Belgian Business Law, Volume 2026, No. 2

VBB on Belgian Business LawVBB on Belgian Business Law | Volume 2026, NO 2February 2026Van Bael & Bellis on Belgian Business Law should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances.The content is intended for general informational purposes only. Readers should consult attorneys at the firm concerningany specific legal questions or the relevance of the subjects discussed herein to particular factual [email protected] INTELLIGENCEEuropean Commission PublishesSecond Draft of Code of Practiceon Marking and Labelling of AIgenerated ContentPage 3COMMERCIAL LAWTitle 1 of Book IX of Civil CodeGoverning Personal SecurityInterests Entered Into ForcePage 5COMPETITION LAWBelgian Competition Authority FinesIndividuals for First Time in BidRigging Case Involving Distributionof NewspapersPage 8Issue Highlights“Van Bael & Bellis’ Belgiancompetition law practice[...] is a well-establishedforce in high-stakes,reputationally-sensitiveantitrust investigations.”Legal 500, 2019CONSUMER LAWGovernment Bills StrengthenConsumer Protection andEnforcement under Code ofEconomic LawPage 12DATA PROTECTIONCourt of Justice of European UnionHolds that Binding Decisions ofEuropean Data Protection BoardCan Be Challenged Before EuropeanCourtsPage 15FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENTEU Institutions Publish New DraftRevised EU Foreign InvestmentScreening RegulationPage 17INTELLECTUAL PROPERTYDutch-Language Enterprise Courtof Brussels Introduces IntellectualProperty Litigation Protocol andFormalises Use of Protective LettersPage 22LABOUR LAWNew Measures on UnemploymentAllowances and Meal VouchersEntered into ForcePage 24Topics covered in this issueARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.......................................................................3COMMERCIAL LAW....................................................................................5COMPETITION LAW ...................................................................................8CONSUMER LAW...................................................................................... 12DATA PROTECTION .................................................................................. 15FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT............................................................. 17INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.....................................................................22LABOUR LAW............................................................................................24Chaussée de La Hulpe 166TerhulpsesteenwegB-1170 Brussels - BelgiumPhone: +32 (0)2 647 73 50Fax: +32 (0)2 640 64 [email protected]© 2026 Van Bael & Bellis www.vbb.comVBB on Belgian Business Law | Volume 2026, NO 2Van Bael & Bellis on Belgian Business Law should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances.The content is intended for general informational purposes only. Readers should consult attorneys at the firm concerning any specific legalquestions or the relevance of the subjects discussed herein to particular factual circumstances.ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 3European Commission Publishes Second Draft of Codeof Practice on Marking and Labelling of AI-generatedContent................................................................................3COMMERCIAL LAW 5Title 1 of Book IX of Civil Code Governing PersonalSecurity Interests Entered Into Force ............................. 5COMPETITION LAW 8Belgian Competition Authority Accuses SugarCompanies of Abusing State of EconomicDependency of Sugar Beet Growers............................. 8Belgian Competition Authority Fines Individuals forFirst Time in Bid Rigging Case Involving Distributionof Newspapers .................................................................. 8Belgian Competition Authority Investigates Google forPossible Abuse of Dominance in Online AdvertisingSector................................................................................ 10Belgian Competition Authority Publishes Enforcementand Policy Priorities for 2026........................................ 