Defamation & Reputation Management 2025 Comparisons

Legal grounds for the protection of privacy are contained in various provisions of national and international law and are always used in combination.

Belgian Law

Article 22 of the Belgian Constitution states, as a general rule, that “everyone has the right to have [their] private and family life respected, except for the cases and conditions laid down by law”. Article 29 of the Belgian Constitution protects the secrecy of letters but only when they have been sent by post and have not yet been distributed to their addressee.

Article 124 of the Law of 13 June 2005 on Electronic Communications protects the confidentiality of electronic communications and, unless authorised by all persons concerned, prohibits:

• intentionally becoming aware of the existence of information of any kind transmitted by electronic communication if one is not the intended recipient;
• intentionally identifying the persons concerned with regard to the transmission of the information and its content;
• intentionally becoming aware of data relating to electronic communications and concerning another person; and
• modifying, deleting, revealing, storing, or making any use whatsoever of information, identification or data obtained intentionally or otherwise.

International Law

Belgium is a party to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects private and family life and is usually used as the main ground in cases related to the invasion of privacy.

As a member of the EU, Belgium is also bound by Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which protects private and family life.

Establishment of a Case

Remedies are assessed according to the criteria established by the ECHR in its case law, which aims to strike a balance between freedom of expression – protected by Article 10 of the ECHR (and Articles 19 and 25 of the Belgian Constitution) – on the one hand and privacy – protected by Article 8 of the ECHR (and Article 22 of the Belgian Constitution) – on the other.

In that context, Belgian courts in principle apply the five criteria developed by the ECHR in its case law (see ECHR, 7 February 2012, Von Hannover v Germany (No 2) (GC), Sections 109–113; ECHR, 19 September 2013, ECHR, 13 September 2013, Von Hannover v Germany (No 3), Section 46; ECHR, 7 February 2012, Axel Springer AG v Germany (GC), Sections 89–95), based on:

• the contribution to a debate of public interest;
• the degree of notoriety of the person affected;
• the subject of the news report;
• the prior conduct of the person concerned; and
• the content, form and consequences of the publication.

The first criterion (contribution to a debate of public interest) is the main one used by the courts. Debate of public interest encompasses information about the medical condition of a statesperson, sporting issues, performance artists, criminal proceedings in general, crimes that have been committed, a “sex scandal” within a political party, the protection of the environment and public health, and matters concerning historical events.

Belgian case law tends to be rather protective of freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

In addition, the courts will assess whether the journalist has acted as a “normally prudent and reasonable journalist” by reference to Articles 6.5 and 6.6 of the Civil Code, which reiterate the general rules that:

• “All persons are liable for the damage they cause to others through their own fault”; and
• “Fault consists of a failure to comply with a legal rule that imposes or prohibits a particular conduct or with the general standard of care that must be observed in social relationships. The general standard of care requires conduct that would have been expected of a prudent and reasonable person in the same circumstances.”

In determining whether a journalist has acted as a normally prudent and reasonable journalist, the courts will often refer to a set of professional rules, such as the obligation to reasonably check sources and offering the option of rebuttal to the person targeted by the information. In a recent case, however, it was ruled that failure to comply with deontological duties does not always equate to a fault.

Remedies in the event of an invasion of privacy differ depending on whether or not a press publication is involved.

Prohibition of Preventive Injunctions

In the case of press publication (whether in print, broadcast or online), preventive injunctions (ie, injunctions aimed at preventing the publication or broadcasting of information) are in principle not possible, as they are contrary to Articles 19 and 25.1 of the Belgian Constitution:

• Article 19 – “freedom of worship, freedom of public worship and freedom to express one’s opinions in all matters are guaranteed, except for the punishment of offences committed in the exercise of these freedoms”; and
• Article 25.1 – “the press is free; censorship can never be established”.

In its ruling of 29 March 2011 in RTBF(1), the ECHR ruled that the Belgian legislative system does not make it possible to determine with sufficient precision when a “preventive” injunction is possible, such that the Belgian legal system does not meet the requirements of Article 10.2 of the ECHR to allow restriction of the freedom of speech protected under Article 10 of the ECHR. Despite that decision, some courts sometimes still grant unilateral requests for preventive injunctions, aimed at preventing the publication of articles. These decisions are nowadays systematically overturned on (third-party) appeal (see, for instance, Ghent, 28 March 2024, Rousseau (not yet published); for a correct application of the principles, see Prés Civ Namur, 22 October 2024, Belgian State v Groupe Sudmedia, P N, 24/14/c).

