Private Wealth Disputes 2026 Comparisons

The Belgian civil court system operates a three-tier structure.

First Instance

Cases are generally heard in the Courts of First Instance (Rechtbank van eerste aanleg/Tribunal de première instance), which are divided into three sections: civil, correctional, and family and juvenile. This court handles, among other matters, disputes relating to the settlement and distribution of estates, marital property, and the validity of wills. For these matters, and specifically for disputes involving family businesses or trusts, there are no dedicated specialised courts. All such cases fall under the jurisdiction of the Courts of First Instance.

Depending on the subject matter and the parties involved, other specialised courts may have jurisdiction:

• enterprise courts (Ondernemingsrechtbank/Tribunal d’entreprise): disputes between businesses; and
• Justice de Paix (Vredegerecht/Justice de Paix): small claims and specific matters, including issues relating to mental capacity and guardianship.

Appeal

First-instance judgments may be appealed to the Courts of Appeal (Hof van Beroep / Cour d’appel), which review both facts and law. Appeals from the Justice of the Peace are brought before the Courts of First Instance.

Supreme Court Review

Judgments of the appellate courts may be further appealed to the Supreme Court (Hof van Cassatie/Cour de Cassation). Its review is limited to questions of law. It does not re-examine the facts.

Belgium also has a Constitutional Court (Grondwettelijk Hof/Cour Constitutionnelle), which rules on the constitutionality of laws and regulations but does not serve as a court of appeal for civil disputes.

Private wealth disputes can also be resolved through mediation, collaborative negotiations, or arbitration. The Belgian Judicial Code provides a clear legal framework for each of these forms of alternative dispute resolution.

(Judicial or Voluntary) Mediation

Alternative dispute resolution has become increasingly common in Belgium following changes to the Judicial Code, which encourage courts to promote mediation. Judges may ask parties if they agree to appoint a mediator and can even appoint one on the court’s own initiative at the start of proceedings, unless all parties refuse.

Mediation is strictly confidential. Neither the mediator nor the parties may disclose to the court any discussions that take place during the process, nor who ended the mediation or why it was unsuccessful. Even when a mediator is appointed by the court, confidentiality remains absolute, and parties are free to terminate the process at any time without explanation.

If mediation results in a settlement, the agreement is not automatically enforceable. Any party may, however, request the court to homologate the settlement, which then makes it enforceable against the other party as a judgment would be.

Collaborative Negotiations

A variant of mediation is collaborative negotiation. Unlike mediation, the parties are not assisted by an independent third-party mediator, but rather by their own collaborative lawyers. These are lawyers who have completed a certified collaborative law training. These lawyers are specifically mandated to assist and advise their clients with the aim of reaching an amicable settlement. There is therefore no neutral intermediary facilitating the discussions.

As with mediation, the process is strictly confidential, and if the parties reach an agreement, it can be submitted to the court for homologation, making it legally enforceable.

Arbitration

Private wealth disputes may also be resolved through mediation, although certain matters, such as divorce, cannot be referred to arbitration.

In Belgium, arbitration can be conducted ad hoc or under the rules of an arbitration institution (such as CEPANI or the ICC). Arbitration is only possible with the consent of all parties, which must be set out in a written arbitration agreement clearly stating their intention to resolve the dispute through arbitration.

The arbitral award is binding on the parties, just like a court judgment. Once the arbitral tribunal has rendered its decision, the matter cannot be re-litigated before the courts. Judges may not review the award on its merits but may annul it on procedural or legal grounds in strictly limited circumstances, such as where the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, ruled on a non-arbitrable matter, violated public policy, or where the award was obtained by fraud.

Legal fees that may arise in proceedings include lawyer’s fees, court fees (such as costs of the summons, register fees, registration fees and fees for obtaining authenticated copies of the judgment), and, where applicable, the fees of sworn translators or other experts.

The losing party is generally required to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the attorney’s fees, which are reimbursed based on a lump sum set by Royal Decree. In most cases, the amount in dispute determines the applicable lump sum for attorney’s fees.

Litigation costs are relatively low in Belgium. Considering the fact that the losing party is generally only required to pay the costs of the proceedings on a lump sum basis, the adverse cost risk is fairly limited.

Conflict of Law Rules

Since 2004, Belgium has had a comprehensive Code of Private International Law that sets out clear rules on jurisdiction, applicable law, and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

In certain areas, including succession, matrimonial property, and contractual obligations, EU Regulations have largely harmonised the rules on applicable law and jurisdiction. Although the Rome I Regulation, in principle, excludes obligations arising from family relationships from its scope, which is often relevant in wealth disputes, Belgian courts may still apply the Regulation by virtue of its reference in the Belgian Code of Private International Law.

Statute of Limitations

Under Belgian law, the Civil Code provides for different limitation periods depending on the nature of the claim:

• thirty years for actions relating to real rights;
• ten years for personal actions;
• five years for non-contractual liability (tort) claims.

