Although a large number of disputes in Belgium are still resolved by State courts, international arbitration is increasingly favoured (particularly in international commercial disputes) due to its speed, confidentiality, procedural flexibility and the expertise of arbitrators.

Belgium continues to engage in international arbitration. For the year 2024, the Belgian Centre for Arbitration and Mediation (CEPANI) – which is the most important arbitration institution in Belgium – reported that 42% of its cases involved at least one international party, while Belgium was selected as the seat of arbitration in ten cases registered with the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). 

Certain industries in Belgium have seen notable international arbitration activity in recent years.

At CEPANI, 51% of cases in 2024 involved corporate law matters (ie, corporate disputes and share purchase agreement disputes) while 41% concerned service agreements. This contrasts with the ICC global caseload, where nearly 44% of disputes arose from the engineering, construction and energy sectors – mainly due to the complexity and cross-border nature of contracts in these industries.

The most used arbitral institutions for international arbitration in Belgium are the ICC and CEPANI. The ICC is more frequently chosen for cross-border disputes due to its global reputation and enforceability of awards. CEPANI is preferred when one party is Belgian, offering multilingual proceedings and strong local expertise. However, in terms of volume, the ICC handles more international cases than CEPANI.

In November 2024, “C-Build by Cepani” was launched as a new department within CEPANI, specifically dedicated to providing tailored dispute resolution services (including arbitration, mediation and expert determination) for the construction sector. CEPANI also includes a dedicated section for sports arbitration: the Belgian Centre for Sports Arbitration (C-SAR).

Under Belgian law, the power to decide on arbitration-related issues has been centralised in the Courts of First Instance and with the President of these Courts, where support is required before or during the arbitration proceedings (Article 1680, Section 5 of the Belgian Judicial Code (BJC)). Within these courts, arbitration-related cases are generally assigned to a specific chamber composed of judges with experience in arbitration law. 

The Belgian Arbitration Act of 24 June 2013 aimed to harmonise Belgian law with the UNCITRAL Model Law and has been implemented into Part VI of the BJC. The preparatory words of the Belgian Arbitration Act confirm that the Belgian legislature wished to present Belgium “as a country open to international arbitration and as a country with progressive arbitration legislation”.

Although Belgian arbitration law is largely inspired by the UNCITRAL Model Law, it departs from it in several respects. For example:

• Part VI of the BJC applies to all types of arbitration – not just commercial arbitration – and does not distinguish between domestic and international arbitration (Article 1676 BJC);
• an arbitral award rendered in Belgium must state the reasons upon which the decision is based (Article 1713, Section 4 BJC); and
• the absence of reasoning is a ground for annulment of the award (Article 1717, Section 3(a)(iv) BJC).

There have been no substantial changes to Belgian arbitration law since the Law of 28 March 2024, which introduced technical amendments to Part VI of the BJC, primarily simplifying the time limits for annulment and enforcement challenges of awards, as well as prohibiting the recognition or enforcement of annulled awards.

On 25 April 2025, a motion was introduced by members of the Belgian Green parties in the Belgian Chamber of Representatives, calling for:

• the restriction or abolition of investor-State arbitration;
• the cessation of ratification of new bilateral investment treaties (BITs); and
• Belgium’s withdrawal from the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT).

An arbitration agreement must reflect the parties’ clear and mutual consent to submit their disputes to binding arbitration (Article 1681 BJC). As with any contract under Belgian law, an arbitration agreement must be supported by valid consent from parties with legal capacity, and it must involve both a lawful object and a legitimate cause. Part VI of the BJC does not require that an arbitration agreement be recorded in a written document.

In principle, all pecuniary claims and non-pecuniary claims that are capable of settlement can be submitted to arbitration (Article 1676 BJC). While certain types of disputes are entirely excluded from arbitration (eg, criminal law, tax litigation), others are subject to restrictions. For example, disputes arising from employment contracts and certain insurance contracts can only be referred to arbitration once the dispute has arisen. Intellectual property and consumer disputes are also subject to specific limitations. Moreover, claims that are contrary to public policy cannot be submitted to arbitration.

In a landmark decision dated 7 April 2023, the Belgian Court of Cassation overturned its previous case law and held that disputes concerning the termination of exclusive distribution agreements may be submitted to arbitration – even when governed by foreign law – provided that the Rome I Regulation applies.

Finally, public legal entities may enter into arbitration agreements only to resolve contractual disputes, unless otherwise authorised by specific legislation or royal decrees.

Belgian Courts’ Approach as Regards Determining the Law Governing the Arbitration Agreement

Under Belgian law, parties are permitted to choose the rules of law applicable to their dispute (Article 1710, Section 1 BJC). This flexibility notably allows them to designate rules developed by international bodies that have not yet been incorporated into national law (eg, the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods).

If no law is specified, it is the arbitral tribunal – not the national courts – that will select the most appropriate rules of law (Article 1710, Section 2 BJC).

Belgian Courts’ Approach as Regards Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements

Belgian courts generally adopt a pro-arbitration approach, enforcing arbitration agreements where the parties’ intent to arbitrate is clear. They will refuse to enforce an arbitration agreement only on limited grounds, such as where:

• the agreement is invalid or has been terminated;
• one or both parties lacked the legal capacity to contract;
• the dispute falls outside the legally permissible scope of arbitration (“non-arbitrability”); or
• enforcement would contravene public policy (Articles 1682, 1717 and 1721 BJC).

Enforcement may also be denied if the arbitration agreement is irreparably pathological or grants one party undue influence over the constitution of the arbitral tribunal.

Article 1690, Section 1 BJC enshrines the principle of separability, according to which the arbitration clause is independent from the main contract. This separation ensures that any defects in the main contract do not affect the arbitration agreement. Consequently, the nullity of the main contract does not automatically invalidate the arbitration agreement.

Parties are free to determine the procedure for selecting arbitrators provided that both are treated equally with respect to this selection (Article 1685, Section 2 and Article 1699 BJC). They are also not bound by specific selection criteria as long as the arbitrators are independent, impartial and legally capable of performing legal acts.

Although the BJC does not impose specific ethical or disciplinary rules, arbitrators must adhere to the ethical standards of their profession (focusing on independence, impartiality, competence, availability, diligence and confidentiality).

In line with this autonomy, the parties can agree on restrictions regarding the arbitrator’s qualifications or nationality (eg, parties to an international contract may require that the sole arbitrator or chair of the arbitral tribunal is of a different nationality than the parties).

Default Procedure When the Parties’ Chosen Method for Selecting Arbitrators Fails

If the procedure agreed upon by the parties fails, any party may request the President of the Court of First Instance to appoint or replace an arbitrator (Article 1685, Section 4 BJC).

If the parties have simply not agreed on any procedure for selecting arbitrators, the default rule is that each party will appoint one arbitrator, and the two appointed arbitrators will appoint a third one or the President of the Court of First Instance will appoint the arbitral tribunal, depending on the number of arbitrators to be appointed (Article 1685, Section 3 BJC).

The Specific Case of Multiparty Arbitrations

The BJC does not provide any specific default procedure in the case of multiparty arbitrations.

CEPANI and the ICC – ie, the arbitration institutions most commonly relied upon in Belgium – have adopted default rules to ensure party equality in multiparty arbitrations. Where parties on one side cannot jointly nominate an arbitrator, the institution will appoint the entire arbitral tribunal (Article 15, Section 5 CEPANI Arbitration Rules (the “CEPANI Rules”); Article 12, Section 8 ICC Arbitration Rules (the “ICC Rules”)).

Belgian courts may only intervene on a subsidiary basis in the selection of arbitrators if the parties’ agreed procedure fails or no procedure has been set. In such cases, the President of the Court of First Instance may, upon unilateral request, take the necessary measures to constitute the arbitral tribunal (Article 1680, Section 1 BJC). The Court’s decision is generally final and not subject to appeal, except when it refuses to make an appointment. This judicial intervention is limited to situations where the parties have not provided an alternative mechanism or where the designated institution fails to perform its role. Accordingly, such intervention is unlikely where the parties have opted for a reputable arbitral institution.

An arbitrator may be challenged if:

• there are well-founded doubts as to their independence or impartiality; or
• they lack the qualifications agreed upon by the parties (Article 1686, Section 2 BJC).

The BJC does not list specific grounds for challenging an arbitrator; however, clear conflicts (such as close personal or professional ties to a party or its counsel) or ongoing disputes are generally disqualifying. Challenges must be raised promptly, within 15 days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and cannot be based on circumstances known at the time of appointment. 

Arbitrators, like judges, must be independent and impartial throughout the entire arbitration process. They cannot have personal, professional or financial ties with a party, and must disclose any circumstances that could raise doubts about their neutrality, both at the time of appointment and during the proceedings (Article 1686, Section 1 BJC). Both the CEPANI Rules (Article 14) and the ICC Rules (Article 11) require arbitrators to sign a declaration of independence and to report any new conflicts immediately.

In practice, the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration – though not legally binding – are widely accepted as the international standard. They are frequently used by practitioners and arbitral institutions – including in Belgium – as a benchmark for assessing arbitrators’ independence and disclosure. 

While independence is not a matter of public policy and may therefore be waived, such waiver must be informed (ie, parties must be aware of the circumstances that could give rise to a challenge) and preferably documented.

Article 1690, Section 1 BJC enshrines in Belgian law the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz, granting arbitral tribunals the power to decide on their own jurisdiction independently and without prior court involvement.

The BJC gives the arbitral tribunal the possibility to rule on its own jurisdiction and only provides for limited circumstances in which Belgian courts may intervene with respect to the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Court Intervention Before and Pending Arbitration Proceedings

Belgium courts may be required to assess the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal in the context of proceedings on the merits of a dispute where an arbitration clause exists between the parties (Article 1682, Section 1 BJC). In such case:

• the defendant may invoke the existence of an arbitration agreement to object to the jurisdiction of the court (exceptio arbitri); and
• the court will then assess the validity of that arbitration agreement (and thus the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal).

Importantly, such assessment does not preclude the arbitration proceedings from being initiated or continued if already initiated in parallel (Article 1682, Section 2 BJC). 

There is no precedent in published case law where Belgian courts have ruled on “anti-arbitration injunctions”, which restrain parties from initiating or continuing arbitration proceedings. They are generally considered impermissible as they contravene the arbitral tribunal’s authority to determine its own jurisdiction – in particular, in the context of non-domestic arbitrations where international treaties prohibit such judicial interference.

Court Intervention Once an Arbitral Award Has Been Issued

Belgian courts may assess an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction primarily in set-aside or enforcement proceedings, where a party challenges the award (Article 1717, Section 3 BJC) or opposes enforcement (Article 1721, Section 1 BJC). However, Belgian courts generally adopt a restrained approach,  respecting the arbitral tribunal’s primary role in determining its own jurisdiction and the autonomy of arbitration.

In principle, a party cannot directly challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal before a Belgian court before the award on the merits is rendered.

If the arbitration is seated in Belgium, Article 1690, Section 4 BJC provides that the arbitral tribunal’s decision that it has jurisdiction may only be contested together with the award on the merits in set-aside proceedings.

A party may also seize Belgian courts to challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal after the arbitration, in set-aside or enforcement proceedings (Article 1717, Section 3 and Article 1721, Section 1 BJC). An award may only be set aside on this basis if the party was not aware of the jurisdictional issue or raised it during the arbitration proceedings (Article 1717, Section 5 BJC).

Belgian law does not provide for a de novo review of an arbitral tribunal’s decision on its jurisdiction. Therefore, Belgian courts generally apply a deferential approach, focusing on whether the award meets legal requirements rather than reassessing the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction. However, the nature and scope of this judicial review remains debated in Belgian doctrine and case law. While recent doctrine and case law have advocated for a full re-examination of jurisdiction, others support a more limited review, allowing setting aside only where there are compelling grounds to disagree with the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

When a dispute is subject to an arbitration agreement, Belgian courts must decline jurisdiction if the matter is brought before them, unless the arbitration agreement is invalid or has expired (Article 1682, Section 1 BJC). This rule applies regardless of whether the seat of arbitration is in Belgium or abroad. The objection to the court’s jurisdiction must be raised at the very outset of the proceedings (in limine litis) – otherwise, the arbitration agreement is deemed waived.

When deciding whether to decline jurisdiction, Belgian courts fully review the validity of the arbitration agreement. This possibility, granted by Article 1682 BJC, contrasts with French law for example, where courts must decline jurisdiction unless the arbitration agreement is “manifestly” invalid (Article 1448 of the French Code of Civil Procedure).

As arbitration is rooted in party consent, a third party – whether foreign or domestic – cannot be brought into the proceedings or force its way into them without the agreement of all parties involved. Participation requires not only a valid arbitration agreement with the parties but also the unanimous approval of the arbitral tribunal (Article 1709 BJC). The mere fact that a party has participated in the performance of a contract containing an arbitration clause, or is involved in a group of contracts where one includes such a clause, is not in itself sufficient to bind that party to arbitration. What truly matters is whether, in light of the specific facts of the case, it can be reasonably concluded that the third party genuinely consented to the arbitration agreement, even if only tacitly.

Arbitral tribunals seated in Belgium are empowered to grant any interim or conservatory measures they deem necessary, unless the parties have agreed otherwise (Article 1691 BJC). Such relief is binding. When enforcement is sought in Belgium, regardless of the seat of arbitration, Article 1696, Section 1 BJC provides a specific enforcement mechanism.

The scope of interim or conservatory measures available to arbitral tribunals in Belgium is broadly equivalent to that of Belgian courts, with two exceptions: arbitral tribunals cannot order conservatory attachments or issue ex parte interim or conservatory orders. Examples of measures that the arbitral tribunal can order include:

• investigative measures relating to the preservation of evidence;
• advance payments on future judgments when the claim is undisputed; or
• appointment of a sequestrator for disputed shares.

Role of Belgian Courts in Preliminary or Interim Relief in Arbitration Proceedings

Belgian courts play two key roles with respect to preliminary or interim relief in arbitration proceedings.

The first concerns the situation where a party fails to comply voluntarily with such measures. In such a case, unless the arbitral tribunal has decided otherwise, the relief shall be enforced by the Court of First Instance, regardless of the country in which the measure was issued (Article 1696, Section 1 BJC).

Second, Belgian courts may themselves grant interim or conservatory measures before or during arbitration proceedings even if the seat of the arbitration is outside Belgium (Article 1683 and 1698 BJC). These measures may include preserving the status quo, protecting evidence or granting provisional relief, provided they remain provisional and do not prejudge the merits of the dispute. 

Whether a party can freely choose between the State courts and the arbitral tribunal to seek interim or conservatory measures has been debated in Belgium. Some commentators support this freedom of choice, while others argue that parties should first turn to the arbitral tribunal and resort to State courts only if the tribunal is unable to satisfactorily address the issue. The Brussels Court of Appeal addressed this issue in a decision dated 17 January 2020, affirming the parties’ freedom to choose. However, the debate can hardly be considered definitively settled until the Belgian Court of Cassation rules on this question.

Emergency Arbitrators

The BJC does not provide a specific mechanism for emergency arbitration; however, the main arbitral institutions commonly used in Belgium do offer such procedures. Indeed, Article 29 ICC Rules and Article 27 CEPANI Rules allow for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator to decide on interim and conservatory measures prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. Decisions rendered by emergency arbitrators are binding on the parties. Of course, they do not bind the arbitral tribunal itself, which retains the authority to modify, set aside or terminate the emergency arbitrator’s decision.

Although Book VI of the BJC does not explicitly address security for costs, it is widely accepted that arbitral tribunals have the authority to order such security for costs as an interim measure.

Book VI of the BJC contains dedicated rules governing arbitral procedure. Under these rules, parties to an arbitration seated in Belgium are free to agree on the rules governing the procedure. In the absence of such agreement, the arbitral tribunal has broad discretion to determine how the proceedings will be conducted, which includes taking evidence and managing the process according to the needs of the dispute.

This procedural flexibility is limited by due process requirements (such as equality and the right to be heard (Article 1699 BJC)) and a number of mandatory provisions that cannot be derogated from (for example, the power of Belgian courts to issue interim measures (Article 1683 BJC) and the rules on recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards (Articles 1719 to 1722 BJC)).

Arbitral procedure in Belgium is highly flexible and guided by the principle of party autonomy. As long as fundamental procedural guarantees (such as due process and equal treatment) are respected, parties are free to agree on all aspects of the procedure – including:

• its commencement;
• methods of communication;
• language of arbitration;
• submission of arguments; and
• conduct of hearings.

In the absence of specific agreement, these procedural aspects are determined by the arbitral tribunal, subject to the mandatory provisions of the BJC (Article 1700, Section 2 BJC).

The BJC imposes several obligations on arbitrators, including the duty to:

• carry out their mandate once accepted (Article 1685, Section 7 BJC);
• maintain impartiality and independence throughout the arbitration proceedings;
• continuously disclose any circumstances that may give rise to reasonable doubts about their impartiality or independence (Article 1686, Section 1 BJC); and
• uphold due process and ensure fair and equal treatment of all parties (Article 1699 BJC).

Arbitrators are vested with a range of powers to effectively manage the arbitration proceedings, such as the authority to:

• order interim measures;
• hear witnesses and experts; and
• impose penalty payments.

In arbitration proceedings seated in Belgium, parties may be represented either by a lawyer or by another person of their choice, subject to the approval of the arbitral tribunal. A party’s lawyers are not required to be members of the Belgian Bar; it is sufficient that they are admitted to practice by a Bar or Law Society in another jurisdiction and can provide evidence of such membership. This flexibility applies equally to both domestic and international arbitration proceedings seated in Belgium.

The collection and submission of evidence in Belgian arbitration is broadly governed by the principle of party autonomy. There is no general discovery or mandatory disclosure as found in common law systems. Evidence is typically submitted during the pleadings phase, with each party filing its brief accompanied by all relevant documentary evidence, witness statements and expert reports, where applicable.

At the hearing, written witness statements prepared in accordance with international standards (mainly the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration) are commonly used. Witnesses may then be subject to direct and cross-examination. Documentary evidence submitted in advance may also be discussed during the hearing. The arbitral tribunal has broad discretion to assess the admissibility and probative value of evidence (Article 1700, Section 3 BJC), subject to party agreement, due process and public policy.

The rules of evidence applying in Belgian-seated arbitration proceedings differ from those governing domestic litigation before Belgian courts. Arbitral tribunals are not bound by statutory evidentiary rules and may freely determine the admissibility and probative value of evidence, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. The principle of freedom of proof prevails, allowing the arbitral tribunal to admit any type of evidence it deems relevant and credible.

In practice, arbitrators – including in Belgian-seated arbitrations – frequently refer to the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, which codify international best practice.

Arbitral tribunals seated in Belgium are empowered to order parties to produce documents or other evidence, and can impose a penalty for non-compliance (Article 1700, Section 4 and Article 1713, Section 7 BJC). However, they cannot directly compel non-parties to co-operate. If a non-party refuses to produce evidence or attend as a witness, the arbitral tribunal may invite a party to seek assistance from the President of the Court of First Instance, who may order such measures as are necessary (including compulsion) in summary proceedings (Article 1708 BJC).

Belgian law does not establish a general duty of confidentiality for arbitration proceedings, submissions or awards. While arbitrators are expected to maintain confidentiality, this obligation is not imposed by law but may arise from the parties’ agreement or institutional rules. For instance, under Article 26 of the CEPANI Rules, arbitration proceedings are confidential unless the parties agree otherwise or there is a legal obligation to disclose. CEPANI’s Rules of Good Conduct (Schedule II of the CEPANI Rules) further restrict the publication of awards, permitting only anonymous publication with the explicit consent of the parties and prior notification to CEPANI.

The principle of confidentiality in arbitration should not prevent a party from enforcing or challenging an arbitral award before the courts. Article 26 CEPANI Rules explicitly confirms this by allowing parties to disclose any information required for such proceedings.

Legal Requirements for an Arbitral Award

Under Belgian law, arbitral awards must be in writing and signed by the arbitrators. They must be reasoned – absence of reasoning may lead to the award being set aside or denied enforcement. Awards must also include the identities and domiciles of the parties and arbitrators, a summary of the facts and legal issues, the date and the place of arbitration (Article 1713 BJC). However, omission of these formal elements does not affect the validity of the award.

Time Limit

The parties are free to set a time limit within which the arbitral tribunal must render its award. If no time limit is agreed upon, and if six months have elapsed since the appointment of the last arbitrator, the President of the Court of First Instance may, at a party’s request, impose a time limit on the arbitral tribunal (Article 1713, Section 2 BJC).

An arbitral tribunal in Belgium may only grant remedies that are permitted under the law applicable to the dispute. If Belgian law applies, the arbitral tribunal can award compensatory and liquidated damages, but it is not permitted to grant punitive damages.

The parties may agree in advance on how arbitration costs and fees will be allocated, or they may choose to follow the rules of the chosen arbitral institution (eg, Article 38 ICC Rules or Article 39 CEPANI Rules). In the absence of any specific agreement or rule, the arbitral tribunal has full discretion to decide on the allocation of all costs, including legal fees, in its award (Article 1713, Section 6 BJC).

Following a decision of the Belgian Court of Cassation dated 2 September 2004, the prevailing party in an arbitration seated in Belgium can recover its legal and expert fees from the losing party. Unlike proceedings before State courts, this reimbursement is not subject to a statutory cap and may cover the actual fees and costs incurred.

Appeal of the Award

Under Article 1716 BJC, arbitral awards are final and not subject to appeal unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in the arbitration agreement. In such rare cases, the appeal must be brought before a new arbitral tribunal, and must be filed within one month of notification of the award. Belgian law does not provide specific grounds for appeal.

Setting-Aside of the Award

According to Article 1717 BJC, arbitral awards that are not open to appeal may still be set aside by Belgian courts, but only on the basis of a limited and exhaustive list of grounds. These include serious procedural irregularities or violations of public policy. If an award is set aside, it is deemed void under Belgian law. The parties may initiate new arbitration proceedings, unless the setting-aside was based on the invalidity of the arbitration agreement itself. Decisions on setting aside are final and cannot be appealed, although a limited recourse is possible before the Belgian Court of Cassation within three months of the notification of the final decision. This recourse is strictly limited to a review of the correct application of the law and does not entail a re-examination of the facts.

Scope of Appeal

Article 1716 BJC allows parties to include an appeal mechanism in their arbitration agreement on terms of their choosing. If parties opt for such an appeal, they are also free to determine its grounds and procedural rules.

Scope of Setting-Aside

The grounds for setting aside an arbitral award under Article 1717, Section 3 BJC are exhaustive and cannot be expanded by party agreement. However, Article 1718 BJC allows the parties to expressly waive their right to seek the setting-aside of an arbitral award, provided that none of them is a Belgian national, resident or entity with a registered office, principal place of business, or branch in Belgium. Such waiver must be explicit and included either in the arbitration agreement or in a subsequent agreement. A mere reference to institutional arbitral rules that contain a waiver may not suffice to meet this requirement.

In the Belgian legal system, there is no provision for a full or de novo review of an arbitral award. Judges in setting-aside proceedings are not permitted to reassess the merits of the case, as the process is strictly limited to determining whether the award complies with the legal requirements for validity and is not intended to serve as an appeal. In principle, this also applies to arbitral tribunals’ decisions on their jurisdiction, although recent doctrine and case law reflect ongoing debate as to whether such jurisdictional issues warrant a more thorough judicial review. As regards public policy grounds, the Belgian Court of Cassation clarified in a ruling dated 12 April 2024 that the judge cannot reassess the dispute in light of public policy provisions applied by the arbitrator, but must determine whether the award itself contradicts public policy.

Belgium is a party to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”), which it applies on the basis of reciprocity (ie, Belgium grants other States the same treatment they afford Belgium under the New York Convention). In addition, Belgium has signed several BITs as well as the 1961 European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration and the 1965 International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Convention.

According to Article 1721 Section 3 BJC, these instruments take precedence over Book VI of the BJC, unless the treaty provides otherwise. For instance, the New York Convention’s “more favourable right” clause permits the application of national rules that are more favourable to recognition and enforcement than those provided under the Convention itself (Article VII (1)).

Procedures and Standards for Enforcing an Award

A party may seek enforcement of a domestic or foreign arbitral award once it is no longer subject to challenge or has been declared provisionally enforceable. The Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to hear applications for recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. These applications are made ex parte – meaning that the opposing party is not heard initially but may appeal the exequatur order.

Belgian courts may refuse enforcement of an arbitral award only on a limited number of grounds, which are generally in line with Article V of the New York Convention. Such grounds also largely mirror those provided under Article 1717 BJC (eg, invalidity of the arbitration agreement, irregularity of the composition of the arbitral tribunal, non-arbitrability of the dispute). One additional ground for refusal is that the arbitral award is not yet binding or has been set aside or suspended in the country where the award was issued (Article 1721, Section 1 BJC).

Enforcement of an Award That is Being or Has Been Set Aside

Belgian law now explicitly provides that any prior enforcement order lapses if the award is subsequently set aside, whether the award is domestic or foreign (Article 1720, Section 7 BJC). That said, the initiation of set-aside proceedings does not automatically suspend the recognition or enforcement of the arbitral award. Upon a party’s request, Belgian courts may grant a suspension of the enforceability of the award pending the outcome of the set-aside proceedings (Article 1717, Section 8 BJC).

The Defence of Sovereign Immunity

Immunity from jurisdiction

Belgian courts apply customary international law when determining state immunity, guided by the European Convention on State Immunity (ECSI) and the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (UNCSI). Although the latter is not yet in force, it strongly influences Belgian practice. Under Article 17 UNCSI (and similarly Article 12 ECSI), when a State has entered into a written agreement to arbitrate commercial disputes with a foreign individual or entity, it generally cannot invoke immunity from jurisdiction in proceedings related to the validity, interpretation or enforcement of the arbitration agreement or award – unless the arbitration agreement provides otherwise.

Immunity from execution

Under Article 1412quinquies, Section 1 BJC, assets belonging to a foreign State located in Belgium are, in principle, immune from execution. Article 1412quinquies, Section 2, 3° BJC provides for an exception to the prohibition of attachment of assets belonging to a foreign power that are located in Belgium. Under this provision, a creditor, in possession of an enforcement title, may request the attachment judge to attach the assets of a foreign power that are located in Belgium, provided the creditor demonstrates that:

• such assets are specifically used or intended to be used by the foreign power for other than non-commercial public service purposes;
• such assets are located in Belgium; and
• the attachment only relates to assets which have a link with the entity that is subject to the enforcement title.

As a result of a recent decision of the Belgian Court of Cassation dated 19 December 2024, the debtor State’s lack of co-operation or inability to provide evidence as to the nature of the attached assets could significantly hinder its ability to successfully claim immunity from execution. It will be up to the attachment judge to decide – based on their appreciation of the facts – whether or not the absence of collaboration of evidence on the part of the debtor State, or the way it defends itself, entails that the assets are (partially) attachable or not.

General Approach

Belgian courts generally adopt a pro-enforcement stance towards arbitral awards, whether domestic or foreign.

In principle, Belgian courts are not permitted to reassess the merits of the case and may only refuse enforcement if the arbitral award contravenes Article 1721 BJC. Nonetheless, a limited review of the merits may occur to verify the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction or assess a potential breach of public policy (although the extent of such judicial review remains debated under Belgian law).

Refusal to Enforce Based on Public Policy Grounds

Refusal to enforce an award on public policy grounds is rare, as the concept of “public policy” is interpreted restrictively.

In the context of foreign awards, enforcement may be refused if the award violates Belgian international public policy – a concept that is narrower than domestic public policy. International public policy refers to fundamental principles essential to Belgium’s moral, political or economic order.

A violation of public policy may arise either from the substantive content of the award or from serious procedural irregularities, such as the absence of reasoning in the award.

The Belgian class action regime does not deal with class arbitration. Any “class arbitration” would therefore need to comply with the usual procedural rules for arbitration.

While there is no universally binding code of ethics for arbitrators in Belgium, legal doctrine recognises key ethical duties, such as availability, diligence, confidentiality and the obligation to strive to render an enforceable award. Arbitral institutions may impose additional ethical obligations through their own codes of conduct (eg, CEPANI’s Rules of Good Conduct).

Third-party funding agreements are considered sui generis contracts under Belgian law, meaning they are not expressly regulated. The validity of third-party funding in Belgium is mainly assessed through the lens of respect for due process and public policy, both during arbitration and by courts at the set-aside or enforcement stage. Overall, third-party funding is generally accepted as long as these basic principles are respected.

Book VI of the BJC does not address consolidation of arbitration proceedings. However, under the CEPANI Rules (Article 13), separate arbitration proceedings may be consolidated, though only by the CEPANI Appointments Committee or President (not by the arbitral tribunal itself). Consolidation may be requested by one or more parties, or by a tribunal, and must be made before any other plea is submitted. It is permitted where the proceedings are related or indivisible and certain criteria are met, including:

• compatibility of arbitration agreements;
• identity or connection between parties and disputes;
• the procedure of each arbitration; and
• agreement on the place of arbitration.

Consolidation is generally excluded if a preliminary or merits decision has already been rendered in one of the proceedings, unless all parties consent.

Third-Party Effect in General

Third parties – whether foreign or domestic – can only be bound by an arbitration agreement or award if they have genuinely consented to the arbitration agreement, either expressly or, in some cases, tacitly based on the specific circumstances. Their participation in arbitral proceedings additionally requires the unanimous approval of the arbitral tribunal. Belgian courts lack the power to bind third parties, including foreign entities, to an arbitration agreement or award unless such genuine consent exists.

Third-Party Effect of Arbitral Awards

The “virtual representation” theory, according to which certain third parties (such as the joint debtor or guarantor) are presumed to be represented in the arbitral procedure has not yet been tested before the Belgian courts (but is rejected by Belgian authors). Such theory may be defended where the third party controlled the underlying arbitration and had the opportunity to litigate, in order to satisfy any due process concerns.

Without the theory of virtual representation, res judicata does not extend to third parties to the procedure. However, arbitral awards do have evidentiary value and, therefore, can be invoked as a rebuttable presumption of truth against a third party in subsequent legal proceedings. This means that the third party cannot challenge what has been decided by the arbitral award without providing new elements of proof or new arguments not submitted to the first arbitral tribunal. If the third party wants to completely review the debate, they must file a third-party opposition against the arbitral award. Such right was recognised by the Belgian Constitutional Court in a ruling dated 16 February 2017.