Enforcement of Judgments 2024 Comparisons

Asset disclosure orders are not available in Belgium. However, there are several options for creditors to obtain information on the asset position of a debtor in Belgium.

Bank Account Information

Creditors can request to obtain information on the Belgian bank accounts of their debtors. The conditions and formalities applicable to such request were modified following the act of 15 May 2024. Previously, requests for bank account information were available only for creditors who had already obtained an enforceable title against their debtor (old Article 1447/1 Belgian Judicial Code – BJC). Under the modified law, creditors without enforceable title can include a request for bank account information in their application for a conservatory third-party attachment with the enforcement judge (Article 1447, 3° BJC).

For creditors that do have an enforceable title, the procedure has been simplified: they no longer have to file an application with the enforcement judge, but can obtain the information through a bailiff directly (new Article 1539bis BJC).

Central Register for Debt Recovery

The central register for debt recovery contains information regarding attachment measures taken against debtors. Creditors can obtain access to the information on their debtor in the register either through a bailiff or through a lawyer. The information collected in the register includes:

• the identity of the creditor that filed the attachment against the debtor;
• the amount of the debt for which the attachment was filed;
• the type of attachment measure (see 2.2 Enforcement of Domestic Judgments); and
• a description of the assets seized.

Under Belgian law, attachment measures are collective in nature. This implies that the proceeds of an attachment against a debtor are to be distributed between all known creditors of that debtor, taking into account the security position, preferential rights and quantum of each of the creditors’ claims (“proportionate distribution”). The central register for debt recovery enables creditors to identify pending attachment measures so they can notify the acting bailiff of the existence of their claim, in order to benefit from the distribution.

Real Estate

Information on a debtor’s real estate assets can be obtained through the real estate register (Kantoor rechtszekerheid/Bureau Sécurité Juridique) of the Federal Public Service. This is generally conducted by a bailiff on the instruction of the creditor’s counsel.

Pledge Register

The pledge register of the Federal Public Service contains information on securities and retention of title regarding moveable assets. The pledge register is an online portal that is publicly accessible (subject to subscription) and allows one to conduct searches by name.

General Corporate Information

Information on corporations is publicly available in the Belgian commercial register called Crossroads Bank for Enterprises (CBE). The corporate information registered in the CBE includes the annual financial statements published by a company, which are accessible via a link to the Central Balance Sheet Office, a database of the Belgian National Bank.

Private Investigators

Creditors are allowed to hire a private investigator to collect information on their debtor and its assets. The activity of private investigators is currently regulated by the Belgian Act of 19 July 1991, which imposes a mandatory licence and rules of conduct for private investigators. The Act of 19 July 1991 will be repealed and replaced by a new act that was approved by the Belgian parliament on 8 May 2024.

Different types of judgments can be distinguished under Belgian law.

Judgments in Default (Jugements par Défaut/Verstekvonnissen)

If a defendant is summoned but does not appear or is not represented in court at the case management hearing, the claimant can ask the court to issue a judgment in default.

Interim Judgments (Jugements Avant Dire Droit/Vonnis Alvorens Recht te Doen)

Interim judgments are non-final judgments imposing a provisional measure, either for the purpose of investigating the claim (eg, the appointment of an expert) or to temporarily fix the situation of the parties pending the proceedings on the merits (eg, a suspension or standstill).

Injunctive Relief

In urgent matters, the president of the court may issue injunctive relief orders in summary proceedings (procedure en référé/kortgeding). In case of absolute necessity, injunctive relief may be obtained on an ex parte basis. The ex parte order will generally be followed by contradictory procedure.

Money Judgments or Specific Performance

Money judgments – ie, judgments for a specified amount of money, are most common in Belgian law.

Belgian law also allows a claimant to obtain specific performance in cases where this is an adequate measure (eg, the performance of a contractual obligation; the restitution or delivery of an asset that is being wrongfully withheld; ceasing a wrongful behaviour). Judgments ordering a specific performance or action by the defendant (in contrast to money judgments) may be subject to civil penalties (astreinte/dwangsom) in case of non-compliance. 

Judgments by Consent

If parties to legal proceedings amicably settle their dispute, they may choose to have their settlement or agreement confirmed in a judgment by consent (jugement d’accord/akkoordvonnis). This provides the claimant with a title that is directly enforceable in case of non-compliance with the settlement by the defendant.

The Belgian Judicial Code (Code Judiciaire/Gerechtelijk Wetboek - BJC) contains the legal framework governing conservatory attachments and executory attachments or enforcement (Article 1386-1675 BJC). The procedure and prerequisites for attachments differ depending on the type of attachment that is to be carried out.