Limitation periods in principle cannot be shortened or extended, even by agreement between the parties, unless the law expressly provides otherwise. Therefore, all procedural steps must be completed within the designated time frame; otherwise, they will be deemed inadmissible.

Under Belgian private international law, the limitation period is generally considered substantive, meaning that the law governing the substance of the claim will also determine the limitation period.

Other Considerations

Belgian court proceedings are generally less costly compared to those in many neighbouring jurisdictions (see 1.3 Legal Fees and Costs).

However, Belgium faces significant judicial backlogs, which have led to multiple condemnations by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

Litigation Procedure

Belgian civil procedure is governed by the Judicial Code, which provides a relatively formal, document-based litigation process. In private wealth disputes, cases are usually brought before the Family section of the Courts of First Instance, which has jurisdiction over succession, matrimonial property, and inheritance-related matters. Issues relating to mental capacity and guardianship are brought before the Justice de Paix.

Proceedings typically begin with a writ of summons (dagvaarding/citation) served by a bailiff. The case then proceeds through a written exchange of pleadings, including statements of claim, defence, and reply, before oral arguments are heard. The process is adversarial but heavily reliant on written submissions.

Judges can impose procedural calendars, consolidate related claims, or refer parties to mediation. Courts increasingly encourage alternative dispute resolution to reduce backlog and facilitate settlements.

Litigation Techniques of Note

Courts can grant urgent and provisional measures (kort geding/référé) to safeguard assets or rights pending final judgment. This can include preparing an estate inventory and sealing assets (see 2.2 Alternatives to Discovery).

Belgian litigation rules do not provide for a formal discovery process. Civil proceedings in Belgium are governed by the adversarial principle. Parties are only required to produce the documents on which they rely to support their case, and such documents must be served on the opposing party and filed with the court. Moreover, if a party is in possession of documents relating to a disputed fact in the proceedings, they are obliged to cooperate and provide access to those documents.

Nevertheless, in certain circumstances, the court may order parties, or even third parties, to disclose specific documents, either at the request of the parties or on its own initiative, provided there is evidence suggesting that these documents are relevant to the matter before the court.

A request for disclosure must relate to specifically identified documents. Belgian law does not allow broad, unspecified disclosure requests or “fishing expeditions.”

Evidence is generally developed and admitted through a combination of statutory obligations, judicially supervised requests for information and conservatory measures.

Requests for Information

Various channels exist to obtain relevant information. Following a decedent’s death, a notary may request bank account statements going back up to ten years. Information may also be obtained from the Federal Public Service Finance (eg, via MyMinfin), the Belgian Official Gazette, corporate filings at the Registry of the Commercial Court, or through a bank search conducted via Febelfin to identify which banks held accounts in the decedent’s name.

In the context of the liquidation and distribution procedure, an inventory of the estate (see Conservatory Measures below) is prepared, recording all estate assets. Upon its completion, each co-heir must take an oath and declare:

• which assets belong to the estate;
• whether they are aware of any disposal of estate assets; and
• any gifts they have received from the decedent.

Conservatory Measures

Where immediate action is necessary to preserve assets or the estate, Belgian law provides several conservatory measures, the most important of which are estate inventory and sealing.

• Inventory of the estate (boedelbeschrijving/inventaire): A conservatory measure with evidentiary effect, aimed at recording all assets of the estate pending liquidation and distribution.
• Sealing (verzegeling/scellés): Any person asserting a claim in a deceased’s estate or jointly held property may request the court to seal specific assets or compartments to prevent removal or dissipation. The measure preserves the integrity and value of the estate or joint property pending inventory.

Professional Secrecy

Belgian law recognises the principle of professional secrecy, which is a fundamental ethical duty and an integral part of the lawyer’s profession. It stems from the right to a fair trial and is essential to the proper administration of justice. Accordingly, the obligation of professional secrecy is regarded as a matter of public order.

Unlike the attorney–client privilege in common law jurisdictions, which generally belongs to the client and can be waived, professional secrecy in Belgium cannot, as a rule, be waived by the client. Limited exceptions exist where more fundamental values must be protected, such as the right of defence or the prevention of risks to life or health.

In fulfilling this duty, lawyers have both the right and the obligation to refuse to disclose confidential documents to authorities or to testify before the courts, whether in civil or criminal matters.

Compliance and Reporting Obligations

Under anti-money laundering (AML) legislation, various intermediaries, such as financial institutions, notaries, accountants and lawyers, are required to report suspicious transactions.

For lawyers, however, the reporting obligation is limited: it applies only where they suspect that certain funds or transactions may be linked to money laundering or terrorist financing.

In Belgium, the validity of a will can be challenged on several grounds, depending on the circumstances of its execution and any potential breaches of legal formalities.

Incapacity

A will is invalid if the testator lacked mental capacity at the time of execution, meaning a mental disorder affected their ability to form intent. However, the testator’s mental capacity is legally presumed, and merely proving the existence of a mental disorder, even at the time the will was made, is not sufficient to establish incapacity.

For notarial and international wills, the notary is deemed to have verified the testator’s capacity to the extent possible, offering an additional safeguard against later challenges.

