which requires the federal State to repair the damage and the fault but the State remains in default not to budge and not to repair the fault, namely the famous standards of wind which regulate the use of the slopes. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is very clear. The State is condemned for fault: it owes compensation and reparation. The State has already compensated, but it has not yet repaired the fault for which it was condemned.“
Reparation, for the mediator, consists in “cancel two instructions, one from August 2003 and one from December 2013, to reinstate an instruction from July 2013 which, according to the Court of Appeal, is the only lawful, valid, reasoned one which does not violate international provisions. The July 2013 instruction complies with international definitions in terms of wind standards. The concern, in Zaventem, is that as soon as there is a peak of wind, we change the tracks when this peak of wind must respect certain limits and certain values. This therefore puts the whole system on the ground, in the sense that we end up using too many tracks compared to the preferential track 25.“