The judge of attachments (Juge des saisies/Beslagrechter), a division of the Court of First Instance, has jurisdiction over requests and disputes regarding attachments and enforcement. The bailiff (Huissier de justice/Gerechtsdeurwaarder) will carry out the attachment.

Conservatory Attachments – Executory Attachments

Prior to an executory attachment, a conservatory attachment (saisie conservatoire/bewarend beslag) may be levied on the debtor’s assets if there is a risk on the part of the debtor that could jeopardise subsequent recovery (eg, risk of insolvency, risk of dissipating assets). In addition, the creditor’s claim must be certain, definite and due. It is not required to have an enforceable title.

An order for conservatory attachment can be obtained by filing an ex parte petition with the judge of attachments. However, a conservatory third-party attachment can be levied without court leave if the creditor’s claim is confirmed in an authentic deed (eg, an unenforceable foreign judgment; an arbitral award prior to exequatur) or private documents (eg, undisputed invoices) (Article 1445 BJC). Third-party attachments are most commonly used to attach a debtor’s bank accounts.

To levy an executory attachment, it is necessary to have an enforceable title, such as an enforceable court judgment or a notary deed. In addition, the claim for which an attachment is levied, must be certain, definite and due, as is the case for conservatory attachments.

Conservatory and executory attachments can further be distinguished according to the object of the attachment measure.

Attachment of movable goods

A creditor can seize its debtor’s movable assets to obtain payment out of the proceeds of the forced sale of those assets by a bailiff. An executory attachment on movable assets must be preceded by an order for payment (Commandement de payer/Bevel tot betalen), which must be notified by the bailiff at least one day prior to the notification of the attachment.

Third-party attachments (saisie-arrêt/beslag onder derden)

Third-party attachments allow the creditor to seize sums or assets that a third-party owes to the debtor. Upon service of the attachment by the bailiff to the third party, the latter may no longer dispose of the seized assets or funds to the debtor. The third party is obliged to make a declaration on the amount and nature of its debts towards the debtor within 15 days of the service of the attachment. A failure to do so in compliance with the statutory requirements may lead to a joint liability of the third party for the debtor’s debt towards the creditor.

Attachment of immovable property

Lastly, it is possible to seize a debtor’s immovable assets (real estate). An executory attachment of immovable property is conducted in different stages – ie, the service of an order for payment, the service of the attachment (no sooner than 15 days after the order for payment), and finally the appointment of a notary who will proceed with the sale of the asset.

In case an executory attachment relates to a consumer mortgage loan within the scope of Book VII, Title 2, Chapter 2 “Mortgage loans” of the Code of Economic Law, the creditor must summon the debtor in reconciliation proceedings prior to initiating the attachment.

Attachment and enforcement proceedings are conducted as summary proceedings. Nevertheless, the length of these proceedings may vary, depending on – eg, the nature of the requested measure, the nature of the assets, challenges brought by the defendant, etc.

The costs of enforcement include:

• court fees for proceedings brought before the execution judge;
• bailiff fees (which comprise fixed and proportional charges);
• auction cost in case of enforcement on movable property; and
• notary costs in case of enforcement on real property.

Third-party attachments on bank accounts are generally the most cost-effective enforcement measure.

Enforcement on real estate assets are generally the most time-consuming and the most costly. However, assuming there is no mortgage on the real estate, the result may be substantial.

See 1.1 Options to Identify Another Party’s Asset Position.

Appeal

Judgments rendered in the first instance are provisionally enforceable, save for statutory exceptions or unless the judge expressly decides otherwise.

In addition, certain types of judgments (eg, judgments ordering provisional measures; judgments in insolvency proceedings; judgments of the attachments judge) are always provisionally enforceable.

An appeal against a judgment that is provisionally enforceable does not bring about a stay of enforcement. However, this does not apply to default judgments: an appeal or opposition against such judgments will suspend enforcement, save for statutory exceptions or unless the judge expressly decides otherwise.

The judgment creditor (claimant) will be able to pursue enforcement of the judgment pending the appeal, at its own risks. If the judgment is overturned on appeal, the claimant will have to indemnify the defendant for all the harm caused by the provisional enforcement.

Challenging the Regularity of the Enforcement

A debtor faced with an executory attachment may try to challenge the regularity of the attachment measure, if the formal requirements set out in the Judicial Code have not been complied with correctly. This may be the case if the judgment or the attachment was not validly served on the debtor, or if the writ of attachment does not contain all mandatory mentions.