Undue Influence and Fraud

A will may be invalidated on the grounds of a defect of will. A defect of will arises when there is a discrepancy between the declared intention and the testator’s actual intention, due to external factors that consciously or unconsciously influenced the testator’s free will.

In the context of wills, ‘captation and suggestion’ warrant particular attention. These are forms of undue influence, occurring when the beneficiary or a third party employs fraudulent means to impair or override the testator’s free will. Such conduct not only affects the validity of the will but may also be punishable under criminal law.

Absence of Due Execution

A will may be invalid if formal requirements are not met. Belgian law recognises holographic, notarial, and international wills, each of which has its own specific formal requirements. Holographic wills must be fully handwritten, dated and signed.

Failure of the Underlying Cause

A specific legacy in a will may lapse if the determinative cause underlying it ceases to exist during the testator’s lifetime, regardless of whether this occurs contrary to the testator’s intentions. This principle was reaffirmed by the Belgian Supreme Court in its 19 October 2023 decision.

If any of the above grounds for invalidity are present, the validity of the will may be challenged by anyone with an interest in the estate, including all heirs or legatees. Challenges to the validity of a will must be brought before the Court of First Instance.

The burden of proof rests with the party seeking annulment, and this burden is particularly high under Belgian law.

In the case of a holographic will, however, statutory heirs may simply deny recognition of the document and/or the testator’s signature. The burden then shifts to the legatee, who must rely on the will to demonstrate that it is valid and meets all legal requirements.

As a means of encouraging a legatee to comply with imposed conditions or to discourage challenges to a will, a testator may include a so-called penalty clause or ‘alternative bequest’ (where a legatee is given the option of either accepting a legacy subject to certain conditions, obligations or burdens, or accepting their unencumbered reserved portion).

Under Belgian law, clauses that seek to prevent an heir from contesting a will are only invalid to the extent they interfere with claims based on imperative law or the heir’s reserved portion. A penalty clause, therefore, cannot be used to prevent disputes arising from captation or suggestion. Similarly, it cannot prevent a forced heir from claiming their reserved portion (see 7. Forced Heirship).

Since 2014, Belgian law has allowed individuals to grant a lasting power of attorney to a trusted person or family member to manage their assets if they become incapacitated. The lasting power of attorney has now become well established in Belgian legal practice and is considered an indispensable tool in estate and succession planning. Virtually every lasting power of attorney is executed before a Belgian notary.

If no power of attorney has been drafted, the juge de paix will appoint a guardian, who is subject to additional court supervision and reporting obligations. The guardian may act only in the strict interest of the protected person, which makes it more difficult to plan gifts, a common practice in Belgium to reduce inheritance tax.

Belgium is also a party to the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Adults. Powers of attorney granted in other member states may be recognised and enforced in Belgium, provided they are consistent with the law applicable to the power of attorney.

Strategies for Passing Wealth and Control Across Generations

Belgian wealth and succession planning is primarily driven by the objective of minimising inheritance tax, which remains relatively high. Consequently, lifetime gifts are a common and effective planning tool. All three regions offer favourable tax regimes for the transfer of family businesses, in some cases even allowing a fully tax-exempt transfer.

Several legal techniques allow donors to retain income or control over gifted assets, enabling a gradual transfer of wealth while progressively involving the next generation in asset management.

Retaining income

Under Belgian law, a donor may reserve the usufruct (vruchtgebruik/usufruit) when making a gift. Usufruct is the right to use an asset and enjoy its income or benefits. In the context of shares in a family business, the usufructuary is entitled to exercise voting rights and receive dividends or other forms of income (which can be broadly defined to include capital gains).

Upon the death of the usufructuary, the usufruct automatically consolidates with the bare ownership, free of inheritance tax.

Other mechanisms to retain income also exist, such as the reservation of an annuity or other contractual arrangements ensuring continued financial benefit to the donor.

Retaining control

As mentioned, reserving the usufruct also allows the donor to retain voting rights over the gifted shares, thereby retaining control over the company’s management.

A particularly effective technique for preserving control is the use of a société simple (maatschap/société simple). This flexible and transparent legal vehicle allows families to structure ownership and management of family assets with significant contractual freedom.

A société simple can be set up privately without a notarial deed and is tax-transparent. It enables assets to be transferred by donating the partnership interests while maintaining control over the underlying assets through governance rules set in the partnership agreement. Typically, parents (as founders) initially serve as managing partners and may gradually involve their children in management.

Resolving Shareholder Conflicts

Disputes in family businesses most commonly arise from succession matters, unequal shareholdings, or diverging expectations among family members.

The principal strategy for mitigating such conflicts is preventive planning. This involves establishing a comprehensive succession and governance plan during the founder’s lifetime, addressing not only tax optimisation but also clearly defining the roles, responsibilities, and involvement of the next generation in the management and oversight of the business.

Where conflicts cannot be prevented, mediation is increasingly recognised as the preferred resolution mechanism. Solutions achieved through mediation, and endorsed by all parties, are generally considered the most effective and durable approach in the context of family business disputes.

