Third Administrative Challenge at the Council of State against the Walloon Government

Key Arguments

In a similar manner to the previous challenge, the claimants argued that the Walloon Government had failed to justify its licensing decision, constituting a violation of international law (ATT; Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions) and of governing domestic law (Walloon Decree, criteria 2, 4 and 6.)

Court Decision

The Council of State ruled partly in the claimants’ favour.

ML1 Licences Suspended

In one judgement, they ruled that several licences for the export of ML1 goods must be suspended due to the involvement of the Saudi National Guard in Yemen and the risk of arms ending up in the hands of other parties to the conflict.

ML6 Licences Maintained

In a second decision, the administrative court maintained licences for the export of ML6 goods accepting the government’s argument that the goods were destined for the Saudi Royal Guard and there was no evidence of their misconduct in the Yemen conflict.

Following the court’s decision, the claimant’s initiated two separate procedures before Belgian courts seeking to annul the two sets of contested licences.

While the procedure for the ML1 licences has since been declared formally closed, the annulment procedure that concerns licences to CMI Defence for the export of turrets (ML6) that were not suspended by the court, is still pending.

These turrets have now been exported, so the decision will provide a final legal assessment on the lawfulness of this licencing decision, without consequence on the export, or precedential value for preventing the issuance of new licences.

Since a decision in this matter will take time, as long as the case remains formally open the government is obliged to communicate any changes, such as the granting of new licences to the applicants.