The scope of application of that prohibition is very broad. Even non-professional journalists (such as bloggers) could, in theory, rely on it.

For publications other than press publications (eg, publications by private individuals on social media), preventive action remains possible but could perhaps be challenged on the basis of the same ECHR case law.

A Posteriori Injunctions

Injunctions to withdraw publication are possible. The above-mentioned Articles 19 and 25 of the Belgian Constitution only prohibit preventive measures (for an example of withdrawal, see Appeal Brussels, 8 May 1998, JLMB, 1998, p1046).

Actions for Damages

Actions for damages are possible. Damages awarded for breaches of privacy are generally limited – ranging from a symbolic EUR1 compensation to a few thousand euros or, more rarely, to a few tens of thousands of euros.

Duration of Proceedings

Injunctions may be sought in summary proceedings (which generally take between a few weeks and a few months) or on the merits (these proceedings generally take between eight and 12 months). Damages are only awarded in proceedings on the merits.

Council for Journalism

Complaints about violations of the Deontological Code may be filed with the Council for Journalism (Raad voor de Journalistiek, or the “Council”). There is a Dutch-speaking council and a French-speaking council, and these are distinct organisations.

The Council is a self-regulatory body composed of the representatives of publishers, broadcasters and journalists, and it also has independent members from the judiciary, the academic world and civil society. The Deontological Code confirms principles such as veracity, loyalty, the right to privacy, and the right to be heard. The Council is often addressed (more so than the courts); each council organisation rendered about 35 decisions in 2024.

The deadline for filing a complaint is two months after publication. In principle, the Council will first try to settle the matter amicably through mediation. The Council can also decide on the merits if an amicable settlement is not possible. In doing so, the Council may find that the Deontological Code has been violated. In this procedure, both parties are heard, and both parties file a written note.

The Council cannot impose sanctions. The Council’s rulings are primarily of “moral”/“principle” importance. However, publication on the Council’s website can be demanded and imposed. A decision of the Council is sometimes used as support in court proceedings.

Statute of Limitations

Actions seeking financial compensation for damages based on an invasion of privacy are time-barred after a period of five years, starting from the day following that on which the victim became aware of the damage or its aggravation and of the identity of the liable person. In any event, such actions are time-barred 20 years after the invasion of privacy (the publication of information) occurred (Article 2262 bis Section 2 of the Civil Code).

The time limitation for actions aimed at the withdrawal of a publication is less clear. One could invoke the limitation period of ten years (based on Article 2262 bis Section 1 of the Civil Code), which is the general limitation period for all contractual or extra-contractual proceedings. However, and insofar as an action for withdrawal is normally an action to obtain redress/compensation for a damage, the five-year period could apply.

Proceedings based on the “right to be forgotten” are not affected by these limitations.

Defences

The defences that may be raised against a claim based on the protection of privacy are those that can be deduced from the case law of the ECHR referred to in 1.1 Privacy Grounds. The courts will weigh up the conflict of interests between the right to freedom of expression and the right to information, on the one hand, and the right to privacy on the other. The main criterion will be the context in which the infringement is committed: if the infringement takes place in the context of a publication on a subject of public interest and is useful in that context, it will in principle be considered lawful. The status of the person in question (public or private) will also be taken into account, as well as the other criteria developed by the ECHR.

When the author of a press publication is known and domiciled in Belgium, proceedings cannot be filed against the publisher (Article 25.2 of the Belgian Constitution). This rule is applicable in both criminal and civil proceedings cases. The rule is applicable to the printed press (offline and online); whether it is also applicable to the audiovisual press has been subject to discussion (see Appeal Liège (civ) (Chapter 20e) No 2018/RG/615, 13 February 2020, AM, 2020, p117).

Criminal or Civil Proceedings?