Trusts

As a matter of principle, Belgian property law does not allow a separation between legal and beneficial ownership, and therefore, no equivalent domestic institution to trusts exists.

However, with the codification of existing case law in the Belgian Code of Private International Law (CPIL) in 2004, foreign trusts that fall within the definition provided by the CPIL may be recognised and produce legal effects in Belgium with increased legal certainty and predictability. The CPIL adopts a narrow definition, intended primarily to encompass the Anglo-Saxon trust.

Where a foreign trust meets this definition, it may be recognised and produce effects in Belgium provided that the law governing the trust (whether designated by choice-of-law or determined under the CPIL) recognises the trust institution. Note, however, that where, apart from the chosen law, all relevant elements of the trust are connected with a jurisdiction that does not recognise trusts (such as Belgium), the choice of law will not be upheld.

It should also be noted that the use of trusts is generally discouraged from a Belgian tax perspective, particularly in light of the Cayman tax regime and the Belgian tax authorities’ position that distributions made upon or after the death of a Belgian-resident settlor may be subject to inheritance tax, at rates corresponding to the relationship between the settlor and the beneficiary.

Private Foundation

Belgian private foundations are commonly used. A private foundation may only pursue altruistic purposes, such as charitable activities, the preservation of private art collections, or the support of family members across generations, for example, in their education, and may make distributions solely in furtherance of those purposes.

Foreign private foundations are generally recognised in Belgium, though they may fall within the scope of the Cayman tax if the conditions for application are met.

Vulnerabilities in the Marital Context

Under the default Belgian matrimonial property regime (separation of assets with a community of acquests), assets acquired prior to the marriage, as well as donations and bequests received by one spouse, are considered personal assets.

Common assets include earned income, which is central to this regime, as well as income generated from personal assets. Income from a spouse’s family wealth is therefore classified as a common asset. If personal and common assets are mixed in such a way that they can no longer be distinguished, the assets are presumed to be common.

Possible Solutions

Spouses may opt for a full property separation regime in a prenuptial agreement, whereby each spouse retains ownership of their personal assets, including income. Certain correction mechanisms are available even under a separation-of-property regime. Prenuptial or matrimonial agreements can also regulate the composition and distribution of jointly held or undivided assets, as well as family wealth structures, provided these arrangements do not conflict with the primary marital regime, mandatory law, or public policy.

Belgium also recognises foreign prenuptial and postnuptial agreements, provided they have been validly established in accordance with the EU Matrimonial Property Regimes Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/1103).

Donors or testators may protect gifted or inherited assets from the marital community by including an exclusion clause (uitsluitingsclausule/clause d’exclusion) in the deed or will, ensuring that the assets (and any income they generate) remain the personal property of the recipient.

Creditor Protection Within the Matrimonial Property Framework

Under the default Belgian matrimonial property regime (separation of assets combined with a community of acquest), liabilities contracted by either spouse in the context of the marriage, such as costs relating to the lease, acquisition or maintenance of the family home, or expenses associated with the children, constitute community debts. Tax liabilities are, in principle, also community debts unless they relate to pre-marital assets or to an inheritance belonging exclusively to one spouse. Some debts, like those incurred solely for the benefit of one spouse’s own assets, arising from personal or business guarantees unrelated to the common property, or acts requiring consent, or resulting from criminal convictions or torts, are specifically classified as personal debts.

Community debts may, in principle, be enforced both against the community property and against the separate property of each spouse.

Because community debts may be recovered from community property, they may therefore be enforced against the income (whether from employment or generated from separate assets) of the non-debtor spouse, as such income forms part of the community. This exposure is often considered undesirable.

Spouses may avoid these effects by opting, through a marriage contract, for a pure separation-of-property regime. Under such a regime, each spouse retains exclusive ownership of their personal assets, including income. Correspondingly, liabilities remain strictly personal to the spouse who incurred them. Only debts relating to household expenses (such as rent, utility bills or taxes) and to the upbringing of the children are considered joint, and may be enforced against the separate property of both spouses.

Company Structures

In Belgium, practitioners frequently rely on corporate structuring to protect personal assets from creditor claims. When business activities are carried out through a company with limited liability, most notably a BV (besloten vennootschap/société à responsabilité limitée) or NV (naamloze vennootschap/société anonyme), the shareholders’ and directors’ personal assets are generally shielded from business creditors. Directors can be held personally liable only for errors, misconduct, or breaches of statutory duties (see 6.3 Fiduciary Liability).

However, in a very recent Supreme Court (Hof van Cassatie/Cour de Cassation) judgment of 21 October 2025, the Court confirmed that an individual who, over several years, deliberately pays themselves only a minimal salary and dividends (for example, for tax-motivated reasons), thereby intentionally preventing their personal assets from becoming available to creditors, may commit the criminal offence of fraudulent insolvency (bedrieglijk onvermogen/insolvabilité frauduleuse). Traditionally, fraudulent insolvency concerns the active dissipation or concealment of assets to frustrate creditor recovery. The Supreme Court has now clarified that fraudulently preventing the growth of one’s assets, in this case by withholding reasonable remuneration and dividends, can equally constitute fraudulent insolvency.

