The default method for resolving commercial disputes in Belgium is litigation before the ordinary courts, primarily the Civil Courts and the Enterprise Courts, depending on the nature of the dispute. Judicial proceedings remain the most common avenue for resolving commercial conflicts and result in binding and enforceable judgments.

That said, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms have gained increasing importance in recent years, particularly in light of the increasingly significant judicial backlog before the ordinary courts. Belgian legislation requires lawyers to inform their clients of the possibility of mediation, conciliation, and any other form of alternative dispute resolution, and to facilitate and encourage such solutions whenever possible. Similarly, judges must promote the amicable resolution of disputes at every stage of the proceedings.

Mediation is a confidential and voluntary procedure, which may be terminated at any time by either party, without any prejudice. Besides, the appointed mediator, when accredited, is independent, neutral, and impartial. He does not intervene in the substance of the agreement but help reconcile the parties’ views.

Conciliation is another ADR mechanism whereby a judge assists the parties in reaching a mutually acceptable settlement. It may take place before legal proceedings are initiated or at any stage of such proceedings, either at the request of one or both parties or, in certain circumstances, at the judge’s initiative. If the parties reach an agreement, it may be recorded in an enforceable court record or judgment. If no settlement is reached, the parties remain free to commence or continue judicial proceedings without prejudice to their rights.

Arbitration also plays a significant role particularly in domestic and international commercial matters, especially in contracts involving complex or cross-border transactions which often contain an agreement to submit disputes to arbitration. Arbitral awards are binding and enforceable in accordance with Belgian law. The main arbitration centre in Belgium is CEPANI (the Belgian Centre for Arbitration and Mediation).

As a result, while court litigation remains the primary dispute resolution mechanism, ADR methods, particularly mediation, conciliation, and arbitration, are increasingly integrated into commercial dispute resolution and are frequently considered either before or alongside judicial proceedings.

Civil and commercial procedure is governed by the Belgian Judicial Code, a codified, civil-law framework. Proceedings are predominantly written and adversarial: parties exchange written submissions (conclusions / conclusies) stating their case on the facts and the law, after which a hearing takes place at which the case is argued (noting however that the court must in principle base its decision on arguments and facts included in the parties’ written submissions; the hearing is not an opportunity for new discovery). The burden of proof lies, in principle, on the party asserting a fact (actori incumbit probatio), and evidence is freely assessed by the judge.

At first instance, jurisdiction is split by subject matter and value under Articles 568 to 601 of the Judicial Code.

The Justice of the Peace has jurisdiction over claims up to EUR 5,000 and over specific matters regardless of value, such as lease and consumer credit disputes.

The Court of First Instance (with civil, family and youth divisions) has residual general jurisdiction over civil claims.

The Enterprise Court (tribunal de l’entreprise / ondernemingsrechtbank) has jurisdiction over disputes between undertakings within the meaning of Article I.1, 1°, Belgian Code of Economic law (hereinafter “BCEL”), and over has exclusive jurisdiction for insolvency matters and certain other specific matters (intellectual property, shareholders and corporate disputes, etc.).

The Labour Tribunal deals with employment-related disputes.

Decisions issued by those courts are usually susceptible to appeal, both on the facts and on the law. Appeal proceedings are designed as an entirely new trial and is not limited to the judicial review of the lower court’s decision.

Belgium has five judicial districts of appeal, each with a Court of Appeal and a corresponding Labour Court of Appeal, hearing appeals on both fact and law. Decisions rendered by the Justice of the Peace are subject to appeal before the Courts of First Instance.

Judgments delivered by the Courts of Appeal (or by the Court of First Instance, on appeal from the Justice of the Peace) may be challenged before the Belgian Supreme Court (Hof van Cassatie / Cour de cassation). The Supreme Court does not reconsider the facts of the case but reviews only whether the lower court correctly interpreted and applied the law. If it finds no legal error, it dismisses the appeal. Conversely, if it identifies a breach of the law, it quashes the judgment and generally remits the case to a different court of appeal for a new examination consistent with its legal findings.