Proceedings based on infringement of privacy are normally civil proceedings. Only in very specific cases, such as illegal interception of electronic communications or private letters, could invasion of privacy lead to criminal proceedings.

Private or Anonymised Proceedings?

The filing of civil or criminal proceedings is not subject to publicity measures, and third parties do not have access to court documents filed in specific proceedings. However, hearings are public and nothing prevents a party involved in proceedings disclosing to third parties the existence of the proceedings or even the date of the hearing. Holding proceedings in “private”, or even in “secret”, is therefore not always possible.

Gag orders are not recognised under Belgian law but could, in theory, be requested from the courts as part of unilateral proceedings if the plaintiff demonstrates that they have an interest in the proceedings being kept secret and that such interest has priority over the freedom of expression of the defendant.

Grounds for Damages

Following the Shevill (ECJ, 7 March 1995, Shevill ea, C–68/93, EU:C:1995:61, point 33) and eDate Advertising (ECJ, 25 October 2011, C-509/09 and C-161/10) rulings, and the more recent GTFlix (ECJ, 21 November 2021, C-251/20) ruling of the ECJ, the victim may bring an action for damages:

• before the courts of each EU member state in which the publication was disseminated and where the victim claims to have suffered damage, but only for damage caused in that EU member state;
• in the courts of the place where the media/broadcaster of the content is established, as the place of the causal event, for the entirety of the damage; or
• before the courts of the EU member state in which the centre of the plaintiff’s interests is located, as the place of the materialisation of the damage, for the totality of the damage.

Grounds for Withdrawal Injunctions

Following the Bolagsupplysningen (ECJ, 17 October 2017, C-194/16, EU:C:2017:766, paragraph 48) and GtFlix (ECJ, 21 December 2021, C-251/20, EU:C:2021:1036) rulings, an application for the rectification or deletion of data may only be brought before a court that has jurisdiction to hear a claim for damages in its entirety and not before a court that does not have such jurisdiction. Such a claim can therefore only be made in Belgium if the publisher is established in Belgium, or if the interests of the victim are centred in Belgium.

Recovery of legal costs in Belgium is limited to the reimbursement of bailiff costs and court taxes, as well as to the partial reimbursement of attorney’s fees, based on the amount of damages claimed in the proceedings (varying from EUR25 to EUR45,000 for complex cases with a claim of more than EUR1 million). Where no amounts are claimed, the partial reimbursement of attorney’s fees can vary between EUR 1,800 (for normal cases) and EUR15,000 (for complex cases).

There are no unusual features regarding privacy claims in Belgium.

Contractual provisions regarding confidentiality and aimed at avoiding the disclosure of private information are valid, without time restrictions. However, one should consider that – insofar as such restrictions could be considered as limiting fundamental rights – commitments unrestricted in time (or commitments undertaken for a long period of time) could potentially be considered invalid. Contractual commitments may in any case not last for more than 99 years (Article 5.76 of the Civil Code).

At the civil level, the legal bases in Belgian law are Article 6.5 of the Civil Code, which sets out the rule that “all persons are liable for the damage they cause to others through their own fault”, and – in certain cases – the invocation of the Code of Economic Law, which provides protection against acts contrary to honest commercial practices (including acts of disparagement).

Case law recognises that the press can sometimes exaggerate to a certain extent – for example, to provoke debate. The mere fact that the publication of information causes damage to others is not considered to be wrongful.

In terms of criminal law, Articles 443–452 of the Criminal Code penalise attacks on a person’s honour or reputation. Complaints will only be declared well founded at the criminal level if an attack on honour has been made “maliciously”, which means that the person must have acted with the specific intention of harming or offending the victim (animus iurandi).

The allegation must also genuinely damage the person’s honour or expose them to public contempt. In this respect, the circumstances of the publication of the information and the type of media (information published in a satirical newspaper will, in principle, benefit from greater leniency), etc, must be taken into account.

Concerning the defamation remedies available, see 1.2 Privacy Remedies.

Deadlines

Concerning the statute of limitations for civil proceedings, see 1.3 Privacy Deadlines and Defences. Criminal proceedings are subject to a time limitation of ten years (Article 21 of the Preliminary Title of the Criminal Proceeding Code) or of one year in special circumstances (including defamation by the press against public servants or against directors of companies – see Decree on the Press of 20 July 1831 and Article 2:145 of the Code of Companies).