Private Foundations

Private foundations hold assets that are legally separate from those of the founder, the directors, and the beneficiaries. Consequently, creditors of the founder, the directors, or the beneficiaries cannot, in principle, seize the foundation’s assets.

Creditors may only attach foundation assets to the extent that a beneficiary has acquired an enforceable claim against the foundation (for example, through a beneficiary arrangement containing a third-party clause granting a direct right of action).

Jurisdiction for Claims in the Context of Foreign Trusts

Trusts cannot be created under Belgian law. However, foreign trusts that fall within the definition of Article 122 of the Belgian Code of Private International Law (CPIL) may be recognised and produce legal effects in Belgium (see 5.1 Trusts, Foundations and Similar Entities).

With respect to the jurisdiction of the Belgian courts, the Brussels Ia/Ibis Regulation applies. The Regulation permits the parties to a trust to agree on a choice-of-court clause in favour of the courts of a Member State for disputes internal to the trust.

Claims in the Context of Companies and Private Foundations

In the context of Belgian companies and private foundations, fiduciary duties are vested in the directors or the board of management. Where such directors or boards breach their fiduciary duties, beneficiaries may, in their capacity as interested parties (belanghebbenden/parties intéressées), seek administrative or judicial corrective measures. These may include:

• the removal or dismissal of directors;
• in certain circumstances, the annulment of improper or unlawful distributions; or
• ultimately, the dissolution of the private foundation.

These remedies exist alongside, and do not preclude, other forms of liability or claims available under Belgian civil or corporate law, including those set out in 6.3 Fiduciary Liability.

Beneficiaries of a private foundation may also seek to enforce distributions or other entitlements. As a principle, private foundations (much like foreign trusts) operate on a discretionary basis, meaning that no enforceable right to a distribution arises unless expressly provided for. In exceptional cases, however, a third-party beneficiary clause (derdenbeding/stipulation pour autrui) may be incorporated into the governing documents (for example, in internal regulations or through a letter of wishes), obliging the board to make specific distributions to beneficiaries. Where such a clause is validly established, a beneficiary may obtain a direct and enforceable claim against the private foundation itself, rather than against individual directors.

In practice, such binding instructions are rare in Belgium. Where the board’s discretion is removed and distributions become mandatory, such payments generally give rise to Flemish inheritance tax in the hands of the beneficiary, which significantly reduces the attractiveness of such arrangements.

Jurisdiction for Claims in the Context of Foreign Trusts

With respect to the jurisdiction of Belgian courts over disputes involving foreign trusts, see 6.1 Trustees and Beneficiaries.

Claims in the Context of Companies and Private Foundations

In the context of Belgian companies and private foundations, fiduciary duties rest with the directors or the board of management. As a general principle, the acts and omissions of directors are attributed to the legal entity itself, which is therefore liable toward third parties. Directors do not, solely by virtue of their office, incur personal obligations vis-à-vis third parties.

Personal liability of directors may nevertheless arise in the exceptional circumstances provided for in 6.3 Fiduciary Liability and under the relevant corporate and civil law provisions, including instances of breaches of fiduciary duties or statutory obligations.

Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Directors, including not only formally appointed board members but also individuals who exercise de facto management authority, may incur personal liability, both vis-à-vis the company or foundation and vis-à-vis third parties, in cases involving error, negligence, misconduct, or breaches of statutory duties. Specific liability grounds also apply in situations of insolvency, and criminal liability may arise where warranted by the facts, such as misuse of company assets, forgery (including of annual accounts), or money laundering.

Directors must act in the best interests of the company or foundation and must perform their duties with due care and diligence, meaning their conduct will be assessed against the standard of a reasonably careful and diligent director placed in comparable circumstances. Where matters fall outside their individual expertise, directors are expected to seek appropriate professional advice, for example, from lawyers or accountants, to ensure compliance with this standard.

Where directors act individually, liability in principle attaches only to those who personally commit a fault. Only violations of statutory or articles provisions may trigger joint liability for all resulting damage. Under joint and several liability, each director may be held fully liable for the entire amount. The creditor may pursue any one of the directors for full payment, while that director may seek contribution from the others.

In a collegiate board, each member may be jointly and severally liable for decisions or omissions that constitute a breach of duty or violate the company’s articles or the law.

Protection From Liability

Informing board members

A director in a collegiate board may avoid joint and several liability for breaches of company law or the articles of association if they did not participate in the wrongful decision or act, for example, by voting against the resolution, and if they notified the board of their dissent, with such dissent duly recorded in the minutes.