Challenging the Enforceability of the Judgment

A debtor may also try to challenge the enforceability of the creditor’s title before the judge of attachments – eg, if the judgment does not allow one to indisputably determine the quantum of the creditor’s claim.

Stay of Enforcement

As a principle, the judge of attachments cannot order a stay of enforcement if the creditor holds an enforceable title against the debtor, even if that enforceable title is still subject to appeal. However, there is some case law in which the judge of attachments allowed for a stay of enforcement in truly exceptional circumstances – eg, when pursuing the enforcement amounts to an abuse of right. It must be stressed that these cases remain the exception and attachment judges more often than not dismiss requests for a stay of enforcement based on abuse of right.

Insolvency proceedings (bankruptcy, judicial reorganisation) bring about an automatic stay of enforcement.

Judgments, which are of a purely declaratory nature, cannot be enforced given that such judgments merely confirm or deny the existence of a subjective right. Hence, they do not require enforcement upon a recalcitrant party. The declaratory judgment will nevertheless be binding on the parties.

Pursuant to the Act of 16 October 2022, a publicly accessible database for court decisions (the “Central Registry for Judicial Decisions”) should have been in place by 31 December 2023. However, the roll-out of the database has been delayed.

To preserve the parties’ privacy, the decisions published in the part of the central registry that is publicly accessible will be pseudonymised in accordance with Article 4, (5) GDPR. The pseudonymisation only relates to personal data of natural persons.

Belgium is a member state of the European Union. Therefore, the legal framework governing recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments differs depending on the origin of the judgment.

EU Judgments

The following EU Regulations apply to the enforcement of EU judgments:

• Regulation (EC) 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I Regulation), which applies to proceedings commenced before 10 January 2015 and is also applicable to Denmark; and
• Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I Recast Regulation), which applies to all EU member states other than Denmark regarding proceedings commenced on or after 10 January 2015.

Several other more specific EU regulations can be relevant for recovering debts or enforcing judgments and claims, including:

• Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (Payment Regulation);
• Regulation (EC) 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (EFO Regulation);
• Regulation (EU) 655/2014 on establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure (EAPO Regulation);
• Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings (Insolvency Regulation) applicable for insolvency matters until 25 June 2017; and
• Regulation (EU) 848/2015 on insolvency proceedings (Insolvency Recast Regulation) applicable for insolvency matters as of 26 June 2017.

In essence, pursuant to the Brussels I Recast Regulation, all judgments rendered in other EU member states are recognised and enforceable in Belgium.

Non-EU Judgments

For non-EU judgments, several international conventions and bilateral conventions apply. In the cases where there is no reciprocal arrangement, the Belgian Code of Private International Law (CPIL) is applicable.

The most relevant international conventions are the following :

• 2007 Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters which applies to Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland;
• Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements (Hague Choice of Court Convention) which applies to Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Montenegro, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom; and
• The Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters 2019, between EU Member States (excluding Denmark) and Ukraine.

See 3.3 Categories of Foreign Judgments Not Enforced and 3.4 Process of Enforcing Foreign Judgments.

EU Judgments

The grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement are listed in Article 45 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation:

• recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy in the member state addressed;
• the judgment was rendered in default of appearance and the defendant was not served with the document that instituted the proceedings, or with an equivalent document, in sufficient time and in a way that enabled them to arrange for their defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible to do so;
• the judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment given between the same parties in the member state addressed;
• the judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another member state or in a third state involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the member state addressed;
• the judgment conflicts with Sections 3, 4 or 5 of Chapter II of the Brussels I Recast Regulation where the defendant was the policyholder insured or beneficiary of an insurance contract or the injured party, or a consumer or an employee; and
• the judgment conflicts with the exclusive jurisdiction of another member state.

Furthermore, in order to be enforceable, the judgment must be enforceable in the member state where it was rendered.

Judgments Rendered Within the Framework of Conventions or Bilateral Treaties

The relevant grounds for refusal will be set forth in their provisions.