Defences

In criminal proceedings, the proof that a defamatory allegation is correct (“defence of truth”) constitutes a valid defence. However, in some circumstances, the proof must be made by a judgment or another authentic act (Article 447 of the Penal Code). Whether that is in line with the case law of the ECHR is subject to discussion. The “presumption of falsity” can be seen as unduly inhibiting the publication of material whose truth may be difficult to establish in a court of law. Also, the reversal of the burden of proof makes it important for the courts to assess the evidence put forward by the defendant very carefully in order to preserve the defence of truth (Kasabova v Bulgaria, Sections 59–62).

For the ECHR, the defence of truth is a necessary defence to ensure a system compliant with Article 10.2 of the ECHR (Colombani and Others v France, Section 66). For journalists, it is normally sufficient to show that they have acted fairly and responsibly, without the need to demonstrate the veracity of the facts (Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl and Others v the United Kingdom (dec); Radio France and Others v France, Section 24; Standard Verlags GmbH and Krawagna-Pfeifer v Austria, Sections 16, 30 and 57). It is important that the defendant be afforded a realistic chance to prove that there was a sufficient factual basis for their allegations (Morice v France (GC), Section 155).

The ECHR also states that a distinction must be made between statements of fact, which can be demonstrated (and for which a basis in national law can require demonstration), and value judgments or opinions, which cannot be demonstrated and for which a sufficient factual basis is needed – failing which, it will be deemed excessive ((Pedersen and Baadsgaard v Denmark (GC), Section 76; De Haes and Gijsels v Belgium, Section 42; Oberschlick v Austria (No 2), Section 33; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v France (GC), Section 55).

Criminal proceedings for defamation in the printed press (offline and online) do not exist in Belgium, as they require a jury trial (Article 150 of the Belgoam Constitution), which is a very cumbersome proceeding. For civil proceedings, see 1.4 Privacy Proceedings Forum Choice.

Criminal proceedings cannot be pursued in private or anonymised court proceedings. For private or anonymised civil proceedings, see 1.4 Privacy Proceedings Forum Choice.

With regard to whether it is possible to recover legal costs if successful as a claimant or defendant in these proceedings in Belgium, see 1.5 Privacy Costs.

There is a specific right of reply procedure in Belgium, which is often used.

As with any person named in a press publication, a victim of defamation can apply for a right of reply, to be published by the media. This system applies not only to the printed press but also to the audiovisual press. Discussion is pending as to the status of the right of reply in the online press.

The main characteristics of the right of reply are as follows.

• Printed press – any person mentioned (even implicitly) can ask for a reply to be published in the next press article, in the same place as that in which the original press article was published. Merely being mentioned is sufficient to exercise the right of reply; no harm need be established. The reply cannot exceed 1,000 characters. The content of the reply has to relate to the original article, cannot be injurious or contrary to another law, cannot involve a third party without necessity, and must be written in the language of the original article. The request for reply must be submitted within three months after the publication of the original article.
• Audiovisual press – any person has the right to request the insertion, free of charge, of a reply if their legitimate rights (particularlu concerning their honour or reputation) have been prejudiced as a result of an incorrect allegation made during the broadcast of a programme. The request must be made in writing within one month after the broadcast. The text of the reply must be in the same language as that of the broadcast. The reply must be directly related to the information that gave rise to the request, cannot be insulting or contrary to morality or the law, and may not implicate a third party unless strictly necessary. The length of the reply must be limited to what is strictly necessary to respond to the information that gave rise to the request; the response must be able to be read in a maximum of three minutes or contain a maximum of 4,500 typographical characters.

Article 442 bis of the Criminal Code prohibits harassment under penalty of criminal sanctions. The text of that article and the parliamentary documents make it clear that stalking is a serious disturbance of the peace and quiet of a person, knowingly and intentionally, in a way that causes a nuisance to the person concerned.