Statutory liability caps

Belgian law provides for a statutory cap on directors’ liability, determined principally by the legal entity’s turnover. The cap applies collectively to all directors: where multiple directors are held liable for the same act, they share the benefit of the limitation. It also applies per act or series of acts, irrespective of the number of claimants or claims. The cap applies both towards the company and towards third parties, irrespective of whether the claim is contractual or tortious

The cap does not apply in cases involving common minor errors, gross negligence, fraudulent intent or specific statutory joint and several liabilities, for example, unpaid withholding tax, unpaid VAT, unpaid social security contributions in the event of bankruptcy and certain other public-law liabilities.

Actions against directors, permanent representatives, or any persons who effectively exercised management powers are subject to a five-year limitation period.

Exoneration or exculpatory clauses

A company and any subsidiaries or controlled entities may not grant directors prior exoneration or further contractual limitations of liability towards the company or third parties. Any such “hold harmless” clauses in the articles of association or contractual arrangements are null and void. A company may, however, enter into a directors’ and officers’ insurance in favour of its directors.

Discharge of liability

Upon approval of the annual accounts, shareholders may grant the directors a discharge for the performance of their mandate. A valid discharge covers both a lack of due care and violations of statutory or corporate provisions. However, a discharge granted by the company does not affect third parties’ rights to bring claims against directors.

Forced Heirship Under Belgian Law

Belgian succession law follows the principle of forced heirship, meaning that certain heirs are legally entitled to a minimum share of the deceased’s estate (the “reserved portion”).

The reserved portions to which these heirs are legally entitled are calculated based on the so-called inheritance mass (rekenboedel/masse de calcul). Under Belgian law, the inheritance mass, a notional estate used to calculate heirs’ reserved portions and the testator’s freely disposable share, comprises not only the net assets forming part of the estate at the time of death, but also any gifts made by the deceased during their lifetime (without distinction as to when the gift was made).

Since the 2018 reform, the children of the deceased are collectively entitled to at least 50% of the net value of the inheritance mass, regardless of their number.

The remaining 50% of the estate is the free disposable portion, which the deceased may allocate freely to any beneficiary.

The surviving spouse is entitled to a reserved portion consisting of either (i) the usufruct of half of the estate, or (ii) the usufruct of the family home and its household contents. The surviving spouse may freely choose between these two options.

An heir who has been disinherited may (but is not obligated to) invoke their reserved portion by bringing a claim for reduction (vordering tot inkorting/action en réduction). As a general rule, a disinherited heir cannot waive this claim (see exceptions below). A claim for reduction can only be brought after the death of the deceased. During their lifetime, the deceased is free to make gifts as they wish, and the heirs have no right to intervene.

Overriding Forced Heirship

Since the 2018 reform, Belgian law permits the use of a global succession agreement (globale erfovereenkomst/pacte successoral global). This agreement allows the future deceased and their heirs to reach a comprehensive and balanced arrangement regarding prior gifts and benefits. As a result, all parties to the agreement waive their claims for contribution and reduction (inbreng en inkorting/rapport et réduction) with respect to the gifts included in the global succession agreement.

Furthermore, it is possible for an heir to waive their claim for reduction with regard to a specific gift prior to the death of the testator (punctuele erfovereenkomst/pacte successoral ponctuel).

Such agreements as to succession (both global and punctual) are subject to strict formal requirements and must be executed before a notary with the participation and consent of all (involved) heirs.

Additionally, if one or both spouses have children from a previous relationship, Belgian law allows them, by mutual consent, to limit the surviving spouse’s reserved rights to a right of residence in the family home for at least six months after death. This arrangement must be expressly included in their marital agreement, and as it qualifies as an agreement as to succession, it is subject to the same strict procedural requirements.

Following the death of the testator, each heir is free to dispose of (and thus waive) their claim for reduction.

Estate Settlement Procedure

Where all co-heirs are adults, present or duly represented, and legally competent, the liquidation and partition of an estate may be carried out amicably, in such form and by such instrument as they deem appropriate. Specific rules apply when the estate is accepted under the benefit of inventory or when minors or other protected persons are involved.

If the heirs fail to reach an agreement, the partition may proceed by judicial action. In that case, a court-appointed notary-liquidator conducts the process, including the establishment of the inventory, valuations, accounting, the formation of lots, and the handling of disputes related to the inheritance (including claims for reduction), all under the supervision of the competent court. If one of the heirs does not agree with the outcome before the notary-liquidator, they can appeal the case at the competent court.

The Claim for Reduction (Vordering tot Inkorting/Action en Réduction)

A disinherited heir may invoke their reserved portion by bringing a claim for reduction against the beneficiary of the donation that exceeded the free disposable portion.

Such a claim must be brought within a specified period following the deceased’s death.

As a rule, reduction is effected in value rather than in kind. Consequently, the disinherited heir does not acquire a proprietary right in the estate assets. Instead, they obtain a monetary claim against the heirs or beneficiaries whose entitlements exceeded the free disposable portion. In principle, the beneficiary may voluntarily cede part of the received assets in lieu of the aforementioned monetary claim.