Judgments Rendered Outside of the EU Legal Framework and Bi- or Multilateral Treaties

Article 25 of the CPIL lists the following grounds for refusal:

• recognition would be incompatible with Belgian public policy;
• the rights of defence were violated;
• the judgment was obtained with the sole purpose of escaping the application of the law designated by the CPIL, in a matter in which the parties could not freely dispose of their rights;
• the judgment is not a final judgment;
• the judgment is incompatible with a domestic or foreign judgment;
• the foreign proceedings were commenced after Belgian proceedings were commenced, which remain pending between the same parties and with the same subject matter;
• the Belgian courts had exclusive jurisdiction to hear the claim;
• the jurisdiction of the foreign court was based solely on the presence of the defendant or property without a direct connection with the dispute in the State to which that court belongs;
• specific procedural errors were made regarding intellectual property rights that require registration;
• the foreign judgment relates to the validity, working, dissolution, or liquidation of company that had its main place of establishment in Belgium at the time the claim was made; and
• the enforcement of a foreign judgment relating to insolvency proceedings would generate specific effects for third parties affected by the insolvency.

Once again, in order to be enforceable, the judgment must be enforceable in the state where it was rendered.

A distinction must be made between judgments rendered in EU member states and judgments issued by courts outside the EU.

EU Judgments

Following Article 39 of the Brussels Recast Regulation, a judgment given in an EU member state which is enforceable in that member state, is enforceable in Belgium without any declaration of enforceability (“exequatur”) being required.

Since Article 41 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation states that “the procedure for the enforcement of judgments given in another Member State shall be governed by the law of the Member State addressed”, the process for enforcing EU judgments in Belgium is identic to the one applicable for domestic judgments.

Documents required to enforce the decision are the following:

• a copy of the judgment that satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity;
• a certificate issued according to Article 53 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation (and annexed to the Regulation) that:
1. certifies that the judgment is enforceable;
2. contains an extract of the judgment; and
3. contains relevant information on the recoverable costs of the proceedings and the calculation of interest, where appropriate.

When enforcing a EU judgment ordering a provisional or protective measure, pursuant to Article 42 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation, the applicant must provide the competent enforcement authority with:

• a copy of the judgment that satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity; and
• a certificate issued according to Article 53 of the Recast Brussels Regulation, containing a description of the protective measure and certifying that:
1. the court has jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter; and
2. the judgment is enforceable in the member state of origin;
• proof of service of the judgment if the measure was ordered without the defendant being summoned to appear; and
• where the measure was ordered without the defendant being summoned to appear, proof of service of the judgment.

The competent enforcement authority can, where necessary, require the applicant to provide a translation or a transliteration of the contents of the certificate, if it is unable to proceed without such a translation.

The above-mentioned certificate issued according to Article 53 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation must be served on the person against whom the enforcement is sought before the first enforcement measure. The certificate must be accompanied by the judgment, if not already served on that person.

On application of the person against whom enforcement is sought, the enforcement of a judgment will be refused if one of the grounds for refusal is established.

No security, bond or deposit (however described) is required from parties who apply in one EU member state for the enforcement of a judgment rendered in another EU member state on the ground that they are foreign nationals or not domiciled or resident in the addressed member state.

The exequatur procedure applies for judgments to which the Brussels I Recast Regulation is not applicable.

Non-EU Judgments

For judgments rendered outside the EU, the BJC provides for an enforcement procedure based on an ex parte application brought, in principle, before the Court of First Instance (and in some specific cases, before the Family Court or the Enterprise Court) of the domicile or habitual residence of the person against whom enforcement is sought or, if the person is not domiciled or habitually resident in Belgium, the court of the place of the enforcement of the judgment.

The CPIL refers to the enforcement procedure set out in Articles 1025 to 1034 BJC. The documents that the applicant needs to submit are the following:

• a certified copy of the decision, which according to the law of the State where it was rendered, meets the conditions required for its authenticity;
• if the judgment is a default judgment, the proof of service to the non-appearing party; and
• a document showing that the judgment is enforceable and notified or served.

The applicant must have a postal address or a representative in the territory of the enforcing court.

The enforcement proceedings for a foreign judgment are initiated by an ex parte application by the party requesting the foreign judgment (or foreign authentic instrument) to be recognised or declared enforceable. The judge must render their decision within a short period and this procedure does not differ depending on the nature of the judgment.

Once the foreign judgment is recognised and enforced, the applicant can execute all the enforcement measures allowed under Belgian Law which include the attachment of movable and immovable assets, third-party attachment or garnishment of bank accounts and earnings.

The time and costs necessary to enforce foreign judgments are similar to enforcement of domestic judgments – see 2.3 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Domestic Judgments.

Additional costs may be incurred for translation of judgments issued in a foreign language and for exequatur proceedings in case of non-EU judgments.