Timing varies significantly with the complexity of the case and the court’s workload. Straightforward or largely uncontested commercial claims can be heard within six to twelve months from the introductory hearing (which is usually scheduled within a few days or weeks from the claimant initiating the proceedings). More complex commercial disputes, particularly those requiring exchanges of several rounds of submissions or a judicial expert report, typically take eighteen months to three years before a first-instance judgment. Urgent matters can be brought before the President of the court in summary proceedings (référé/kort geding), which typically produce a provisional decision within days to a few weeks.

The duration of appeal proceedings largely varies depending on the competent court and matter involved. It is not unusual for appeal proceedings to take three to six years.

Article 148 of the Belgian Constitution enshrines the principle that court hearings are public, except when publicity is dangerous for public order or morality, while Article 149 states that “Every judgement must state the grounds on which it is based. It shall be made public in accordance with the procedures laid down by law”.

Belgium does not have a general public court-docket system: pleadings and documents filed in a case are not, as a matter of course, accessible to third parties. Access is generally limited to the parties and their lawyers, and third parties must demonstrate a legitimate interest to obtain copies of a judgment or file.

The Belgian Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court and the Council of State already make all their decisions publicly available on their website. Belgian legislation also envisages the establishment of a central public database providing free access to judicial decisions of lower courts. Although the relevant legislative provisions have entered into force (Article 782 and 782bis of the Judicial Code), the platform has not yet become operational, largely due to the technical complexities and costs associated with its implementation. It has been estimated that approximately 1-2% of all court decisions are published – mainly by legal publishing companies.

The applicable limitation periods under Belgian law depend on the nature of the claim. As a general rule, contractual and other personal actions are subject to a 10-year limitation period, running from the day after the claim becomes payable. Claims in tort are subject to a five-year limitation period, running from the day after the injured party became aware of both the damage (or its aggravation) and the identity of the liable party, subject to an absolute long-stop period of 20 years from the harmful event.

Numerous shorter limitation periods apply in specific commercial matters. For example, claims relating to the international carriage of goods by road are generally subject to a one-year limitation period, insurance claims to a three-year period, and certain claims against directors and managers to a five-year period. The applicable limitation period must therefore always be assessed in light of the specific legal basis of the claim.

Limitation periods may be interrupted by, for example, the commencement of legal proceedings or a valid notice of default in the cases provided by law, and may be suspended in specific circumstances, including during mediation.

Belgian law does not impose a general pre-action protocol before commencing civil or commercial proceedings. In practice, however, a formal notice or demand letter (mise en demeure / ingebrekestelling) is usually sent to put the debtor in default and, where applicable, trigger default interest or enable certain contractual remedies. Specific statutory requirements apply in certain matters, notably in business-to-consumer (B2C) disputes.

Whilst Belgian law encourages the use of alternative dispute resolution, failure to engage in pre-action correspondence or ADR does not generally render a claim inadmissible, although the absence of a required formal notice may affect the availability of certain remedies or the recovery of default interest.

Proceedings are most commonly commenced by a writ of summons (citation / dagvaarding), served on the defendant by a bailiff (the costs of whom are limited and ultimately borne by the losing party). For a growing number of matters, proceedings may instead be initiated by a petition to the court filed directly with the court registry, which then summons the parties, avoiding bailiff costs.

The Act of 15 May 2024 on the digitalisation of justice is progressively making electronic communication the norm: several of its provisions, including on electronic service to a party’s official judicial electronic address (e-Box/e-Deposit), entered into force in stages during 2026, alongside the roll-out of JustCourt (enabling virtual and hybrid hearings) and JustAct (an online platform for a growing range of corporate formalities).

Jurisdiction is usually determined by the Belgian Judicial Code and, in cross-border disputes, by the applicable European instruments (primarily the Brussels I Recast Regulation) or the Belgian Code of Private International Law.

As regards subject-matter domestic jurisdiction, Belgian courts determine their jurisdiction based on the nature of the dispute and, in some cases, the status of the parties. The courts of first instance have residual jurisdiction, whereas specialised courts have exclusive jurisdiction in specific matters, such as employment disputes (labour courts), insolvency and certain corporate disputes (enterprise courts). Subject-matter jurisdiction is a matter of public policy and is assessed at the time the proceedings are commenced.

