Belgium: A Litigation Overview
Belgium as a Geopolitically Exposed Jurisdiction
Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the EU and partner countries froze approximately USD300 billion in Russian reserves. A substantial share of those assets remains immobilised within the EU, including in Belgium, where the issue has generated direct litigation exposure. In May 2026, the Belgian state confirmed that individual investors had brought investment treaty claims against Belgium in relation to frozen assets.
The EU’s 18th sanctions package seeks to address this exposure by prohibiting member states from recognising or enforcing arbitral awards or judgments awarding damages in connection with the freezing of Russian assets. It also requires member states to oppose recognition or enforcement attempts by relying on all available defences. Belgium may therefore continue to see disputes arising from the legal consequences of asset-freezing measures.
Reform of Corporate Criminal Liability: The New Criminal Code
The new Belgian Criminal Code (NBCC) entered into force on 1 September 2026 and brings significant changes for companies operating in Belgium. The reform introduces a unified eight-level scale of sanctions applicable directly to legal persons, as well as a profit-based fine of up to three times the advantage derived from an offence, which may be imposed cumulatively with confiscation.
The NBCC also updates several business-related offences. Fraud and abuse of trust are broadened, with abuse of trust now extending to intangible assets such as software and databases. The new offence of ecocide is introduced and may apply to legal persons. Together with the forthcoming EU Anti-Corruption Directive, these changes are likely to prompt companies to review their compliance and governance frameworks.
New Constraints on Internal Investigations: The Private Investigations Act
Although the Belgian Private Investigations Act (PIA) entered into force in December 2024, one of its most important practical consequences will take effect in 2026: the expiry of the key transitional deadline of 16 December 2026, by which companies must have adopted a formal internal investigations policy if they wish to continue conducting internal investigations involving employees. In the absence of such a policy, companies may no longer be permitted to carry out those investigations, making 2026 a critical year for compliance.
Recent case law has clarified the practical consequences of non-compliance with the PIA. In a judgment of 26 December 2025, the Antwerp Labour Court of Appeal declared an entire internal investigation report null and void following a breach of the PIA. This decision shows that the statutory requirements are not merely formal: (minor) deficiencies in the way an investigation is conducted may affect the admissibility or usefulness of the resulting report.
Climate Litigation
Climate litigation is a hot topic in Belgium and is rapidly moving from public-law challenges against the state to private-law claims against corporates. In a recent public case against an energy company with substantial fossil fuel activities, the first Belgian climate action seeking to hold a multinational financially liable for climate harm, the court held that a parent company may be called to account for the climate strategy of its group. The court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of a related French decision. The multinational has appealed the first instance decision, and the case is now pending before the Mons Court of Appeal. On 25 June 2026, the Paris court rendered its judgment, holding that the climate vigilance plan of the corporate did not adequately address certain climate-related risks and ordering the company to revise it. This case follows the Klimaatzaak litigation, in which the Brussels Court of Appeal ordered a 55% reduction in emissions by 2030 compared with 1990 levels (an appeal in cassation is pending). Notably, this rise in climate litigation coincides with the EU’s moderation of sustainability-reporting obligations under the Omnibus packages and the withdrawal of the proposed Green Claims Directive, creating a widening gap between lighter reporting duties and heavier litigation exposure.
Third-Party Litigation Funding
Third-party funding is expected to gain further traction in Belgium following the relatively favourable judgment of the Brussels Court of Appeal of 10 October 2025. In that decision, the court dismissed a request to compel disclosure of the opposing party’s funding arrangements, holding that the existence of such arrangements had no connection with the substantive grounds of appeal and that the legality of third-party funding under Belgian law is supported by legal scholarship. The court also held that a potential funding agreement is not incompatible with the claimant having a legitimate personal interest in the proceedings, and that the question whether such funding might be unlawful under the law of the country of enforcement (in that case, Ireland) fell outside the Belgian court’s jurisdiction.
Generative AI in Judicial Proceedings
Belgian courts have recently drawn clear boundaries around the use of generative AI in litigation, with the emergence of judicial sanctions where AI-generated material is filed without proper verification. By decision of 18 September 2025, the Ghent Court of Appeal reprimanded counsel for relying on AI-generated citations to non-existent authorities. On 15 December 2025, the Ghent Enterprise Court went further, imposing a civil fine to sanction abusive conduct of proceedings, after a party produced entirely fabricated precedents.
Similar cases are emerging rapidly across the Belgian courts, including a sanction decision by the Antwerp Court of Appeal on 4 December 2025, and a decision of the Belgian Council for Immigration Litigation on 7 April 2026. These cases show that generative AI is no longer a future issue for the legal profession: it is already affecting pleadings, professional conduct and procedural sanctions. The key message from the courts is clear: AI may assist, but lawyers remain fully responsible for the accuracy of their submissions.
Mass Claims/Collective Redress
Belgium’s collective redress landscape has been changed by the New Collective Redress Act, which transposed the EU Representative Actions Directive and has applied to claims initiated since 10 June 2024. The reform broadens the scope of claims companies can face, extending coverage to financial-sector infringements (such as breaches of the Prospectus Regulation and MiFID) and digital-market rules (the Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act), while introducing a default opt-in mechanism, under which affected individuals have a four-month window to join a claim once a court has established liability. Claims are rising fastest in the digital economy. For companies across regulated sectors, and platforms in particular, the direction of travel is clear: mass claims are becoming a structural feature of the Belgian litigation landscape, and multi-country defence co-ordination is increasingly a necessity rather than a contingency.
Conclusion
Overall, the 2026 Belgian litigation landscape reflects a shift towards greater legal complexity in areas shaped by geopolitical, technological, environmental and regulatory change. For companies and public authorities alike, the main challenge will be to anticipate how new rules, emerging case law and evolving enforcement priorities translate into concrete litigation risk.