10CONSUMER LAW 12Government Bills Strengthen Consumer Protectionand Enforcement under Code of Economic Law ........12DATA PROTECTION 15Court of Justice of European Union Holds thatBinding Decisions of European Data Protection BoardCan Be Challenged Before European Courts..............15FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT 17EU Institutions Publish New Draft Revised EU ForeignInvestment Screening Regulation .................................17INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 22Dutch-Language Enterprise Court of BrusselsIntroduces Intellectual Property Litigation Protocol andFormalises Use of Protective Letters............................22LABOUR LAW 24New Measures on Unemployment Allowances andMeal Vouchers Entered into Force...............................24Table of contents“Van Bael & Bellis excels inM&A work, and often providesdomestic Belgian law advice oncross-border transactions.”IFLR 1000, 2019© 2026 Van Bael & Bellis www.vbb.com 3 | February 2026VBB on Belgian Business Law | Volume 2026, NO 2COMPETITION LAWThe key obligation remains a revised two-layeredmarking approach. Providers must implementat least two layers of machine-readable activemarking: digitally signed metadata and imperceptiblewatermarking interwoven within the content. The Codeno longer requires providers to implement forensicdetection mechanisms. Instead, forensic detectionnow constitutes an optional supplementary measure.Similarly, fingerprinting and logging remain optional andsupplementary. The Code further allows providers todemonstrate compliance with an alternative - possiblysingle - marking technique, provided they can prove,through independently verified benchmarks, thatit achieves the same level of robustness, reliability,effectiveness, and interoperability as the multi-layeredapproach.The Code retains the obligation for providers tooffer free detection interfaces. Providers must makeavailable an Application Programming Interfaceenabling deployers, end-users and other legitimateparties (such as competent authorities, independentresearchers and media organisations) to verify whethercontent originated from their AI system. The Codealso encourages providers to facilitate compliance byoffering optional perceptible marking functionalitiesin their system interfaces, supporting deployers inmeeting their own labelling obligations under Article50(4) of the AI Act.Revised Section 2 Adopts More Flexible LabellingFramework for DeployersSection 2 targets deployers of AI systems that generateor manipulate deepfakes or text published to informthe public on matters of public interest under Article50(4) and (5) of the AI Act. Relative to the first draft,this section adopts a more flexible approach. Thetaxonomy distinguishing AI-generated content fromAI-assisted content - a feature of the first draft - hasbeen completely removed.European Commission Publishes Second Draftof Code of Practice on Marking and Labelling ofAI-generated ContentThe European Commission (the Commission) haspublished the second draft of the Code of Practice onTransparency of AI-Generated Content under the AIAct (the Code). The Code aims to help providers anddeployers of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems meet themarking and labelling requirements for AI-generatedcontent under Article 50 of Regulation 2024/1689 (the AIAct). Independent experts drafted the text, integratingwritten feedback from hundreds of participants andobservers, including members of industry, academia,civil society and other stakeholders. The participatingworking groups gathered the feedback through anEU survey (open until 23 January 2026), stakeholdermeetings, and workshops held in January 2026. Thedraft also incorporates contributions from EU MemberStates (via the AI Board) and Members of the EuropeanParliament (represented in the IMCO-LIBE WorkingGroup monitoring AI Act implementation).Second Draft Streamlines Compliance RequirementsCompared to the first draft, the second version providesmore flexibility for signatories and reduces the overallcompliance burden. It incorporates further technicalconsiderations to improve legal clarity and practicality.The Code promotes the use of open standards for AIcontent marking and introduces an EU icon for labellingto simplify compliance and reduce costs. The Coderemains structured into two sections, each addressingdifferent transparency obligations for providers anddeployers respectively.Revised Section 1 Introduces Greater Flexibility forProvidersSection 1 addresses the marking and detectionof AI-generated content and targets providers ofgenerative AI systems under Article 50(2) and (5) of theAI Act. This section has undergone significant changescompared to the first draft. It removes and consolidatesseveral measures, introduces optional elements, andensures that all measures remain technically feasibleand proportionate.ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE© 2026 Van Bael & Bellis www.vbb.com 4 | February 2026VBB on Belgian Business Law | Volume 2026, NO 2COMPETITION LAWSection 2 now features design and placementrequirements applicable to icons, labels and disclaimers.For visual content, the icon or label must display thecapitalised acronym “AI”, possibly supplementedwith a short text label (e.g., “Generated with AI”or “Manipulated with AI”). For audio-only content,deployers must include a short audible disclaimer inplain natural language. The Code sets out specificplacement rules for different modalities, includingreal-time video, non-real-time video, images, audioonly content and multimodal content.The Code further defines specific regimes for artistic,creative, satirical, and fictional works. For such works,the disclosure obligation remains, but signatories mustimplement it in a manner that does not hamper thedisplay, enjoyment or creative quality of the work.In addition, the Code clarifies the conditions underwhich the disclosure obligation does not apply to textpublications: the content must have undergone humanreview or editorial control, and a natural or legal personmust hold editorial responsibility for the publication.The annex of the second draft includes illustrativeexamples of a potential EU icon, which the Commissionintends to make freely available to signatories underthe European Union Public Licence. The Code alsoproposes the establishment of a task force, facilitatedby the AI Office, to develop a future uniform andinteractive EU icon.Commission Collects Feedback Before FinalisationThe Commission will collect feedback on the seconddraft until 30 March 2026. The Commission expects tofinalise the Code by the beginning of June 2026. Thetransparency rules covering AI-generated content willbecome applicable on 2 August 2026.The second draft of the Code can be found here.ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE© 2026 Van Bael & Bellis www.vbb.com 5 | February 2026VBB on Belgian Business Law | Volume 2026, NO 2COMPETITION LAW COMMERCIAL LAWChapter 1. Common provisionsChapter 2. SuretyshipChapter 3. Autonomous guaranteeChapter 4. Personal security interests granted bya consumerIn addition to recodifying the rules on suretyship, Title 1provides a statutory basis for several instruments thathad previously developed primarily through practice,such as the autonomous guarantee (also known as abank guarantee, abstract guarantee, or stand by letterof credit), the comfort letter, and the joint and severalliability declaration.Suretyship (Borgtocht / Cautionnement)Suretyship under Title 1 largely preserves the regimepreviously codified in the old Civil Code. However, underthe new framework the common rules introduce theprinciple that any personal security interest granted ispresumed to constitute a suretyship unless the partiesclearly intended to create another form of personalsecurity interest. Suretyship therefore becomes thedefault type of personal security interest.Its defining feature remains its accessory nature,meaning that the obligation of the security providerdepends on the validity, terms, scope and continuedexistence of the secured obligation. This accessorycharacter gives rise to three main consequences inthe relationship between the security provider and thebeneficiary:• the scope of the security provider’s obligationcannot exceed that of the secured obligation;• the security provider’s liability only arises once theapplicant is found to be in default; andTitle 1 of Book IX of Civil Code Governing PersonalSecurity Interests Entered Into ForceOn 1 January 2026, the Law of 5 June 2025 containingTitle 1 “Personal security interests” of Book 9 “Securities”of the Civil Code entered into force (Wet van 5 juni 2025houdende titel 1 “Persoonlijke zekerheden” van Boek 9“Zekerheden” van het Burgerlijk Wetboek / Loi du 5 juin2025 portant le titre 1er ”Les sûretés personnelles” dulivre 9 “Les sûretés” du Code Civil - Title 1) (See, thisNewsletter, Volume 2025, No. 5 and Volume 2025, Nos.6-7). This reform is another step in the modernisationof the Belgian Civil Code and provides the first buildingblock for a 21st‑century statutory framework governingsecurity interests.Title 1 primarily codifies mechanisms that developedin practice and that were recognised as forms ofpersonal security interests through case law. Thisregime applies to personal security interests createdon or after 1 January 2026 and, as a rule, does notapply retroactively to those created before that dateunless parties choose to apply the new framework to apersonal security interest established before 1 January2026.The aim of Title 1 is to preserve the parties’ contractualautonomy, which is why most of its provisions aresupplementary in nature and apply only to the extentthat the contract establishing the personal securityinterest has not expressly derogated from them. As aresult, parties may opt out of the regime, provided thatthey comply with the mandatory provisions of Title 1.Titles 2 to 6 of Book IX of the Civil Code, which willregulate pledges, mortgages, retention of title, rightsof retention and preferential rights, are still underpreparation and fall outside the scope of Title 1.Scope and StructureTitle 1 is divided into four