Surveillance

As indicated in 1.1 Privacy Grounds, specific provisions apply to the interception of private communications. Besides these provisions, the general provisions of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) could be used against unjustifiable surveillance. Also, the activities of private investigators are subject to regulation by the Act of 18 May 2024. This Act is not applicable to journalists. Private investigators cannot gather sensitive data such as political or religious orientation, sexual behaviour, health data, or judiciary data. Acts such as observation in private premises are forbidden.

Criminal proceedings can be filed. No specific civil proceedings are foreseen, but general proceedings are possible based on the general provisions of the Civil Code.

For the limitation periods for bringing an action, see 2.3 Defamation Deadlines and Defences. There are no specific defences to these claims.

If criminal proceedings are filed, civil proceedings will be stayed until the end of the criminal investigation. Criminal investigations and proceedings are led by the criminal prosecutor. Owing to the limited means of the office of the criminal prosecutor, harassment claims relating to the press will not be a priority.

Civil proceedings are in the hands of the plaintiff. Injunctions and damages are possible, as well as interim measures to protect the rights of the plaintiff if urgency is demonstrated.

Concerning the recovery of legal costs in harassment proceedings, see 1.5 Privacy Costs.

In Belgium, the national broadcasters and newspapers generally have a high standard for privacy, accuracy, and journalistic ethics. Nevertheless, there are individual cases in which press reporting does not meet those standards; therefore, there are a fair number of disputes.

Influential news providers include DPG Media (newspapers and broadcasters), Mediahuis (newspapers), VRT (public broadcaster), Rossel & Cie (newspaper and broadcaster), Groupe IPM (newspapers) and RTBF (public broadcaster).

Broadcasting and social media are regulated on a regional basis by:

• the Decree of the Flemish community on radio and television broadcasting of 27 March 2009, as amended from time to time (last amendments: 19 April 2024);
• the Decree of the French community on audiovisual media services and video sharing services of 4 February 2021, as amended from time to time (last amendments: 16 May 2024);
• the Decree of the German-speaking community on media services and cinema screenings of 1 March 2021, as amended from time to time (last amendments: 14 December 2023); and
• the Act on Audiovisual Media Services in the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital of 5 May 2017, as amended from time to time (last amendments: 21 April 2024).

There is no general regulatory framework pertaining to the press, but there are certain specific Acts (such as the Act of 23 June 1961 on the right of reply and the Act of 7 April 2005 protecting journalistic sources).

There are journalistic Codes of Ethics adopted by the Council for the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium and by the Council for Journalistic Ethics (Conseil de Deontologie Journalistique) for the French- and German-speaking parts of Belgium.

Supervisory Authorities

The supervisory authorities include the Flemish Regulator for the Media (Vlaamse Regulator voor de Media, or VRM) for the Flemish community, the Superior Audiovisual Council (Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel, or CSA) for the French community, the Media Council (Medienrat) for the German-speaking community, and the Belgian Institute for Postal Services and Telecommunications (Belgisch Instituut voor postdiensten en telecommunicatie, or BIPT/Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications, or IBPT) for the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital.

The BIPT/IBPT is only competent for audiovisual media services from providers based in the bilingual area of Brussels-Capital and whose programmes are not broadcast exclusively in Dutch or French. Otherwise, the other regional authorities are competent, depending on the activities.

There are specific complaint processes before the supervisory authorities, which differ somewhat between communities.

Flemish Community

In the Flemish community, the complaint must be filed within 15 days after the broadcast took place, either via registered letter or by using the electronic form made available by the supervisory authority. The complaint must meet certain conditions and contain certain information to be admissible.

A copy of the admissible complaint must be sent to the defendant, who may submit their observations in writing within 15 days. An oral hearing only takes place if the authority considers this necessary or upon the request of at least one of the parties.

Generally, a decision is taken by the supervisory authority within 45 days after the filing of the complaint unless a special prior investigation is required. Decisions are sent to the parties by registered letter and published on the website of the supervisory authority on the second day after they are sent to the parties. Appeal is possible before the Council of State for annulment.

The (administrative) sanctions range from warnings over the broadcasting or publication of the decision to administrative fines (up to EUR125,000) and the suspension or revocation of authorisations.

French Community

In the French community, no time limit for the introduction of a complaint is specified. Complaints can be filed by mail, online, by email or even by video in sign language. The complaint must meet certain conditions and contain certain information to be admissible.