EU Judgments

The enforcement of EU judgments can be challenged, by any interested party, for exceptional grounds set forth in Article 43 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation (see 3.3 Categories of Foreign Judgments Not Enforced). These are, as a reminder:

• recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy in the member state addressed;
• the judgment was rendered in default of appearance and the defendant was not served with the document that instituted the proceedings, or with an equivalent document, in sufficient time and in a way that enabled them to arrange for their defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible to do so;
• the judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment given between the same parties in the member state addressed;
• the judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another member state or in a third state involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the member state addressed;
• the judgment conflicts with Sections 3, 4 or 5 of Chapter II of the Brussels I Recast Regulation where the defendant was the policyholder insured or beneficiary of an insurance contract or the injured party, or a consumer or an employee; and
• the judgment conflicts with the exclusive jurisdiction of another member state.

Non-EU Judgments

Foreign judgments will be recognised and be enforceable unless the application for recognition is refused on one of the grounds provided in Article 25 of the CPIL:

• recognition would be incompatible with Belgian public policy;
• the rights of defence were violated;
• the judgment was obtained with the sole purpose of escaping the application of the law designated by the CPIL, in a matter in which the parties could not freely dispose of their rights;
• the judgment is not a final judgment;
• the judgment is incompatible with a domestic or foreign judgment;
• the foreign proceedings were commenced after Belgian proceedings were commenced which remain pending between the same parties and with the same subject matter;
• the Belgian courts had exclusive jurisdiction to hear the claim;
• the jurisdiction of the foreign court was based solely on the presence of the defendant or property without a direct connection with the dispute in the State to which that court belongs;
• specific procedural errors were made regarding intellectual property rights that require registration;
• the foreign judgment relates to the validity, working, dissolution, or liquidation of company that had its main place of establishment in Belgium at the time the claim was made;
• and
• the enforcement of a foreign judgment relating to insolvency proceedings would generate specific effects for third parties affected by the insolvency.

The decision rendered by the Court of First Instance (the “Exequatur”) can be appealed before the Court of Appeal for one of the above-mentioned grounds within one month of the notification of the decision.

The Belgian law on arbitration is inspired to a large extent by the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, and is included as Part 6 of the BJC. More specifically, Chapter VII of Part 6 BJC provides for rules on challenging arbitral awards, while chapter VIII contains the rules on recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. These are the two main legal issues that may arise in enforcing an arbitral award.

Furthermore, Belgium is a party to various treaties covering the enforcement and recognition of arbitral awards, including the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the “New York Convention”, regarding which Belgium made a reservation of reciprocity), the Convention on the Settlement of Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States of 18 March 1965 (the “ICSID Convention”), and the Geneva Convention on International Commercial Arbitration of 21 April 1961.

Belgium has also signed numerous bilateral treaties relating to recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards – eg, with Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria and France.

Enforcement

Both domestic and foreign arbitral awards must be made enforceable through an identical procedure set forth in Chapter VIII of Part 6 BJC (see 4.4 Process of Enforcing Arbitral Awards), unless otherwise stated in international conventions to which Belgium is a party.

This is for instance the case for ICSID arbitral awards, the authenticity of which must first be validated by the Belgian Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The Ministry of Justice then transfers the certified and verified documents to the Court of Appeal of Brussels, which has jurisdiction to issue an exequatur order for the arbitral awards.

The grounds for refusing enforcement listed in Article 1721 BJC apply to Belgian arbitral awards and serve as the default rules for foreign arbitral awards to which no specific treaty is applicable, such as the New York Convention.

Setting Aside

The procedure and grounds for setting aside an arbitral award set forth in Chapter VII of Part 6 BJC only apply when the seat of arbitration was located in Belgium. Foreign awards may therefore not be set aside by Belgian jurisdictions.

Awards that are affected by one of the grounds for refusing enforcement listed in Article 1721 BJC (if applicable, see 4.2 Variations in Approach to Enforcement of Arbitral Awards) will not be enforced in Belgium:

Grounds that must be proven by the defending party:

• the arbitration agreement is invalid (including due to incapacity of a party);
• a party has not been informed of the arbitral proceedings or was not in a position to defend its rights, provided that the irregularity has an effect on the arbitral award;
• the dispute did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement;
• the arbitral award lacks the reasoning of the arbitral tribunal (when motivation is prescribed by applicable law, which is the case in Belgium);
• the arbitral tribunal was irregularly constituted or the arbitral proceedings had not been followed, provided that the irregularity (other than in the composition of the arbitral tribunal) affected the award;
• the award is still open for appeal before an arbitral body (unless it has been declared provisionally enforceable by the arbitral tribunal);
• the award has been set aside or suspended; and
• excess of power of the arbitral tribunal.