As regards territorial domestic jurisdiction, the claimant will generally bring proceedings before the court of the defendant’s domicile, although the Judicial Code provides for several alternative grounds of jurisdiction, such as the place of performance of a contractual obligation or the place of enforcement of the requested remedy. Parties may also agree on a choice of court, except where mandatory jurisdiction rules apply. Any objection to territorial jurisdiction must generally be raised by the defendant before any defence on the merits, failing which the objection is deemed waived.

In international disputes, jurisdiction is primarily governed by the Brussels I Recast Regulation, where applicable, as well as the Belgian Code of Private International Law and relevant international conventions, including the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements.

For contractual obligations, Belgian courts apply Regulation (EC) No. 593/2008 (Rome I), which generally gives effect to the parties’ choice of governing law, subject to overriding mandatory provisions and specific protections applicable, in particular, to consumer and employment contracts. For non-contractual obligations, Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 (Rome II) generally designates the law of the country in which the damage occurs.

Where the Rome I or Rome II Regulations do not apply, the applicable law is determined under the Belgian Code of Private International Law. In exceptional circumstances, Belgian courts may refuse to apply a foreign law that is manifestly incompatible with Belgian international public order.

Claims can, in certain circumstances, be resolved without a full trial on the merits.

This may occur where the defendant fails to appear, in which case the court may render a default judgment. Proceedings may also be concluded through a settlement agreement between the parties, which can be enforced in a judgment.

In addition, certain simplified procedures exist. For straightforward or largely undisputed claims, parties may request that the case be dealt with under the summary proceeding (débats succints / korte debatten) procedure, allowing the court to rule at an early stage. In addition, Belgian law provides for an out-of-court procedure for the recovery of undisputed monetary claims between companies (recouvrement de créances d’argent non contestées – RCCI / invordering van onbetwiste geldschulden), allowing creditors to obtain an enforceable title without commencing ordinary court proceedings, provided that the statutory conditions are met.

Finally, proceedings may be terminated without examination of the merits where a procedural issue prevents the claim from proceeding, such as lack of jurisdiction or expiry of the limitation period. Interim relief (référé / kort geding) may provide provisional relief without requiring a full hearing on the merits, but they do not generally result in a final determination of the underlying dispute.

The main interim remedies available under Belgian law include urgent interim relief and conservatory measures.

Urgent interim relief may be requested before the President of the competent court in summary proceedings where there is urgency. The court may order provisional measures in order to prevent serious harm and/or to avert the violation of a legal right subject to serious threats of violation by the defendant. , such as ordering a party to perform certain acts, prohibiting certain conduct or granting an advance payment where appropriate. The President’s jurisdiction is strictly limited to provisional injunctive relief on the basis of an expedited and prima facie review of the case; in other words, the President does not adjudicate the merits of the parties’ claims, which may be disposed of in separate proceedings (although there is no general requirement for the parties to initiate such separate proceedings on the merits).

Alternatively, any party to pending legal proceedings omay, at any time, apply to the court for interim measures (mesures avant dire droit / maatregel alvorens recht te doen) with a view to regulating the parties’ respective positions on a provisional basis and thus preserving legitimate interests at stake in those proceedings that would be jeopardised if the applicant had to await their conclusion. Such interim relief is granted on a provisional basis and without prejudice to the court’s full review of the case and ruling on the merits. By contrast with summary proceedings, applications for interim relief cannot be made on a standalone basis; the applicant must have initiated substantive proceedings against the other party (and the court must have confirmed its jurisdiction over such proceedings)

Creditors may also carry out a conservatory attachment (saisie conservatoire / bewarend beslag) over their debtor’s assets, including bank accounts or assets held by third parties, in order to secure the enforcement of a claim (usually whilst waiting for a judgement confirming such claim). It is worth nothing that no prior court authorisation is required to attach a debtor’s assets held with third parties (bank accounts, receivables and other monetary claims, shares in a company, etc.) on a conservatory basis; such conservatory attachment may be carried out by a bailiff acting on the sole instruction of the creditor, thus requiring the debtor itself to challenge the validity of the attachment before the court. Conservatory attachments over chattels and real-estate assets do require prior court authorisation, which may however be applied for on an ex parte basis (with the debtor having the opportunity to challenge such court authorisation, if granted, after the attachment has been carried out).

Anti-suit injunctions are normally not available under Belgian law.

At the introductory hearing, the parties will generally agree on a procedural timetable for the exchange of written submissions and supporting documents. If the parties fail to reach an agreement, the court may determine the timetable.