main chapters whichdistinguish between the common rules applicable toall personal security interests and the specific regimesgoverning the distinct types of personal securityinterests:© 2026 Van Bael & Bellis www.vbb.com 6 | February 2026VBB on Belgian Business Law | Volume 2026, NO 2COMPETITION LAW COMMERCIAL LAWAnother significant element of the codification concernsthe security provider’s right of recourse against theapplicant following a call under the guarantee. UnderTitle 1, the legislator confirms that the security provideris entitled to seek reimbursement from the applicant forany amount paid to the beneficiary on the applicant’sbehalf and for that purpose, obtains the beneficiary’srights against the applicant. However, the securityprovider will not benefit from such a recourse rightif the payment was made wrongfully and may evenincur additional liability towards the applicant in suchan event.Title 1 also recognises the security provider’s abilityto refuse a request for payment from the beneficiarywhen that request is manifestly abusive or fraudulent,based on the security provider’s own assessment. Sucha refusal requires that the abuse or fraud be clear,obvious and indisputable, and that it be immediatelyapparent, without the need for further evidence or anyexamination of the underlying contractual relationship(for example, when the demand concerns an obligationwhich clearly and immediately has nothing to do withthe obligations covered by the autonomous guarantee).Personal Security Interests Granted by ConsumerTitle 1 also establishes a specific regime for personalsecurity interests granted by a consumer, which isapplicable in business-to-consumer relationships(unless the secured obligations are entered into by alegal entity over which the consumer has a controllinginterest, e.g. a management company).This regime consists exclusively of mandatoryprovisions designed to strengthen the protection ofconsumers acting as security providers.The guiding principle is that the only form of personalsecurity interest which a consumer may grant is asuretyship. Any other type of personal security interestgranted by a consumer will be automatically requalifiedas a suretyship.This specific regime imposes obligations on theother contracting party, particularly regarding formalrequirements and pre contractual obligations, as well asongoing information duties. For example, the suretyship• the security provider may invoke against thebeneficiary all defences inherent to the securedobligation, including those relating to the existence,validity, binding nature, terms, and continuedexistence of that obligation.Title 1 also codifies the all sums suretyship (borgtochtvoor alle schuldvorderingen / cautionnement pourtoutes créances) and creates clearer safeguards forsuretyship covering future obligations. In particular,when a suretyship is granted to secure futureobligations but does not include a maximum liabilitycap for the security provider, its scope will be limited toobligations already existing at the time the suretyshipwas granted.Finally, Title 1 addresses situations involving multiplesecurity providers by introducing a new regime ofsolidarity between them, replacing the former benefitof division applicable under the old regime, under whichthe beneficiary could only claim from each securityprovider their proportional share of the total securedamount. Under the new regime, the beneficiary mayclaim the full amount from any security provider, up tothat provider’s maximum secured amount. A securityprovider which pays more than its proportional sharein the total secured amount retains a right of recourseagainst the other security providers.Autonomous Guarantee (Autonome PersoonlijkeZekerheid / Sûreté Personelle Autonome)Title 1 introduces a statutory framework for theautonomous guarantee, a mechanism that has longbeen used in practice and has largely been shapedthrough case law and international custom.The defining feature of the autonomous guaranteeis its independence from the underlying contractualrelationship. Unlike suretyship, the obligation of thesecurity provider does not depend on the validity, terms,or continued existence of the secured obligation, butrests solely on the contractual relationship between thesecurity provider and the beneficiary. The autonomousguarantee is therefore independent of the underlyingobligation, and the security provider undertakes to paythe beneficiary upon the occurrence of the conditionsspecified in the guarantee.