Each complaint is first investigated by the investigation secretariat, which will decide to declare the complaint inadmissible, to close the complaint with no further action, or to proceed with an investigation. At the end of the investigation, it may decide to close the complaint with no further action or to transmit the file to the authorisation and control board, which will summon the defendant for a public hearing if it deems this appropriate. A decision is then issued within 60 days.

The decision is communicated to the parties and published through the different channels of the supervisory authority.

The (administrative) sanctions range from warnings over the distribution of press releases describing the infringement to suspension or withdrawal of the offending programme – or of authorisations or services – or administrative fines (between EUR250 and 3% of the annual turnover).

German-Speaking Community

In the German-speaking community, no time limit for the introduction of a complaint is specified. There are no specific rules prescribing how a complaint should be filed.

Upon receipt of a complaint, an auditor is appointed to decide on the admissibility and investigate the admissible complaint. The defendant is notified of the complaint, and of the investigation report, and is given one month to consult the file and submit written observations. The defendant will be summoned for a hearing. A decision is then issued within 60 days. The decision is communicated to the parties by registered letter.

The (administrative) sanctions range from a warning over the temporary suspension of the programme or the publication of an advert in the press to administrative fines (up to EUR25,000).

Bilingual Region of Brussels-Capital

In the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital, no time limit for the introduction of a complaint is specified. There are no specific rules prescribing how a complaint should be filed.

Upon receipt of a complaint, the authority will communicate the grievances to the party concerned, as well as the intended sanctions that will be applied if the infringement is confirmed. A time limit of no fewer than ten working days for the party concerned to consult the file and submit written observations shall be fixed.

The party concerned will be invited to appear on the date fixed by the authority and notified by registered letter. The decision is communicated to the parties, and to the competent minister, and published on the authority’s website.

The (administrative) sanctions range from an order to stop the infringement or the services to administrative fines (maximum of 5% of the annual turnover, limited to EUR125,000).

The liability of providers of intermediary services is regulated by the European Digital Services Act (Regulation 2022/2065 of 19 October 2022), which has been directly applicable in Belgium since 17 February 2024. This Act, amongst other things, sets out the conditions under which hosting service providers are not liable for the content they host. This is the case on the condition that the provider:

• does not have actual knowledge of illegal activity or illegal content and, as regards claims for damages, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which the illegal activity or illegal content is apparent; or
• upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove or disable access to the illegal content.

In Belgium, no specific anti-strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) regulation has been implemented yet. However, initiatives are expected in 2025.

In Belgium, there is no specific legislation to prevent the enforcement of judgments in media cases from other jurisdictions.

The GDPR is applicable throughout the EU, and the Belgian law of 30 July 2018 adds additional rules to the GDPR concerning details that are not written into the GDPR. There are several additional royal decrees.

There is a specific complaints procedure with a supervisory authority. The complaint is received by the first-line service, which will determine the admissibility of the complaint. When the complaint is declared admissible, the dispute chamber will then investigate. Ultimately, the dispute chamber will reach a decision if there has been a violation. Judicial appeal against a decision by the supervisory authority is possible.

Administrative fees can be imposed. Such fees can be very substantial (EUR10 million or 2% of the worldwide turnover).

Damages are not rewarded by the supervisory authority. Thus, it is necessary to file a judicial complaint to obtain damages.

In addition, possible penal sanctions range from a fine of EUR1,600 to EUR120,000 for the processor and/or controller or a fine of EUR100 to EUR20,000 for a controller and/or processor who acts under the authority of the government.

There is also the possibility of an injunction being filed with the president of the court of first instance.

A court can also order that its judgment is made public as a punishment, by publishing it in one or more newspapers paid for by the convicted.

The deadline to file a complaint with the supervisory authority is five years. For the deadline for judicial actions, see 1.3 Privacy Deadlines and Defences.

The GDPR has several exemptions from data rights, either for journalistic purposes or for the purposes of academic, artistic or literary expression.

Concerning whether data protection proceedings can be pursued in private or anonymised court proceedings, etc, see 1.4 Privacy Proceedings Forum Choice.

Concerning the recovery of legal costs, see 1.5 Privacy Costs.