In practice, the parties usually exchange their written submissions at regular intervals of approximately one to two months until the hearing on the merits. However, the parties remain free to agree on shorter or longer deadlines, depending on the complexity of the case, its urgency or the availability of hearing dates. For complex commercial disputes, the timetable may extend over a longer period.

Belgian civil procedure does not provide for a general discovery or disclosure process. Each party must submit, together with its written submissions, the documents on which it relies.

However, a party may request the court to order the production of a specific document held by another party or a third party, provided that the document is sufficiently identified and is relevant to the dispute. This mechanism does not allow for broad document searches or “fishing expeditions”.

Certain documents may be excluded from production, in particular documents covered by legal professional privilege, such as correspondence between lawyers or between lawyer and their client. Courts may also take into account confidentiality obligations, trade secrets or other legitimate interests when ordering document production.

Specific disclosure rules apply in certain areas, such as follow-on damages claims relating to infringements of antitrust law under Articles XVII.74 to XVII.81 of the BCEL.

Witness evidence is available in Belgian civil and commercial proceedings, although it is not commonly used compared with documentary evidence.

In practice, witness evidence is most often submitted in the form of written witness statements (attestations / schriftelijke verklaring). These statements must comply with certain formal requirements and may be submitted by the parties or requested by the court.

Where written evidence is insufficient, the court may order an oral examination of witnesses (enquête / getuigenverhoor). Witnesses are heard by the judge, who controls the questioning process. Belgian procedure does not provide for a common law-style cross-examination by opposing counsel.

Expert evidence is permitted under Belgian law and is frequently used in technical, valuation or construction disputes.

A party may submit an expert report prepared by a privately appointed expert. The evidentiary value of such report is assessed by the court, and it generally carries less weight than an expert report ordered by the court.

The court may also appoint one or more judicial experts, either at the request of a party or on its own initiative. Judicial experts must act independently and impartially and owe their duties to the court rather than to the party requesting the expert appointment. The expert proceedings must be conducted on an adversarial basis, allowing the parties to comment on the expert’s findings before the final report is issued.

Although a court-appointed expert’s report may have a significant influence on the outcome of the proceedings, the court is not bound by the expert’s conclusions.

Final judgments rendered at first instance may usually be appealed before the competent Court of Appeal within one month from service of the judgment. The Court of Appeal reviews both the facts and the law. Certain exceptions apply, notably for claims below specific monetary thresholds.

Interim decisions may generally only be appealed together with the final judgment, unless the law provides otherwise.

The competent appellate court depends on the court that rendered the first-instance decision. The timescale of appeal proceedings varies depending on the competent court and matter involved. It is not unusual for appeal proceedings to take three to six years.

Foreign judgments are recognised and enforced in Belgium depending on their origin.

Judgments rendered by courts of EU Member States are recognised and enforceable in Belgium without any exequatur procedure under Brussels I Recast Regulation, subject only to limited grounds for refusal, such as a manifest breach of Belgian public order or incompatibility with an existing Belgian judgment. Judgments from Iceland, Norway and Switzerland benefit from a similar regime under the 2007 Lugano Convention.

Judgments from non-EU third states require an exequatur procedure before the Belgian courts under the Belgian Code of Private International Law. The court will verify, in particular, that the foreign court had jurisdiction, that the defendant’s rights of defence were respected, and that recognition would not be contrary to Belgian international public order. The Belgian court may not, however, review the merits of the case and the soundness of the foreign court’s legal reasoning.

Foreign arbitral awards may be recognised and enforced in Belgium in accordance with the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

The unsuccessful party is generally ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings, including court fees, bailiff costs and, where applicable, expert costs.

However, lawyer fees are not recoverable on an actual-cost basis. Instead, the losing party must pay the successful party a statutory lump-sum contribution (indemnité de procédure / rechtsplegingsvergoeding). The amount is determined by Royal Decree and depends mainly on the value and nature of the claim, within statutory minimum and maximum limits (with base amounts ranging from EUR 235,47 for claims of a monetary value below EUR 250,00, to EUR 23.546,51 from claims above EUR 1.000.000,00). The court has discretion to adjust the base amount within certain limits depending on the circumstances of the case, with the lowest figure being EUR 117,73 and the highest EUR 47.093,02). In practice, these lump-sum contribution seldom reflects a party’s lawyer fees.