© 2026 Van Bael & Bellis www.vbb.com 7 | February 2026VBB on Belgian Business Law | Volume 2026, NO 2COMPETITION LAW COMMERCIAL LAWIt also introduces a significant risk of requalification of apersonal security interest as a suretyship, which makesthe precise drafting of security instruments particularlyimportant in practice.Finally, although the regime is largely supplementary, itcontains a number of mandatory provisions, especiallyin relation to consumer security providers.granted by a consumer must be set out in a writtenagreement separate from the underlying obligation, andthe consumer must receive mandatory pre contractualinformation about the financial risks associated withthe suretyship. The scope of the suretyship must alsobe proportionate to the consumer’s financial means.Failure to comply with these mandatory requirementsmay, in certain circumstances, result in the nullity ofthe suretyship.Codification of Other Personal Security InterestsComfort Letter (Patronaatsverklaring / Lettre depatronage)The comfort letter is now expressly recognised as aform of security interest. However, the binding natureand scope of the obligations assumed by the securityprovider under a comfort letter depend strictly on thewording chosen. Careful drafting is therefore essential.Ambiguous or overly reassuring language mayunintentionally create legally enforceable obligations,even when the issuer merely intended to providecomfort rather than assume a binding commitment.Joint and several liability declaration (Hoofdelijkheidtot zekerheid / Solidarité à titre de sûreté)The new regime also recognises the joint and severalliability declaration. Its mechanism is similar tosuretyship, but without the subsidiary nature of thesurety’s obligation. Under this instrument, the applicantand the security provider are deemed co‑debtors ofthe secured obligation.As a co‑debtor, the security provider is an alternativedebtor for the beneficiary, who is not required to firstseek payment from the principal debtor. The beneficiarymay claim payment directly from the security provider.ConclusionThe new regime codifies several pre existing marketinstruments and provides a statutory basis that grantsthem legal recognition and, in some cases, regulatesthem in a detailed fashion.© 2026 Van Bael & Bellis www.vbb.com 8 | February 2026VBB on Belgian Business Law | Volume 2026, NO 2COMPETITION LAWBelgian Competition Authority Fines Individuals forFirst Time in Bid Rigging Case Involving Distributionof NewspapersOn 13 February 2026, the Belgian Competition Authority(Belgische Mededingingsautoriteit / Autorité belge de laConcurrence - BCA) held four companies operating inthe postal services and media sectors and two naturalpersons liable for bid rigging in the context of the publicprocurement procedure for the award of the 2023-2027concession for the distribution of newspapers.This marks the first time that the BCA has prosecutedand fined individuals for their direct involvement in themanipulation of a public procurement procedure.The decision follows the BCA’s public consultationon its new draft guidance on the application of thecompetition rules to public procurement, which isdesigned to help public procurement managers preventanticompetitive conduct from happening and identifyany such behaviour if the preventive measures fail (See,this Newsletter, Volume 2026, No. 1).Background: Concession for Distribution ofNewspapers in BelgiumIn 2021, the Belgian federal government launcheda public procurement procedure for the secondconcession for newspaper distribution for the period2023 - 2027. The first concession, covering the period2016-2020 and later extended until the end of 2022,had been awarded to and executed by bpost.The second concession was never awarded andwas abolished following a decision by the federalgovernment. Nevertheless, the BCA opened aninvestigation into potential infringements of Belgianand EU competition law, specifically anticompetitiveagreements, during the public procurement procedure.The case came to light under the BCA’s leniencyprogramme.Belgian Competition Authority Accuses SugarCompanies of Abusing State of EconomicDependency of Sugar Beet GrowersOn 6 February 2026, the Belgian Competition Authority(Belgische Mededingingsautoriteit / Autorité belgede la Concurrence - BCA) announced that it sent aStatement of Objections to sugar producer TienseSuikerraffinaderij/Raffinerie Tirlemontoise (TSRT) andits parent company Südzucker AG. The defendantsstand accused of abusing the alleged state of economicdependency of sugar beet growers, a category ofTSRT suppliers. The BCA takes aim at the conditionsof procurement which TSRT applies and which,according to the BCA, cause the sugar beet growersto find themselves in a “general state of uncertainty(…) with respect to their expected revenues, limitingunduly their autonomy in the management of theiragricultural and commercial activities, and imposingon them a disproportionate share of the commercialrisks involved in the sugar supply chain”.The case forms the first known application