The conflict-of-laws rules on forced heirship are governed by the Succession Regulation (No 650/2012 of 4 July 2012). In principle, the applicable law is that of the state in which the deceased had their habitual residence at the time of death. However, if the deceased made a choice of law in favour of the law of their nationality, that law will apply instead. If, under either of these rules, Belgian law applies to the succession, relocating assets to other jurisdictions will not circumvent the forced heirship rules.

Opportunities to legally circumvent forced heirship are limited. Neither trusts recognised under the CPIL nor private foundations, Belgian or foreign, allow one to circumvent Belgian forced heirship rules.

One option is to dispose of your assets for consideration, for example, by selling them or entering into a contract that provides for a contingent benefit (such as a right of accretion). Alternatively, it is possible to render Belgian forced heirship rules inapplicable by:

• emigrating from Belgium, so that the law of your last habitual residence is no longer Belgian law (assuming Belgian law will not remain applicable through application of renvoi or choice of law); or
• exercising a choice of law in favour of a nationality whose law contains no or less strict forced heirship provisions.

Through the use of control structures, however, such as a partnership, optionally combined with a private foundation, it is possible to effectively limit the claims of reserved heirs. Control over the assets is maintained at the level of the structure, preventing the heirs from directly accessing or freely disposing of them.

Tax Authorities

Belgium is a federal state composed of communities and regions. This means that regulatory powers are divided among different levels of government. In fiscal matters, competence is shared between the federal government (with the Federal Public Service Finance (FPS Finance) as the primary regulatory authority) and the three regions (with regional Flemish, Brussels and Walloon tax authorities).

Enforcement of Tax Laws

Belgian tax authorities closely scrutinise transactions for signs of fiscal abuse. Various taxes include general anti-abuse provisions that the authorities have at times interpreted very broadly, though courts have repeatedly limited or overturned such interpretations. Where transactions are considered abusive, this can lead to additional tax assessments within a formal tax procedure. It is important to note the distinction with tax fraud (see 8.2 Criminal Enforcement), which carries separate criminal consequences.

This is a key consideration in planning. Even transactions that are individually unproblematic may be treated as abusive if carried out in succession and the authorities perceive a single, cohesive intent to circumvent the law. Genuine non-tax motives are therefore important considerations, and carefully structured transactions are essential to withstand potential challenges.

Typically, the tax authority first issues a decision, against which a taxpayer can file an objection. If the dispute persists, it may ultimately be brought before the courts for review, providing a judicial check on the application of anti-abuse rules.

Taxpayers may also request an advance ruling from the competent tax authority to clarify the tax consequences of specific transactions.

Enforcement and Gatekeepers

Under Belgium’s anti-money laundering (AML) legislation, various intermediaries, including financial institutions, notaries, accountants, and lawyers, are required to identify clients and their ultimate beneficial owners (UBOs), report suspicious transactions (indirectly) to the Financial Intelligence Processing Unit (CTIF/CFI), and implement internal compliance procedures (see also 2.3 Privilege). Importantly, advisers acting in good faith are not held liable for tax evasion or the application of anti-abuse provisions (unlike tax fraud; see 8.2 Criminal Enforcement).

Enforcement of Tax Laws

In Belgium, criminal enforcement in the context of private wealth primarily targets tax fraud, money laundering, and related financial crimes, including forgery, embezzlement, and abuse of corporate structures. As noted above (see 8.1 Tax Authorities and Civil Regulators), tax avoidance through fiscal abuse may result in additional taxes being assessed in a formal tax procedure, whereas tax evasion (fraud) is subject to criminal prosecution.

The Public Prosecutor’s Office (Openbaar Ministerie (“OM”)/ Ministère Public) is responsible for the criminal prosecution of tax offences. The OM may initiate an investigation on the basis of a report by the tax administration, a referral from the Special Tax Inspectorate (Bijzondere Belastinginspectie (“BBI”)/ Inspection spéciale des impôts (“ISI”)), the Financial Intelligence Processing Unit (Cel voor Financiële Informatieverwerking (“CFI”)/ Cellule de traitement des informations financières (“CTIF”)), or third parties, such as whistle-blowers.

Enforcement and Gatekeepers

All persons who knowingly participate in tax fraud, including gatekeepers, are criminally liable. In addition, “gatekeepers” (including financial institutions, notaries, accountants, and certain lawyers) have specific obligations under Belgian anti-money laundering (AML) legislation, including reporting suspicious transactions. Failure to comply with these obligations may result in both administrative, disciplinary and criminal liability.

Failure to comply may result in administrative, disciplinary, or criminal sanctions. Gatekeepers are therefore an essential part of Belgium’s preventive and enforcement framework for financial crime.

Criminal proceedings in Belgium are generally initiated by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which holds the exclusive authority to prosecute offences.

Any individual may, however, trigger a criminal investigation by filing a complaint with civil party status (klacht met burgerlijke partijstelling/plainte avec constitution de partie civile) before an investigating judge. Upon receipt, the investigating judge is obliged to record the complaint and commence an investigation.

