The new environmental permit for Brussels Airport has been annulled by the Council for Permit Disputes, an independent Flemish administrative court. The Council thereby agrees with Brussels Airlines.
The airline found that the stricter environmental conditions, including an annual ceiling on the number of flight movements and the tightening of night flights, restricted its operations at the airport. According to the Council, those restrictions violated European law. Brussels Airport Company (BAC), the airport’s operator, itself was also vindicated in its fight against the annual diabolo surcharge.
21 appeals
The Council for Permit Disputes received 21 appeals against the new permit, issued in March 2024 by then Flemish Minister of the Environment Zuhal Demir (N-VA). Several municipalities, the Walloon Region, the Brussels Capital Region, and Brussels Airlines mainly filed these appeals. Brussels Airport itself also appealed, but only against the financial burden imposed, rather than against the permit itself.
The new permit allowed for further operations, but additional environmental conditions were imposed. For example, a ceiling of 240,000 flights would apply from 2032, compared to 198,000 last year. There was no ban on night flights, but nighttime noise pollution was also tightened, with a 30% reduction by 2030.
“No balanced approach procedure”
The Council now agrees with Brussels Airlines’ claim that the stricter environmental conditions restrict its operations at the airport. According to the airline, European rules allow operating restrictions only as a last resort and after the mandatory public participation procedure of ‘balanced approach’ has been completed.
“The Flemish Government could not impose these restrictions without going through the balanced approach procedure,” the verdict reads. “The argument that there was no more time for this does not justify the illegality.”
The Council also vindicates Brussels Airport Company. The new environmental permit obliges BAC to pay 10 million euros annually to rail operator Infrabel. The latter must use the annual amount to reduce the diabolo surcharge for train passengers. In this way, the Flemish Government wants to make train travel to the airport more attractive.
“The Flemish Government could only impose the financial burden if an urban development regulation allows it. That is not the case,” is now the verdict of the Council.
The quashing of the permit has no direct impact on air traffic. The Flemish Government has until June 30, 2029, to decide on a new permit application. “Until then, the airport may continue to be operated according to the annulled permit.”
Brussels Airlines satisfied
Brussels Airlines reacts with satisfaction to the decision. “We will now work constructively with the Flemish government to come up with a new environmental permit in which a good balance can be found between the environment and the economy,” the company says.
Brussels Airlines CEO Dorothea von Boxberg reiterates the “balanced approach” rule. That means, among other things, Consulting Brussels Airlines. “But also finding solutions with skies, with communities, possibly a flight law,” von Boxberg says. “Of course, we would like to be heard more, but it’s not just about us, but the whole broad community of people who are impacted.”
Of course, von Boxberg cannot predict the outcome of the balance approach, “but I think more arguments will be shared and more options for solutions will be on the table. Therefore, we expect that this will help us grow and improve connectivity.”
Brussels Airlines agrees to keep the current permit until 2029. The crucial point for the airline is in 2032: from then on, the ceiling of 240,000 flights applies – “a limit that would never, ever grow.” The modalities in place until 2029 seem “viable” for the airline, von Boxberg says.
Ombudsman not happy
The federal ombudsman for the national airport, Philippe Touwaide, regrets the annulment of the new environmental permit. It “gives a terrible name to the management of the airport as a whole,” he says. “In other files as well, I see again and again how the management of Brussels Airport is not very committed to administrative law.”
“The laws and rules are malleable for Brussels Airport in the name of economic growth. In this case, the preparatory file for the renewal of the environmental permit was poorly prepared by Brussels Airport, without empathy or understanding for society and for the 4,500 people who appealed.”
According to the ombudsman, numerous procedural errors attributable to Brussels Airport Company were identified in the file, including the application to use runway 02, which had been renamed runway 01 in 2013.
The Council did not hear appeals filed by action groups because the permit had already been annulled after these cases.
Ecolo wants an impact study
Current Flemish Minister of the Environment Jo Brouns (CD&V) “takes note” of the Council’s ruling. According to him, the ruling demonstrates “how important it is to strike a balance between livability and economic activity carefully.”
“As a minister, I want to facilitate a future-oriented airport, in harmony with its surroundings and accordance with European regulations. To this end, we will consult with all the partners involved,” Brouns said in a statement to the Belga press agency.
The outcome of the consultation process means that Brussels Airlines may be granted a stricter environmental permit than the one that has now been revoked.
For example, outgoing Brussels Minister of the Environment Alain Maron (Ecolo) requires the Flemish Region to submit a new permit for Brussels Airport based on a comprehensive and rigorous impact study that truly considers noise reduction.
Of course, the fact that the Flemish Government has recently decided to take an additional stake in the airport, making it the largest shareholder, changes a great deal about the matter. One thing is clear: this move will make it increasingly difficult to separate the interests.