by the BCAof Article IV.2/1 of the Code of Economic Law (Wetboek vanEconomisch Recht / Code de droit économique)(See, this Newsletter, Volume 2024, Nos. 6-7), aprovision which on a few occasions has also beentested in court in private litigation. However, unlikeprivate litigants, the BCA can marshal its considerableinvestigative resources to probe for allegedly abusiveconduct.The BCA’s announcement comes at an interesting time.Last year the European Commission (Commission)was considering eliminating or reducing the scopeof national abuse of economic dependency rules, inan effort to harmonise the competition rules as partof the reform of Regulation 1/2003, the EU’s mainset of procedural competition rules. However, at theinsistence of Member States such as Germany andFrance, the Commission rapidly dropped that plan whilecontinuing the process of reforming Regulation 1/2003.© 2026 Van Bael & Bellis www.vbb.com 9 | February 2026VBB on Belgian Business Law | Volume 2026, NO 2COMPETITION LAWand commercial needs. The fines imposed on thesetwo persons were reduced by 50%, resulting in a totalof EUR 6,300, given that this is the first time that theBCA fines individuals. They also benefitted from afurther 10% fine reduction on account of the settlementreached in this case. The BCA indicates that no lessthan thirteen individuals sought and obtained immunityfrom prosecution in exchange for their cooperation withthe investigation.BCA Decision Follows Recent Public ConsultationPublic procurement has long featured among the BCA’senforcement priorities (See, this Newsletter, Volume2025, No. 4 - it features again in the BCA’s 2026priorities as an advocacy goal), and the BCA recentlyadopted significant enforcement decisions regardingprivate security and fire protection services (See, thisNewsletter, Volume 2024, Nos. 6-7). The BCA is alsocurrently organising a public consultation on a draftguide for public buyers aimed at raising their awarenessof distortions of competition (See, this Newsletter,Volume 2026, No. 1).However, this case stands apart as this is the firsttime that the BCA prosecuted and fined not onlyentities, but also natural persons directly involved inthe infringement. According to the BCA, they “activelycontributed to the perpetration or implementation ofthe prohibited conduct”.This case signals that the BCA will become moreactively involved in public procurement procedures.As explained by the BCA Prosecutor General, DamienGerard:“This case confirms that the manipulation of publicprocurement procedures remains a top priority forthe BCA, as is also apparent from the ongoing publicconsultation on a draft guide for public buyers aimedat raising their awareness of distortions of competition.This decision is also important as it signals thatindividuals can also be held liable for competitioninfringements, next to the companies for which theyoperated.”BCA Discovers Manipulation of Public ProcurementProcedureIn its decision of 13 February 2026, the BCA concludedthat the four entities operating in the Belgian postalservices sector and the two natural persons hadengaged in bid rigging in the public procurementprocedure for the award of the 2023-2027 concessionfor the distribution of newspapers.Bid rigging is a form of anticompetitive behaviour inpublic procurement procedures that manifests itself in avariety of practices, such as the allocation of customers,territories, allotments or types of assignments and thesubmission of cover offers to create a false impressionof competition. Significantly, this is the rare type ofcompetition law infringement which in Belgium alsocarries criminal penalties.In this case, the four entities involved, bpost, DPGMedia, Mediahuis and PPP, aimed to ensure that bpostwould be awarded the concession by agreeing thatPPP would not submit an offer, which meant that bpostwould be the only bidder. To compensate PPP for itsnon-participation, DPG Media and Mediahuis agreedto grant PPP additional volumes for the distribution oftheir newspapers.Applying the leniency programme and settlementreductions, the BCA imposed the following fines: onDPG Media a reduced fine (50% fine reduction and10% settlement reduction) of EUR 3,786,574 and onMediahuis a reduced fine (40% fine reduction and 10%settlement reduction) of EUR 7,788,423. PPP was finedEUR 323,486. bpost benefited from full immunity as ithad revealed the infringement to the BCA under theleniency programme.Interestingly, for the first time, the BCA also finedtwo natural persons, employed by bpost at the time,finding that they were directly involved in the bidrigging scheme. One of the employees held a seniormanagement role, while the other did not haveoperational responsibility but served as a contact pointfor publishers and handled their questions, concerns,© 2026 Van Bael & Bellis www.vbb.com 10 | February 2026VBB on Belgian Business Law | Volume 2026, NO 2COMPETITION LAWBelgian Competition Authority Publishes Enforcementand Policy Priorities for 2026On 27 February 2026, the Belgian Competition Authority(Belgische Mededingingsautoriteit / Autorité belge de laConcurrence - BCA) published its Priorities Paper for2026 (PP). Not surprisingly, the new PP resembles thatof 2025 (See, this Newsletter, Volume 2025, No. 4) andof previous years in that the BCA seeks to protect theposition of the Belgian economy and pay “particularattention to the competitiveness and sustainability of[Belgium’s] industrial assets” (p. 2). As a result, theBCA confirms its interest in a series of industries andpractices, while it also plans to increase its complianceefforts:• Agri-food sector - The BCA says that it is currentlypursuing a raft of antitrust cases (See e.g., theStatement of Objections sent to sugar producersTiense Suikerraffinaderij/Raffinerie Tirlemontoiseand its parent company Südzucker AG, discussedin this Newsletter) and will also apply the mergercontrol rules to stop or limit the further consolidationof food markets.• Digitalisation and telecommunications - TheBCA promises to scrutinise the “impact of digitaltransformation on market dynamics in both existingand new markets, including access to secure,sustainable, and interoperable cloud infrastructuresand services” (p. 7). It will keep a watchful eye ononline platforms, the digitalisation of after-salesservices, algorithmic decision-making, access totelecommunications infrastructure, and electroniccommunications services.• Healthcare - The BCA will continue to followclosely the healthcare sector, including the marketsfor pharmaceuticals, medical devices, healthtechnology, and health-related data (See, thisNewsletter, Volume 2025, Nos. 11-12).Belgian Competition Authority InvestigatesGoogle for Possible Abuse of Dominance in OnlineAdvertising SectorOn 27 February 2026, the Belgian Competition Authority(Belgische Mededingingsautoriteit / Autorité belge dela Concurrence - BCA) announced the opening of aninvestigation into Google. The BCA suspects Google ofabusing its dominant position in the online advertisingsector, in breach of Article 102 of the Treaty on theFunctioning of the European Union and Article IV/2of the Belgian Code of Economic Law (Wetboek vanEconomisch Recht / Code de droit économique).The BCA takes issue with the general terms andconditions of use applicable to specific Googleintermediation services. Advertisers wishing topromote their products online connect with publishersmonetising advertising space on their websites throughintermediation services. The BCA suspects Google ofsupplying its intermediation services in a discriminatorymanner. While the BCA does not explicitly say whichservice is concerned, its press release refers to Google’sad exchange service AdX, which is a marketplacewhere publishers and advertisers buy and sell digital adinventory in an open auction, and to Google’s Ad BuyingTools, which allow advertisers to purchase advertisingspace.This is not the first time that Google is caught inthe crosshairs of competition authorities in Europe.Google has already been fined four times by theEuropean Commission, including in relation to its onlineadvertising business. As recently as 5 September 2025,the European Commission fined Google EUR 2.95 billionfor distorting competition in the advertising technologyindustry by favouring its own online display advertisingtechnology services to the detriment of providers ofcompeting services, advertisers and online publishers.Google has appealed that decision (Case T-794/25,currently pending).It is striking that the BCA has now decided to prosecuteconduct which presumably exceeds the Belgianborders and would therefore seem to be a candidatefor Commission review. The BCA explains its approachby stating that the digital sector features among itsenforcement priorities.© 2026 Van Bael & Bellis www.vbb.com 11 | February 2026VBB on Belgian Business Law | Volume 2026, NO 2COMPETITION LAW• Basic services (mainly regulated professionsand banking and finance) - On the grounds thatthey form part of the backbone of the economy,the BCA mentions a broad list of services whichit will monitor, including “financial services (suchas banking, payment services and insuranceservices), legal services (e.g., bailiffs and notaries),accounting and auditing services, security servicesand quality control operators, medical services,including healthcare providers, pharmacists andveterinarians” (p. 11).• Sport, media and entertainment - The BCA indicatesthat it will maintain its vigilant approach towardssports competitions and their broadcasting.