header-logo header-logo

LNB News: ClientEarth launches climate-based legal challenge against Belgian National Bank

14 April 2021
Categories: Legal News , Environment , Human rights , EU
printer mail-detail
ClientEarth has released a statement explaining its decision to launch a landmark legal challenge against the Belgian National Bank for not fulfilling human rights and environmental requirements when purchasing corporate assets. 

Lexis®Library update: The Bank uses the Corporate Sector Purchase Programme to make the purchases, which ClientEarth believes sends capital to some of Europe’s biggest polluting industries, with allegedly over half of the $266bn worth of assets under the programme coming from high emitting companies, including many involved in the fossil fuel industry.

The Corporate Sector Purchase Programme was devised by the European Central Bank (ECB) and ClientEarth is hoping to overturn its validity, which would involve the legal challenge going to the European Court of Justice.

ClientEarth have said: ‘We argue that the ECB’s decision establishing the programme failed to assess the climate impact of buying these corporate assets despite its legal obligations to do so. If found to be invalid, ClientEarth asks the court to order the Belgian central bank to stop purchasing bonds under the programme.’

ClientEarth has also made three recommendations to the ECB that they say would align corporate bond purchases with the goals set out in the Paris Agreement:

  • excluding companies from the purchase programme that are incompatible with the goals of the Paris Agreement
  • stopping or constraining purchases of bonds from companies with high carbon emissions if they do not implement, by January 2023 a credible strategy to achieve net zero emissions
  • publishing a comprehensive plan detailing how monetary policy portfolios and activities will be aligned with aims from the Paris Agreement

The full letter from ClientEarth is available here.

Source: Why ClientEarth is suing the central bank of Belgium for climate failings

This content was first published by LNB News / Lexis®Library, a LexisNexis® company, on 13 April 2021 and is published with permission. Further information can be found at: www.lexisnexis.co.uk.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll