Litigation 2024

Last Updated December 05, 2023

Belgium

Law and Practice

Authors



Janson was founded in 1950, initially as a litigation firm. To this day, dispute resolution remains Janson’s core expertise. Its dispute resolution practice is one of the most sought-after in the Belgian market by both domestic and foreign clients. Janson boasts a team of approximately 100 lawyers, specialising in various areas of law across a broad range of industries. Many of its lawyers are multilingual and act as arbitrators and deputy judges in various international forums such as CEPANI, ICC, ICSID, SHIAC, IAI, CIETAC, and ad hoc. Janson’s dispute resolution practice focuses mainly on corporate and commercial litigation, banking and finance litigation and white-collar crime. A large number of the cases that Janson handles have a cross-border and/or multi-party dimension. Notably, the firm represents Belfius Bank in a large collective action initiated by approximately 25,000 plaintiffs, known as the “Arco case”.

Belgium is a civil law jurisdiction. The law is established by statutes issued by the federal and regional parliaments.

Legal proceedings in civil and commercial matters are governed by the Belgian Judicial Code. They are conducted on an adversarial model, through both written submissions and oral argument. Belgium does not have jury trials in civil and commercial matters; juries are only utilised in the most severe criminal cases.

The civil court system has a three-tier structure.

District courts will hear cases in the first instance. Depending on the subject matter and the nature of the parties, the competent courts will either be:

  • the Enterprise Courts (Ondernemingsrechtbank/Tribunal d’entreprise), for disputes between enterprises;
  • the Labour Courts (Arbeidsrechtbank/Tribunal de travail) for employment disputes; or
  • the Courts of First Instance (Rechtbank van eerste aanleg/Tribunal de première instance) for general civil matters and enforcement proceedings.

Small claims (below EUR5,000) and specific matters (eg, disputes relating to lease contracts) fall within the competence of the Justice of the Peace (Vredegerecht/Justice de Paix).

First instance judgments rendered by the district courts can be appealed to the Courts of Appeal. Appeals against judgments of the Justice of the Peace are brought before the Courts of First Instance. The appellate courts will conduct a full review of the matter.

Lastly, the judgments of the appellate courts can be appealed to the Belgian Supreme Court (Hof van Cassatie/Cour de Cassation). However, the Supreme Court review is limited in scope. The Supreme Court does not conduct a review of the facts; it will merely review the application and interpretation of the law. The Supreme Court either confirms or annuls the appeal judgment.

Court filings are not accessible to third parties.

Court hearings in civil and commercial matters are generally open to the public, except for certain matters that are heard behind closed doors.

In special circumstances, courts can adopt precautionary measures to maintain the confidentiality of documents produced as evidence.

The Belgian Judicial Code also provides for specific rules regarding confidentiality in matters relating to trade secrets.

Pursuant to the Act of 16 October 2022, a publicly accessible database for court decisions (the “Central Registry for Judicial Decisions”) should be in place by 31 December 2023. To preserve the parties’ privacy, the decisions published in the central registry will be redacted.

Parties are entitled to appear in court in person without representation by a lawyer. Companies must be represented by a director with power of representation.

Lawyers registered with one of the Belgian bar associations have rights of audience in Belgian courts. However, rights of audience before the Belgian Supreme Court are restricted to a select group of lawyers with special accreditation.

Foreign lawyers – EU

Lawyers from EU member states are allowed to practise in Belgium. To do so, they can request registration on the list of EU lawyers. Lawyers on the EU list have rights of audience but only if assisted by a fully qualified lawyer, registered on the regular list.

Foreign lawyers – non-EU

Foreign lawyers from outside the EU do not have rights of audience in Belgium.

No Statutory Framework

Third-party funding is not regulated in Belgium. In the absence of any statutory rules or prohibition, third-party funding is generally considered to be permitted.

To date, there is no known case law from Belgian courts regarding the legality of third-party funding.

Lawyer’s Ethical Standards

When instructed by a client that benefits from third-party funding, lawyers must be mindful to respect the Bar Association’s ethical standards, including:

  • the obligation to act solely in the client’s best interests;
  • the obligation to act independently (and thus uninfluenced by a third party, such as a funder); and
  • the obligation to uphold professional secrecy.

Given the lack of a statutory framework, there are no formal restrictions regarding the type of lawsuits that can benefit from third-party funding. Nevertheless, third-party funding is not commonly used in Belgium. This is due to several reasons:

  • The costs of litigation are relatively low in Belgium.
  • The adverse cost risk is fairly limited (see 11. Costs).
  • The Belgian class action regime is limited in scope and less frequently used than in certain other EU jurisdictions, such as the Netherlands. In addition, the statutory provisions regulating class actions are unclear as to whether a funder would be entitled to a share in the proceeds of the case.

In theory, third-party funding is available for both the plaintiff and defendant. However, in practice, third-party funders rarely provide funding to defendants.

The minimum and maximum amount a third-party funder will fund depends on a number of factors, including:

  • the legal merits of the case;
  • the quantum of the claim;
  • the prospects of enforcement and recovery; and
  • the funder’s portfolio diversification and preferences.

Third-party funders are generally open to fund any type of costs relating to legal proceedings, including:

  • lawyer fees;
  • court fees;
  • expert fees; and
  • adverse cost risk.

However, third-party funders will determine what costs can be funded on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the factors mentioned in 2.4 Minimum and Maximum Amounts of Third-Party Funding.

Pursuant to Article 446 ter of the Belgian Judicial Code, contingency fees (“no win, no fee", or “pactum de quota litis”) are not permitted. However, fee agreements that include a success fee payable in addition to fees that are not dependent on the outcome of the matter (fixed fees; hourly fees), are permitted.

Given that third-party funding is not regulated in Belgium, there are no time limits for obtaining or disclosing third-party funding. However, it is advisable to disclose the existence of third-party funding and the identity of the funder to avoid potential conflicts of interest. This is especially the case in arbitration, where disclosure of third-party funding is often governed by arbitration rules.

Pre-action conduct requirements can be imposed either by law or as agreed by the parties.

For example:

  • A claim based on breach of a contractual obligation must be preceded by a formal notice or demand letter. However, this is not mandatory law, and parties can therefore agree to derogate from this default rule.
  • In commercial contracts, parties will often include a dispute resolution clause that mandates mandatory mediation or settlement negotiations prior to initiating legal proceedings.

Contractual arrangements regarding pre-action conduct are enforceable.

The courts can inquire as to the parties’ attempts to settle the dispute prior to the proceedings.

The applicable statutes of limitation depend on the nature of the claim. Broadly speaking, the main limitation periods are:

  • ten years for contractual claims, starting from the day after the due date of the relevant contractual obligation;
  • five years for claims in tort, starting from the day after the date on which the claimant was aware of both the damage (or aggravation thereof) and the identity of the person liable for the damage; however, the claim will in any case be time barred 20 years (and one day) after the event causing the damage;
  • ten years for claims regarding the recovery of real property; this limitation period will be extended to 30 years if the possessor gained possession of the real property in bad faith; and
  • five years for payment of interest and other recurrent debts that fall due on an annual (or shorter) basis.

Please note that special – often shorter – limitation periods are provided in specific laws.

Filing a claim in court suspends the time limitation until a final decision is rendered.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The rules on subject matter jurisdiction are set out in the Belgian Judicial Code. Some district courts have exclusive jurisdiction on certain matters (eg, labour courts for employment matters; enterprise courts for insolvency and corporate disputes).

Territorial Jurisdiction

In the absence of a contractual forum clause designating the competent court, proceedings are generally brought before the court of the domicile of the defendant. The Judicial Code provides for alternative jurisdiction rules – eg, the court of the place of performance of a contract.

In certain matters, specific jurisdiction rules are mandatory, eg:

  • the court of the place of a company’s registered seat (corporate disputes); or
  • the court of the place where real property is located (lease or tenancy disputes).

International Jurisdiction

International jurisdiction in cross-border disputes is governed by the Brussels I Recast Regulation and the Belgian Code of Private International Law. As an EU member state, Belgium is also bound by the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Courts Agreements.

Legal proceedings are most commonly initiated by serving a writ of summons (dagvaarding/citation) on the defendant.

For certain types of claims, proceedings can also be initiated by filing a petition (verzoekschrift/requête) with the court.

The writ of summons or petition contain the following elements:

  • the identity of the parties;
  • statement of facts;
  • legal arguments; and
  • the claim(s).

The writ of summons does not need to be exhaustive, and the claimant is allowed to add facts and arguments in its written submissions following the writ of summons. The claimant is also allowed to amend its claim(s). However, the amended claims must be based on the facts stated in the initial writ of summons.

If proceedings are initiated through a writ of summons, the writ will be served on the defendant by a bailiff, upon instruction of the claimant.

If proceedings are initiated by a petition filed with the court, the court will notify the defendant.

Foreign defendants can be sued in Belgian courts without prior court approval. The minimum time between the service of the writ and the introductory hearing will differ depending on the location of the foreign plaintiff.

If a defendant fails to respond to a lawsuit and does not appear or is not represented at the introductory hearing, the claimant can ask the court to render a judgment in default. However, the defendant will be able to appeal the default judgment.

Class Actions

Class actions were introduced in Belgium in 2014, albeit with limited scope.

Class actions are available only for harm caused to consumers or SMEs. The claim must be based on breach of contractual obligations of the defendant, or violations of Belgian and EU rules defined in Article XVII.37 of the Code of Economic Law.

A class action is brought by a group representative, which must be an accredited or specifically designated association, non-profit organisation or public entity.

The court will determine whether the class action is brought on an opt-in or opt-out basis. Claims for compensation for certain types of harm (eg, bodily harm) can be brought exclusively on an opt-in basis.

Group Direct Actions

Outside the framework of a class action, groups of plaintiffs can bundle individual claims and file proceedings jointly. This requires a sufficient nexus between the plaintiffs’ individual claims.

It is not mandatory for lawyers to provide clients with a cost estimate of potential litigation at the outset of legal proceedings.        

Under Belgian law, there is no distinction between pre-trial and trial proceedings. During the proceedings, and at any time before a final judgment is rendered on the merits, interim measures and relief can be requested.

Such interim measures and relief can serve two main purposes:

  • investigations in the case; for instance, the appointing of a judicial expert to issue an expert opinion; or
  • addressing or organising specific aspects of the case on an interim basis while awaiting a final judgment on the merits or until the circumstances change.

No proceedings to adjudicate the case without a trial or hearing exist. On the other hand, cases requiring only short debates can be dealt with at the first hearing. This needs to be requested in the document (for instance writ of summons) that initiates the proceedings. A judge can either grant or refuse such request.

Dispositive motions cannot be made before the trial or hearing. On the other hand and as mentioned in 4.2 Early Judgment Applications, an early judgment application can be requested in the document initiating the proceedings.

Parties either join a lawsuit voluntarily (by application) or involuntarily (by being summoned or through a submission filed against them when they are already part of proceedings). The option to join a case is available at any point during first-instance proceedings, up until such proceedings are officially closed.

A Belgian defendant may request a “cautio judicatum solvi”, which obliges a foreign claimant to deposit a security amount determined by the judge. However, this is applicable only to claimants from outside the EU or from countries with which Belgium has not entered into an international treaty concerning this matter.

Costs regarding interim applications are not specifically regulated. If the court appoints an expert, the party appointed by the judge to pay the expert’s fees will be required to advance them. The court will only make a final determination of costs at the end of the case, once the merits of the claim have been decided.

The timeframe for interim measures typically varies from a couple of days to several months, depending on the discretion of the competent court. In genuine emergencies, proceedings can be submitted to the president of the relevant court.

Belgian civil law does not have a formal discovery process. However, there are proceedings for taking evidence, such as the production of documents, the hearing of witnesses, and the examination of the parties. The production of a document is broadly defined and can include written documents, electronic data, and photos. Documents must be specifically identified to avoid fishing expeditions, which are prohibited. There are no mechanisms to limit the scope or cost of these proceedings, but documents protected by trade secrecy or legal privilege may be excluded.

A judge may order a third party to produce documents if the third party holds the requested documents. The judge will invite the third party to submit the documents to the court file, along with any remarks the third party may have. The parties may then respond to the third party’s remarks. After that, the judge will decide whether or not the documents must be produced. This decision is final and cannot be appealed or opposed.

See 5.1 Discovery and Civil Cases.

See 5.1 Discovery and Civil Cases. In Belgium, evidence is typically provided through the exhibits attached to the submissions filed with the court.

Clients benefit from attorney-client privilege whereby lawyers cannot disclose information provided by their clients. In-house counsels have a confidentiality obligation regarding advice provided to employees in their legal advisory role.

In matters related, for instance, to trade secrecy, a party may refuse to produce certain documents or may be allowed to produce certain documents after they have been anonymised.

Injunctive relief applies in interim measures or emergency proceedings. Anti-suit injunctions are not permitted. In case of parallel proceedings, a court may invoke lis pendens.

See 4.7 Application/Motion Timeframe.

In cases of absolute necessity, injunctive relief may be granted ex parte, subject to the following conditions:

  • exceptional or absolute urgency;
  • the measure requires surprise; and
  • the absence of an adversary, or the inability to identify the person or entity against whom the measure is sought.

Any party opposing such an injunction may request an adversarial (“contradictoire”) hearing by the court.

In ordinary proceedings, the respondent may claim damages from the applicant if the applicant fails to act as a reasonable, prudent, and diligent person. This duty of good faith is even more stringent when the application is made ex parte.

Furthermore, if the applicant enforces an injunction while an appeal is pending and the appellate court reverses the injunction, the applicant is liable for the damages suffered by the respondent. The respondent may also claim higher procedural fees if the applicant acted abusively. Finally, a judge may impose a fine on the applicant for abuse of process.

Where a Belgian judge has international competence to rule on the merits of the case, its competence also extends to issuing injunctive relief against the assets of the respondent globally. However, such injunction may face enforcement issues. For EU Member States, the enforcement is governed by the Recast Brussels Regulation. For non-EU Member States, it will be enforced in accordance with the applicable laws of the foreign State.

See 5.2 Discovery and Third Parties with respect to the production of documents by third parties.

If the respondent fails to comply with an injunction, they will be subject to the same consequences as if they had failed to comply with an ordinary judgment. An injunctive relief order may impose penalties in case of non-compliance if requested by the claimant. Damages may also be claimed if such damages are caused by a violation of the injunction’s terms.

The first hearing will typically determine the course of the proceedings: (i) default, (ii) early judgment, or (iii) full proceedings. In case of full proceedings, parties typically agree on a procedural calendar for the exchange of briefs. If an agreement cannot be reached, the court will set a calendar. Once the final briefs have been exchanged, a hearing is usually convened for oral arguments. Alternatively, parties can mutually decide to forgo the hearing in favour of a written procedure.

Following the hearing or the conclusion of the written procedure, the judge will take the matter into deliberation. A judgment is generally expected within a month after the final hearing. However, this timeline may be extended depending on the specific circumstances of the case.

In Belgium, case management is not governed by a uniform set of rules; instead, it varies from one court to another. See also 7.1 Trial Proceedings.

Under Belgian law, there are no jury trials in civil cases.

Under Belgian law, there are no specific rules concerning the admission of evidence or procedures for evidence collection before the trial commences. Generally, the onus is on the claimant to substantiate their claim through relevant evidence.

Expert testimony is permitted at trial, typically by means of exhibits filed by the parties. A judge may also appoint a court expert for factual matters. Courts are not obligated to adhere to expert opinions or testimonies, as doing so would effectively delegate their judicial authority to make final rulings on cases. This maintains the court’s autonomy in evaluating evidence and reaching its own conclusions.

As a general rule, hearings and their transcripts are open to the public. Exceptions are made in cases where public order might be compromised, or in specific circumstances, such as hearings involving court-appointed experts.

The level of intervention by judges varies. Typically, judges listen to the arguments presented and intervene as required. Some judges engage in what is known as “interactive debates”, taking a more active role during the hearing. In civil cases, judgments are not usually rendered during the hearing but at a later date.

In general, a judgment in civil matters is typically reached within a year following the initial hearing. However, appeal proceedings are more time-consuming, usually taking between two to five years. This timeframe can vary based on the case’s complexity and the number of magistrates in the relevant court of appeal. For cases involving interim or emergency measures, the duration is significantly shorter, in line with the urgent nature of such proceedings.

Court approval is not necessary to settle a lawsuit. If the parties sign a settlement agreement, this settlement is binding. The parties will then inform the court that the dispute has been settled. Alternatively, the parties may also ask the court directly to sanction their agreement in an “agreement judgment”, which provides the parties with an enforceable title.

The settlement of a lawsuit can remain confidential since it is possible for parties to settle their dispute without the involvement of the courts or any third parties. Once a settlement is concluded, the parties can formally withdraw the lawsuit without disclosing the content of the settlement to the court.

Moreover, to ensure confidentiality, the parties can provide for non-disclosure obligations in the settlement agreement.

When one of the parties continues legal proceedings, despite the dispute already being settled in a settlement agreement, the other party may invoke the settlement agreement to have the claim dismissed.

If a party acts in breach of a settlement agreement, the other party can file suit for breach of contract and claim either specific performance, damages, or termination of the settlement agreement.

A settlement agreement may be set aside if deemed invalid by the court (eg, if one party is found to have deceived the other), or if the agreement is terminated for material breach.

However, it is not uncommon for settlement agreements to include provisions excluding the right to terminate for material breach and limiting the possibility of having the agreement declared null and void.

Traditionally, the preferred remedy in Belgian law is specific performance. However, if the performance of the contract is no longer possible or desirable, the most common remedy is compensation (ie, damages).

Other remedies that courts can award include:

  • cease and desist orders; and
  • civil penalties (dwangsom/astreinte) that accrue in case of non-compliance with a court order; civil penalties cannot be granted in case of an order to pay a sum of money.

Damages are available to compensate for any damage caused by fault or negligence, provided that there is a causal link between the damage and the fault or negligence.

The core principle of civil liability law in Belgium is full restitution for the injured party, placing them in a position as if the damage had not occurred. The injured party is therefore entitled to full compensation.

If it is difficult to determine the amount of damages, the judge may make a decision based on their own best judgment (“ex aequo et bono”).

Punitive damages are not available in Belgium.

When one of the parties delays the payment of their debt, which is a clearly determined sum of money, the other party is entitled to moratory interest. Moratory interest is interest accrued in accordance with the legal interest rate, which is determined by statute, though parties may also determine a different interest rate in their contract. Generally, such interest accrues as of the date of the notice of default by the creditor.

Belgian law also recognises compensatory interests. Compensatory interest is only applied if the amount of money owed by the debtor is not clearly determined. The rate, in this scenario, compensates for actual damage suffered, meaning the judge has the discretion to decide what the appropriate rate should be.

Normally, interest is calculated as simple interest. Compound interest is permissible exclusively for moratory interest and only under specific conditions, namely after a full year of interest accrual.

Domestic judgments, if not complied with voluntarily, are usually enforced by the seizure of the debtor’s goods by a judicial officer, which are then sold; the proceeds of this sale are used to pay the known creditors.

Foreign judgments may be enforced in Belgium after the issuance of an exequatur. However, judgments from other EU member states are directly enforceable without exequatur, in accordance with the EU’s Brussels I Recast regulation.

See 1.2 Court System.

Practically all judgments in Belgium can be appealed, except in cases where the law specifically prohibits an appeal, such as with small claims. The party or parties dissatisfied with the first instance judgment can lodge an appeal. Appeals made to the Belgian Supreme Court are limited to legal analysis and do not involve a review of the factual elements of the case. The Supreme Court’s role is not that of a third instance. If it opts to annul a judgment, the case is transferred to another court of appeal for re-examination.

In general, the appeal must be lodged within one month from the date of service of the first instance judgment or, if applicable, from the date of notification. It must be lodged with the competent court of appeal. For supreme court proceedings, a three-month term applies, and the appeal is filed via a lawyer admitted to the Supreme Court Bar.

The court of appeal will only rule within the limits of the appeal formulated by the parties. See also 10.2 Rules Concerning Appeals of Judgments.

The court of appeal cannot impose conditions on granting an appeal.

The court of appeal will either confirm the first instance judgement or overturn it in whole or in part. The Supreme Court will either confirm or annul the judgment in whole or in part.

The losing party pays the costs of the proceedings, including the attorney’s fees based on a lump sum that is governed by Royal Decree. If a counterclaim is successful, the costs may also be shared.

In most cases, the amount at stake determines the applicable lump sum for the attorney’s fees and may be increased or decreased based on certain parameters such as the complexity of the dispute, the financial capacity of the losing party, the contractual indemnities agreed upon for the successful party or the unreasonableness of the situation.

Interest can be awarded on costs although this is rarely the case in practice. However, if applied, it is calculated on arrears. 

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has gained considerable traction over the past five years, following a change in the Judicial Code which led Belgian courts to increasingly promote mediation. See 12.2 ADR within the Legal System in this regard.

Arbitration (see 13. Arbitration) and mediation are the most commonly used ADR methods in Belgium.

Judicial Mediation

Belgian courts increasingly promote judicial mediation as a method of alternative dispute resolution in civil and commercial litigation. Courts often actively inquire whether the parties would agree to the appointment of a mediator. Courts even have the power to appoint a mediator ex officio at the introductory stage of the legal proceedings, unless all parties indicate that they do not wish to engage in a mediation process. Notably, there are no penalties for refusing mediation.

Even when a judicial mediator is appointed by the court, the mediation process is strictly confidential. The mediator is not entitled to inform the court of discussions held between the parties in the framework of the mediation. In addition, parties remain free to end the mediation process at any time. Neither the mediator nor the parties are entitled to disclose to the court who pulled the plug or why the mediation was unsuccessful.

If the mediation is successful and results in a settlement, any party can request the court to homologate the settlement agreement. By doing so, the parties will have an enforceable title and will thus be able to enforce the settlement agreement against the opposing party.

Conciliation

Specific chambers in some courts are exclusively dedicated to conciliation (verzoening/conciliation). Unlike mediation, reconciliation is managed by a judge and is therefore not confidential. However, this method is less common and typically reserved for disputes with limited financial stakes.

The main ADR institution in Belgium is CEPANI.

The laws on arbitration in Belgium are laid down in the Judicial Code and are largely inspired by UNCITRAL. These laws deal with the conduct of arbitration and regulate the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Arbitration in Belgium can either be ad hoc or organised subject to the rules of an arbitration institution (for instance CEPANI or the ICC).

Certain matters cannot be referred to arbitration, such as divorce, citizenship, employment agreement disputes, residential lease agreement disputes, non-contractual disputes with public entities, and certain IP disputes.

Challenging an arbitral award is only possible subject to strict conditions.

The challenging party must prove that:

  • a party to the arbitration agreement was incapacitated;
  • the arbitration agreement was invalid under the applicable law of the agreement;
  • it was unable to defend its rights or was not informed of the arbitrator(s) or the arbitration proceedings;
  • the arbitral award rules on a dispute that falls outside the scope of the arbitration agreement or exceeds the terms of such agreement;
  • the award lacks sufficient reasoning;
  • the composition of the arbitration tribunal or the proceedings are not in accordance with the arbitration agreement; or
  • the arbitration tribunal exceeded its competence.

The court may also set aside an arbitral award if:

  • the matter could not be referred to arbitration;
  • the award violates public policy; or
  • the award was obtained by fraud.

Arbitral awards can be enforced in Belgium after recognition by the court of first instance. Belgium is a party to various treaties covering the enforcement and recognition of arbitral awards. The recognition proceedings are conducted ex parte. The judgment recognising and enforcing the arbitral award must be served on the party against whom enforcement is sought. This party has one month after service to file third-party opposition against said judgment. The judgment refusing recognition or deciding the third-party opposition can be appealed before the Supreme Court but only in relation to matters of law.

There have been no official announcements regarding reforms to the dispute resolution system in Belgium.

Janson

Chaussée de la hulpe 187
1170 Brussels
Belgium

+32 2 675 30 30

+ 32 2 675 30 31

info@janson.be www.janson.be
Author Business Card

Trends and Developments


Authors



Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer is a global law firm with a long history of successfully assisting the world’s leading industrial and financial companies, institutions and governments with their complex projects, transactions and challenges. Whether from the firm’s 28 offices in the world's major business and financial centres or with leading local law firms, more than 2,800 lawyers provide comprehensive business law advice and combine their expertise to deliver decisive legal and industry solutions for their clients.

Climate Change Litigation

Governments and companies around the world (including Belgium) are facing a significant increase in climate litigation cases brought by diverse civil society stakeholders.

The lawsuit filed against Belgium (the “Klimaatzaak”)

On 17 June 2021, the French-speaking Court of Brussels, upon a claim initiated by VZW Klimaatzaak, ruled that the Belgian state and the three Regions had not taken the necessary measures to prevent the adverse effects of climate change, and thereby violated Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the ECHR, respectively the right to life and the right to private and family life) and the general duty of care and diligence (Articles 1382-1383 of the old Civil Code). The Court did not force the Belgian authorities to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by a certain percentage, as it considered that it was not within its power to do so.

On 30 November 2023, following the appeal lodged by VZW Klimaatzaak, the Brussels Court of Appeal confirmed that the Belgian State, the Brussels and Flemish Regions violated Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR and their general duty of care for not having sufficiently reduced Belgium's GHG emissions by 2020. The Court ruled that such violations are continuing in view of the insufficient objectives pursued or insufficient measures taken by 2030. The Court ordered the Belgian State and the two Regions to reduce their GHG emissions by 55% in 2030 compared with 1990. No breach or fault could be imputed to the Walloon Region, given the results achieved in 2020 and the measures taken for 2030. The Court suspended its decision on the question of penalty payments pending communication of (i) the official GHG emissions figures for the Belgian State and the Brussels and Flemish Regions for 2022-2024, and (ii) the latest integrated national energy and climate plan.

Apart from the Klimaatzaak, five climate cases initiated in Belgium show that climate litigation is on the rise:

  • ClientEarth v BNB: In appeal, ClientEarth withdrew its case in November 2022 after the European Central Bank accepted to consider the climate in quantitative easing reforms, which remedied the violations ClientEarth had alleged on the part of the BNB.
  • ClientEarth and others v Flemish Region: Although ClientEarth’s appeal against the approval of petrochemicals giant INEOS’ plastics plant project in the port of Antwerp was rejected, in July 2023, the Council of Permit Disputes ruled in a parallel case brought by Dutch authorities that INEOS failed to tell Flemish authorities the full extent of its project’s predicted impact on the environment and the project has been suspended.
  • Lauwrys A.O. v The Province of Antwerp: GABRIËLS & CO l.c.’s environmental permit to build and exploit a new gas station in Antwerp was suspended and then annulled by the Council of Permit Disputes.
  • Carbon Market Watch v FIFA: In late 2022, Carbon Market Watch launched a complaint against FIFA before the Belgian advertisement ethics panel, alleging that FIFA’s advertising of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar as “carbon neutral” was misleading and false. Similar claims have simultaneously been launched in France, the Netherlands, the UK, and Switzerland. They will be examined jointly by the Swiss authorities.
  • Belgische Federatie der Brandstoffenhandelaars vzw and Others and Lamine v Flemish Government: In November 2022, the Constitutional Court rejected all grounds for annulment against a Flemish Decree prohibiting the installation of fuel oil boilers in new buildings.

Four cases in total have been directed against the Belgian government to enforce or enhance its climate commitments. Other jurisdictions (such as the Netherlands) nonetheless demonstrate that climate litigation is on the rise against corporations too. It can be expected that the trend of climate cases against corporations will also expand in Belgium, increasing the need to raise awareness of this risk among Belgian companies.

Greenwashing

At present, there is still no specific Belgian legislation to regulate and sanction greenwashing, being the practice of companies to deceptively present their environmental efforts for marketing purposes. However, it is possible to tackle greenwashing through the prohibition of unfair commercial practices (Book VI of the Belgian Code of Economic Law). The risk exists of an increased number of legal actions initiated by consumers against companies on this basis.

Recent developments at the EU level in the context of the European Green Deal (that will require the Belgian legislature to act) are likely to further heighten the risk of legal actions in this area.

First, in their annual report under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (the CSRD), large companies will be required to include material environmental disclosures that are made in accordance with specific disclosure standards and are not misleading. Stakeholders may closely review the disclosures under this framework to support any envisaged legal action. 

Second, on 22 March 2023, the EU Commission published a new proposal for a directive on “substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims” (the Green Claims Directive, (GCD) proposal) with the aim of establishing a level playing field regarding information about the environmental performance of products. Under this GCD proposal, companies making explicit green claims about their products and/or services will have to respect minimum norms in terms of substantiation and communication, with explicit restriction on labelling, and with penalties in case of violation (to be decided by the Member States).

The GCD proposal applies to EU and non-EU companies targeting European consumers, but does not apply to companies with less than ten employees and less than EUR2 million annual turnover.

As the GCD only provides for a minimum regime, Member States may adopt higher standards, which can create a diverse European landscape on greenwashing practices. To mitigate risks of increasing legal actions initiated by consumers, companies will have to pay close attention to ensure the reliability of their explicit green claims with clear and transparent communication, and large companies should ensure that this corresponds to their environmental disclosures under the CSRD.

Reform of non-contractual liability regime

From 30 September 2017, a special Commission appointed by the Belgian Government examined a reform of the civil regime of non-contractual liability, which resulted in a legislative proposal on 8 March 2023 (the Draft Bill). The Draft Bill contains a few innovations relevant to the resolution of liability issues under Belgian law.

First, the Draft Bill abolishes the prohibition of concurrence between contractual and non-contractual liability. Under current Belgian law, a contract party cannot bring a non-contractual claim against its co-contractor unless (i) the fault is different from the breach of a contractual obligation or (ii) the damage resulting from the (non-contractual) fault is different from the damage resulting from the faulty performance of a contractual obligation.

With the abolition, it becomes possible to claim compensation vis-à-vis a contracting party on a non-contractual basis unless the law or the contract provides otherwise. However, the co-contractor can still invoke contractual defences, except if the damage results from an impairment of physical integrity or an error committed with intent to cause damage.

This abolition also implies the lapse of the quasi-immunity of the auxiliary person. An auxiliary person (uitvoeringsagent/agent d’exécution) is a person entrusted by a contractor-principal with the performance of all or part of her/his contractual obligations. A contract party cannot bring a contractual claim against her/his co-contractor’s auxiliary person since there exists no contractual relationship between these two parties. Under the current regime, a contract party cannot bring an extra-contractual claim against the auxiliary person either because the concurrence prohibition applies here too. If the concurrence prohibition is abolished the auxiliary person will be exposed to non-contractual claims of the contract party of her/his contractor-principal but the auxiliary person will be able to rely on the contractual defences of the contractor-principal. This is likely going to impact the construction sector where contractors frequently work with subcontractors and will be relevant in the context of director’s liability as directors qualify as auxiliary persons in relation to the company.

Second, the Draft Bill affects directors’ liability. Belgian company law limits directors’ liability for errors in the performance of their duties to a liability cap (between EUR125,000 and EUR12 million) depending on the size of the legal entity, based on turnover and balance sheet total. The liability cap does not apply to (i) minor faults that occur commonly rather than accidentally, (ii) gross negligence, and (iii) fraudulent intent or intent to harm, which means that the liability cap only applies to accidentally occurring minor faults, which seriously erodes its scope of application. Under the Draft Bill, directors will be able to benefit from the liability cap even in case of commonly occurring faults.

Third, the Draft Bill provides an exception to the rules on causation. In principle, a causal link exists between a fault and the damage if the fault is a necessary condition for the damage to occur. Under the Draft Bill, a causal link is absent if the link between the fault and the damage is so remote that it would be manifestly unreasonable to attribute the damage to the alleged liable party. It remains to be seen how this manifestly unreasonable character will be interpreted by the courts. The Draft Bill indicates that this assessment should consider the unforeseeable nature of the damage in light of the normal consequences of the fault and the circumstance that the fault did not contribute materially to the occurrence of the damage.

Fourth, regarding compensation, the Draft Bill provides that (i) the prejudiced party may impose reparation in kind for the damage suffered unless this is impossible or manifestly unreasonable, and (ii) the alleged liable party can offer to repair the damage in kind, which can only be refused by the prejudiced party if he/she has valid reasons. By way of example, an alleged liable party could compensate a prejudiced party by offering a technical remedy to the damage suffered instead of financial compensation.

Fifth, the Draft Bill introduces an important competence for the courts to estimate damage when determining its exact amount is too difficult or costly, yet it lacks clarity on the exact scope of this new competence. The preparatory documents cite instances like economic and financial damage due to market share loss as examples. If adopted, we expect a lot of discussions on this topic.

Sixth and finally, the Draft Bill allows courts to impose an injunction or order preventing physical or property damage when an act threatens to cause it via an established or seriously threatened violation of a legal provision prescribing a particular conduct. It remains to be seen how this will add to the existing power of judges sitting in summary proceedings to order provisional measures.

Res judicata and mass claims

Further to a recent draft bill filed in Parliament on 13 September 2023, the res judicata effect of judicial decisions may undergo a major change in Belgium.

Under Belgian law, res judicata means that what has been decided between the parties stands as true in law and can be invoked between them without possibility of rebuttal (except via the available judicial remedies).

Third parties do not benefit from the res judicata effect although it is generally recognised that a third party can invoke a judicial decision as a means of evidence against one of the parties to that decision in other proceedings brought by the third party against one of the parties, as a rebuttable presumption, meaning that the parties to the decision are still able to provide proof to the contrary.

The draft bill proposes that the res judicata effect of a judicial decision can also be invoked by the third party against a party to the judicial decision, meaning that the latter will no longer be able to provide proof to the contrary. The proponents of this bill claim this to be a codification effort with reference to Supreme Court case law. However, until now, the Supreme Court only extended the benefit of res judicata to third parties when there was a legal text that supports such extension (a case of joint debtors or the relation between a victim, a liable party, and the insurer of the liable party).

Surprisingly, the draft bill also refers to Article 15 “Effects of final decisions” of Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC (RAD), which states: “Member States shall ensure that the final decision of a court or administrative authority of any Member State concerning the existence of an infringement harming collective interests of consumers can be used by all parties as evidence in the context of any other action before their national courts or administrative authorities to seek redress measures against the same trader for the same practice, in accordance with national law on evaluation of evidence”. However, this article only requires that Member States ensure parties can use a decision in collective redress proceedings as a means of evidence (in accordance with national law) yet does not impose a change in the principle of res judicata effect.

The draft bill, if adopted, could have significant consequences, particularly in the context of mass claims. First, it creates an imbalance between third parties and parties to a judicial decision, as the third parties can invoke the res judicata effect against the parties but not vice versa. Second, it will generate more elaborate discussions on whether the factual and legal context is indeed similar.

This draft bill has just been introduced at the time of writing and is therefore still subject to parliamentary debate. 

Criminal Law Trends at EU Level

Over the last decades, the EU legislature has increasingly become more active in the field of criminal law and criminal procedure, for instance, by harmonising criminal law penalties (inter alia, on human trafficking, environmental law and money laundering), facilitating judicial co-operation between Member States (eg, with the European arrest warrant and European investigation order), strengthening protection of procedural rights for suspects, accused and victims in criminal proceedings, and founding the European public prosecutor’s office in 2017. We discuss below some recent developments on this front.

The EU “E-evidence package”

With the recently adopted “e-evidence package”, consisting of Regulation 2023/1543 and Directive 2023/1544, both dated 12 July 2023, the EU aims to make cross-border access to electronic evidence in criminal investigations easier and faster for authorities in the different Member States.

Via a European production order, these authorities will be able to obtain electronic evidence (eg, emails, text or messages in apps) directly from a service provider in another Member State. Service providers will be obliged to respond within ten days (or within eight hours in cases of emergency), which is significantly faster than the 120 days required for the existing European investigation order or the average of ten months for a mutual legal assistance procedure. In addition, via a European preservation order, authorities will be able to order a service provider in another Member State to preserve data in view of a subsequent data production request.

The Directive requires implementation by 18 February 2026 and the Regulation applies as of 18 August 2026.

Proposal for an EU Directive against corruption

On 3 May 2023, the EU Commission presented a proposal for a new EU Directive on combatting corruption (the Proposal), which introduces a mandatory list of corruption offences (including public and private bribery, misappropriation, trading in influence, abuse of functions, etc) with harmonised definitions, increased penalty levels (including a penalty of at least 5% of a legal person’s worldwide turnover) and new aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

If the Proposal is adopted, (i) most of the prison sentences and fines provided under Belgian criminal law will need to be increased, and new sanctions (eg, disqualification from commercial activities) and aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be introduced and (ii) criminal courts will be required to consider corruption prevention measures (compliance programmes, etc) and self-reporting by legal entities as a mitigating circumstance when determining their sentence (which encourages a preventive approach).

The EU “AML Package

On 20 July 2021, the EU Commission presented an ambitious package of legislative proposals to strengthen the EU’s rules on anti-money laundering (AML) and combatting the financing of terrorism (CFT).

The AML package aims to create an AML/CFT “Single Rulebook”, which will replace the minimum rules of the EU AML Directives currently in force and will impose a directly applicable and consistent framework across the EU with respect to, inter alia, client due diligence and beneficial ownership, cash payments and crypto-assets. On an institutional level, the AML package will create an EU AML Authority which will, inter alia, supervise and co-ordinate national authorities to ensure a correct and consistent application of the EU AML/CFT rules.

The full AML package is envisioned to enter into force three years after its adoption. Currently, only one of the four legislative proposals from the package has been approved – ie, the revision of the 2015 Regulation on Transfer of Funds to bring crypto-asset service providers within the regulatory framework, which will enter into force in January 2025. The others are still subject to discussion.

Broad Package of Legislative Changes to Belgian Criminal Law in the Pipeline

Proposal for a new Belgian Criminal Code

In 2015, the Belgian government launched a plan for a comprehensive reform of Belgian criminal law and procedure, with the aim to modernise and simplify the current Belgian Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure (together the Codes), which date back to the 19th century and have only been subject to fragmented amendments until now. 

After several failed attempts, in 2023 the Belgian government approved two separate drafts of Books 1 and 2 of the new Criminal Code, which are currently being discussed in Parliament. We focus on two interesting features of the draft Belgian Criminal Code below.

Profit-based financial penalty

Book I of the draft Belgian Criminal Code introduces some new sentences such as an eye-catching profit-based financial penalty.

This new sentence will, if adopted, apply to offences motivated by financial gain and mandate the payment of a sum not exceeding three times the pecuniary advantage directly or indirectly derived or anticipated from the offence. The court will determine the exact amount based on the perceived gain and the offender’s financial and social circumstances.

The new profit-based sentence can be imposed on top of other pecuniary sentences (such as confiscation and fines), significantly enhancing the courts’ ability to deter and punish white-collar offences.

Ecocide

One of the other novelties to watch is the new offence of “ecocide” in the new Book II of the draft Belgian Criminal Code punishable by a level-six sentence which is among the highest sentencing levels, with a prison sentence of up to 20 years for individuals and a fine up to EUR1.6 million for legal entities (with possible additional sentences).

“Ecocide” refers to deliberately acting (or omitting to act) in an unlawful manner and causing widespread, long-term and serious damage to the safety of the planet.

The targeted “unlawful conduct” comprises violations of both international and national laws. To prevent interference with environmental law enforcement at the level of the Belgian Regions, this “unlawful conduct” is limited to violations of Belgian federal law and international regulations that are binding at federal level, and to “conduct which cannot be located on Belgian territory” (which we understand to refer to violations against (future) federal laws sanctioning extra-territorial conduct falling outside the Regions’ jurisdiction).

The notion of “serious damage” is defined as causing highly detrimental negative changes, disturbances or impairments to environmental elements. This encompasses harm to human life or health, biodiversity or natural, cultural, or economic resources of society. Damage is “widespread” when it extends beyond a limited geographical area, crosses regional or national borders, or is suffered by an entire ecosystem or species or a significant number of people. It is “long-term” when it is irreversible or cannot be repaired through natural regeneration within a reasonable period.

If adopted, this could be a legal ground for claims in the context of the climate change litigation discussed above.

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
Bastion Tower
Place du Champ de Mars/ Marsveldplein 5
B-1050 Brussels
Belgium

+32 2 504 70 86

+32 2 404 70 86

nathalie.colin@freshfields.com www.freshfields.com
Author Business Card

Law and Practice

Authors



Janson was founded in 1950, initially as a litigation firm. To this day, dispute resolution remains Janson’s core expertise. Its dispute resolution practice is one of the most sought-after in the Belgian market by both domestic and foreign clients. Janson boasts a team of approximately 100 lawyers, specialising in various areas of law across a broad range of industries. Many of its lawyers are multilingual and act as arbitrators and deputy judges in various international forums such as CEPANI, ICC, ICSID, SHIAC, IAI, CIETAC, and ad hoc. Janson’s dispute resolution practice focuses mainly on corporate and commercial litigation, banking and finance litigation and white-collar crime. A large number of the cases that Janson handles have a cross-border and/or multi-party dimension. Notably, the firm represents Belfius Bank in a large collective action initiated by approximately 25,000 plaintiffs, known as the “Arco case”.

Trends and Developments

Authors



Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer is a global law firm with a long history of successfully assisting the world’s leading industrial and financial companies, institutions and governments with their complex projects, transactions and challenges. Whether from the firm’s 28 offices in the world's major business and financial centres or with leading local law firms, more than 2,800 lawyers provide comprehensive business law advice and combine their expertise to deliver decisive legal and industry solutions for their clients.

Compare law and practice by selecting locations and topic(s)

{{searchBoxHeader}}

Select Topic(s)

loading ...
{{topic.title}}

Please select at least one chapter and one topic to use the compare functionality.