Grounds that may be raised ex officio by the court:

• the dispute was not an arbitrable matter;
• enforcement or execution would be contrary to Belgian international public policy; and
• the award was obtained by fraud.

Important to note is that arbitral awards that are not (yet) recognised may still serve as an authorisation for a conservatory attachment.

Arbitral awards can only be enforced in Belgium after recognition by a Belgian Court granting them the exequatur (Article 1720 BJC). This applies to both domestic and international awards. The main features of the procedures are the following.

• The petition for recognition and enforcement is brought to the Court of First Instance of the seat of arbitration (for domestic awards), and of the domicile of the defendant or, in the absence of any domicile in Belgium, of the place where enforcement will be sought (for foreign awards).
• The proceedings are conducted ex parte.
• The applicant must present an original copy of the arbitral award (hand signed by the arbitrators or via a qualified electronic signature), or a certified copy.
• Exequatur may only be refused by the court on limited grounds listed in Article 1721 BJC or applicable international conventions (see 4.3 Categories of Arbitral Awards Not Enforced).
• The exequatur order must be served to the person against whom enforcement is sought on initiative of the applicant.
• This party has one month after service to file third-party opposition against the exequatur order.
• The judgment refusing recognition or deciding on the third-party opposition can be appealed before the Supreme Court (Hof van Cassatie/Cour de Cassation), but only in relation to matters of law.

Costs

The costs for obtaining an exequatur order of an arbitral award are typically the following:

• cost of translation of the arbitral award (in French or Dutch);
• court fees, which currently amount to EUR165, and a contribution to the budgetary fund for judicial assistance of EUR24; and
• specific cost relating to the exequatur order, which is calculated on the number of pages of the exequatur order. 

If the award condemns the unsuccessful party to pay a sum of money in excess of EUR12,500, a tax of 3% is payable by the defeated party, calculated on the amount of the conviction.

Once the exequatur order has been issued, the costs for enforcement of the arbitral award are identical to those of a judgment (see 2.3 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Domestic Judgments).

Time

When the exequatur order is not challenged, the arbitral award can be enforced in matter of a few weeks. Depending on the nature of the objection against an arbitral award, the length of the exequatur proceedings may vary.

A party may challenge enforcement of an arbitral award in Belgium at four different stages.

Appeal

The arbitral award may only be appealed if provided for in the arbitration agreement (Article 1716 BCJ).

Setting Aside

Within three months from the notification of the (definitive) Belgian arbitral award, the parties may ask for its setting aside before the Court of First Instance of the seat of arbitration.

Article 1717,§3 BJC provides for an exhaustive list of grounds following which an arbitral award can be set aside. This list is predominantly inspired by Article 34(2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, and is comparable with the grounds to refuse an enforcement:

• the arbitration agreement is invalid (including due to incapacity of a party);
• a party has not been informed of the arbitral proceedings or was not in a position to defend its rights, provided that the irregularity has an effect on the arbitral award;
• the dispute did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement;
• the arbitral award lacks the reasoning of the arbitral tribunal (when motivation is prescribed by applicable law, which is the case in Belgium);
• the arbitral tribunal was irregularly constituted or the arbitral proceedings had not been followed, provided that the irregularity (other than in the composition of the arbitral tribunal) affected the award;
• the dispute was not an arbitrable matter;
• enforcement or execution would be contrary to Belgian international public policy; and
• the award was obtained by fraud.

Except for the last three grounds above, which may be raised ex officio by the judge, the obligation rests on the party that seeks the setting aside of a Belgian arbitral award, to present proof of the grounds that are invoked.

Parties lose the possibility to request the setting aside of an award if they were aware of the grounds mentioned in the first, second, third and fifth bullet points above during the arbitration procedure and failed to invoke those grounds before the arbitral tribunal.

Decisions on a setting-aside petition may not be appealed before the courts of appeal, but only before the Supreme Court (for matters of law exclusively).

Challenge of the Exequatur Order

Once the exequatur order of an arbitral award has been notified, the opposing party has one month after service to file third-party opposition. The grounds for challenging the exequatur order are listed under 4.3 Categories of Arbitral Awards Not Enforced.

Challenge of the Enforcement Proceedings

The debtor may still challenge the conservatory or executory attachments put in place by the enforcing party. The grounds for challenging these proceedings have been examined under 2.5 Challenging Enforcement of Domestic Judgments.