Where a claim is only partially successful, or where a counterclaim is granted, costs may be apportioned between the parties.

Belgium provides for a collective redress mechanism under Book XVII, Title 2 of the BCEL. The procedure was initially introduced in 2014 for consumers and was later extended to SMEs. The regime was amended in 2024 following the implementation of Directive (EU) 2020/1828 on representative actions for the protection of consumers’ collective interests.

Collective actions may be brought where multiple persons have suffered harm resulting from a common cause, in particular as a result of a breach by an undertaking of specific legal provisions listed in the BCEL. The action must be initiated by a qualified representative entity meeting the statutory requirements, and collective redress must be more efficient than individual proceedings.

The mechanism is primarily aimed at compensating consumers and SMEs for collective harm. Following the 2024 reform, the scope of the procedure has been broadened to cover additional areas, including certain financial services and digital markets legislation. Collective actions fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Brussels courts.

Outside the statutory collective redress mechanism, claimants may also seek to combine individual claims where their claims are sufficiently connected to justify joint proceedings.

Belgian civil procedure provides several mechanisms allowing third parties to become involved in ongoing proceedings.

A third party may intervene voluntarily when it has an interest in the outcome of the dispute, for example to protect its rights or interests. Alternatively, an existing party may bring a third party into the proceedings through a forced intervention, typically where it seeks a contribution, indemnity or to make the third party bound by the outcome of the proceedings.

Where two or more proceedings are sufficiently connected, the court may order their consolidation so that they are heard and decided together. Consolidation may be ordered where the cases are closely related and a joint examination is desirable to avoid inconsistent decisions.

Third-party litigation funding is permitted in Belgium, although it is not subject to a specific regulatory framework or licensing regime. It is increasingly used, in particular for high-value commercial disputes and collective redress proceedings.

Since 1 March 2025, the relationship between lawyers, clients and third-party funders is subject to specific ethical rules (Articles 7.20 to 7.24 of the Belgian French Bar’s Code of Ethic). These rules aim in particular to safeguard the client’s freedom to choose counsel, the lawyer’s independence and professional secrecy. Lawyers may provide information to a funder only with the client’s consent and within the limits of their professional obligations.

In collective redress proceedings, the identity of the funder and the funding arrangements must be disclosed in accordance with Article XVII.42 of the BCEL.

Third-party funders are not parties to the proceedings and are therefore not liable for the opposing party’s costs.

The main advantage of litigating international commercial disputes in Belgium is the combination of a predictable and codified procedural framework, relatively moderate litigation costs compared with many other jurisdictions, and the experience of specialised courts such as the Brussels Enterprise Court. Belgium’s central position within the European Union also makes it a natural forum for cross-border disputes and facilitates the recognition and enforcement of judgments within the EU.

The main disadvantage is the duration of complex commercial proceedings, particularly where expert evidence is required or where the case proceeds through several levels of jurisdiction. In addition, parties from common law jurisdictions may find the absence of broad pre-trial disclosure mechanisms unfamiliar, as evidence gathering is generally more limited and relies primarily on documents produced by the parties themselves or specific court-ordered production measures.

Over the next years, insolvency and restructuring-related disputes are likely to represent a significant area of growth, given the current economic environment and the increasing use of pre-insolvency restructuring mechanisms. This is expected to generate more litigation relating to contractual breaches, directors’ and officers’ liability, and disputes between creditors and stakeholders.

ESG-related disputes are also likely to continue to develop, as companies face an expanding framework of European sustainability regulations and contractual commitments. In addition, the recent reform of the Belgian collective redress regime may lead to an increase in collective actions, particularly in regulated sectors such as financial services and digital markets.

Over the next five years, the digitalisation of the Belgian justice system is likely to have an increasing impact on commercial litigation. Electronic communication with courts, digital case management and the use of videoconferencing for certain hearings should gradually simplify procedural steps and improve efficiency.

The development of a more accessible and searchable database of court decisions should also improve transparency and help parties and lawyers better assess litigation risks. In addition, artificial intelligence tools are expected to become increasingly used for legal research and document review, although issues such as confidentiality and data protection will need to be carefully addressed.