Private individuals may also participate in ongoing proceedings by declaring themselves an “injured party” (benadeelde persoon/personne lésée). This confers certain procedural rights, including the right to be informed of the progress of the investigation, to submit documents to the file, and to request access to the case file. Individuals may further elect to assume the status of a civil party (burgerlijke partij/partie civile), which grants the same rights as an injured party and additionally allows them to request further investigative measures, attend hearings, address the court during the proceedings, and claim compensation for damages.

It should be noted that the Public Prosecutor’s exclusive prosecutorial authority means that only the state can seek criminal sanctions or collect fines. Accordingly, civil party status is always a civil matter aimed at asserting (non-contractual) claims. Belgium does not recognise punitive damages in the manner common in common law jurisdictions.

Cross-border tax enforcement in Belgium is strongly shaped by international transparency standards, most notably the OECD Common Reporting Standard (CRS), the EU Directives on Administrative Cooperation (DAC1–DAC8) and an extensive network of bilateral and multilateral tax treaties.

Belgian law allows, in certain circumstances, the correction of purely factual or clerical errors (such as spelling, typing, or calculation mistakes, mistaken identity, or incorrect transcription of information) where they can be rectified without any legal reassessment. Specific correction mechanisms exist for such situations.

For notarial deeds, the law permits the notary to correct material errors or omissions in the deed after signature, provided this is done before the deed is transcribed at the Legal Certainty Office or, for deeds not subject to transcription, before registration. This constitutes an exceptional mechanism designed to avoid the need for a new deed to correct minor factual inaccuracies or omissions. If an error is discovered only after registration, the notary must execute a corrective or supplementary deed.

Wills may be amended or revoked at any time by the testator without justification, provided the testator has legal capacity. Similarly, the articles of a Belgian private foundation may be modified by its board in accordance with the provisions set out in the articles themselves.

A fiduciary act in Belgium is not automatically voidable merely because it produces unforeseen or adverse consequences.

However, under the general doctrine of defects of consent, agreements may be annulled on the basis of error (dwaling/erreur). An error vitiates consent and may lead to nullity when it is both fundamental and excusable (Article 5.31 of the Civil Code). An error is fundamental when the mistaken element was decisive for a party to enter into the agreement, and excusable where a reasonably careful person placed in the same circumstances would also have been mistaken.

In addition, corrective mechanisms apply when fiduciaries, such as company directors or private foundation trustees, act beyond their authority or breach their fiduciary duties, including in situations involving conflicts of interest. In such cases, the act may, in certain circumstances, be annulled by the court and the fiduciaries may be held liable under general civil liability principles for error, negligence, misconduct, or breaches of statutory duties (see 6.3 Fiduciary Liability).

Belgium maintains strict forced heirship rules (erfrechtelijke reserve/réserve héréditaire), ensuring that children (and the surviving spouse) receive a significant share of the estate. Despite reforms in 2018, these protections remain firmly entrenched: children are entitled to at least 50% of the inheritance mass, which comprises not only the assets forming part of the estate at the time of death, but also any gifts made by the deceased during their lifetime.

Belgian and European law also reflect a strong cultural commitment to equality among heirs. Belgian case law, applying the public policy exception under the Succession Regulation, ensures that applicable law cannot result in discrimination between children born within or outside marriage, nor between male and female heirs.

Belgian authorities place a strong emphasis on preventing and challenging tax evasion, particularly in relation to foreign or complex wealth structures. Recent reforms, such as the stricter application of the Cayman tax rules effective 1 January 2024, extend the reach of legislation to additional vehicles.

Belgium is divided into three regions, each with its own powers, including those relating to inheritance and gift taxation. Cultural differences are also evident: in Wallonia, especially regarding blended families, the focus is primarily on protecting children, particularly when a new spouse is involved. In Flanders, the protection of the surviving spouse tends to be the dominant consideration. Succession law itself remains federal, meaning that regional differences influence policy debates and the legislative process but do not yet result in fully separate legal regimes.

Disputes over estates are most commonly driven by non-compliance with forced heirship rules by one or more children or the surviving spouse. Such disputes are increasingly common in blended families, where competing claims and complex family structures can create tensions.

Family business disputes also remain frequent, typically arising from succession issues, unequal shareholdings, or divergent expectations among family members. In these cases, mediation is gaining traction as a preferred method of resolution.

The use of private foundations in wealth planning has recently drawn criticism from some legal scholars and policymakers, who argue that distributions from such foundations may conflict with their altruistic purpose and are sometimes used primarily for tax planning. Belgian practitioners, however, note that while private foundations can be tax-efficient in certain circumstances, they are not necessarily the most tax-advantageous vehicle; they remain the only legal mechanism in Belgium for multi-generational wealth planning. They are particularly useful in family contexts where one of the heirs has special needs or restrictions.

Practitioners also anticipate emerging litigation concerning digital assets, including cryptocurrency and digital legacies such as photos and online accounts. Courts continue to encourage mediation and negotiated settlements, reflecting a broader cultural preference for collaborative dispute resolution. Finally, cross-border wealth disputes are expected to increase, driven by greater mobility and the prevalence of multi-jurisdictional estates.