• Merger control - Remarkably, and despite earlierindications to the contrary (See, this Newsletter,Volume 2025, No. 4), the BCA has still not madeup its mind on whether it will ask Parliament for“call-in” powers that would allow it to reviewtransactions that are not caught by the currentfinancial thresholds for merger control review. Asthe BCA expressly indicates, such “call-in” powerswould permit the review of both “killer” acquisitionsand serial or “roll-up” acquisitions of small targets.• Compliance efforts - The BCA intends to publishpolicy documents on sustainability agreements(See, this Newsletter, Volume 2025, No. 10), publicprocurement (See, this Newsletter, Volume 2026,No. 1), and restrictions of worker mobility, suchas no-poaching agreements. It will also mountan awareness campaign to combat resale pricemaintenance.© 2026 Van Bael & Bellis www.vbb.com 12 | February 2026VBB on Belgian Business Law | Volume 2026, NO 2CONSUMER LAWThe practical consequence is that, once Bill I willenter into force, price reduction announcements forservices and digital content will no longer be subjectto the 30-day “prior price” rule under Article VI.18 CEL.Instead, they will remain governed by the general ruleson unfair commercial practices of Book VI CEL (whichimplement the UCP Directive).Information Duty for Automatic Renewal Clauses inB2C Contracts (Art. 5 Bill I)Bill I introduces a new information obligation forbusinesses using tacit or automatic renewal clausesin fixed-term B2C contracts (except contracts with aduration of one month or less).Under the new information duty, businesses mustinform consumers in a clear, understandable andunambiguous way of the upcoming renewal of thecontract and of their right to oppose it. This informationmust be provided on a durable medium at least fifteendays before the deadline by which the consumer shouldobject to the renewal.In view of this upcoming change, businesses operatingsubscription models with automatic renewals wouldbe well advised to implement internal processesto ensure that renewal notices are sent in a timelymanner on a durable medium. Failure to comply withthe new requirement will expose businesses to disputesregarding the validity of the contract renewal.Enforcement Actions Against Online Fraud and UnfairOnline Commercial Practices (Art. 17 Bill I)Bill I grants additional powers to the EconomicInspectorate (Economische Inspectie / Inspectionéconomique) of the Federal Public Service Economy tocombat online fraud and unfair commercial practices, inparticular those affecting consumers. The Bill proposestwo main amendments to Book XV CEL:Government Bills Strengthen Consumer Protectionand Enforcement under Code of Economic LawOn 9 January 2026, the federal government submittedto the federal Chamber of Representatives two billscontaining various provisions in economic matters(Wetsontwerp houdende diverse bepalingen inzakeeconomie (I) / Projet de loi portant dispositions diversesen matière d’économie (I) (Bill I) and Wetsontwerphoudende diverse bepalingen inzake economie (II) /Projet de loi portant dispositions diverses en matièred’économie (II) (Bill II); jointly referred to as the Bills).The Bills propose amendments to several Books ofthe Belgian Code of Economic Law (Wetboek vanEconomisch Recht / Code de droit économique - CEL).Here are the most notable aspects of the Bills from aconsumer law perspective:Price Reduction Announcements Limited to “Goods”(Art. 3 Bill I)When transposing Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of 27November 2019 amending Council Directive 93/13/EECand Directives 98/6/EC, 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU asregards the better enforcement and modernisation ofUnion consumer protection rules (Omnibus Directive),Belgium decided to extend the scope of applicationof the rules on price reduction announcements to theconcept of “products”, which includes services anddigital content. However, the European Commission(Commission) considers that price reductionannouncements relating to services and digital contentfall exclusively within the scope of Directive 2005/29/EC of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-toconsumer commercial practices in the internal market(UCP Directive).Following the initiation on 7 May 2025 of an infringementprocedure by the Commission against Belgium forincorrect transposition of the Omnibus Directive, BillI modifies the title of the relevant section of Book VICEL to limit its scope to “goods” (goederen / biens),which notion is defined in Article I.1, 6° CEL as tangiblemovable goods (lichamelijke roerende zaken / biensmeubles corporels). If adopted, this amendment wouldbring Belgian law in line with the scope of the OmnibusDirective.© 2026 Van Bael & Bellis www.vbb.com 13 | February 2026VBB on Belgian Business Law | Volume 2026, NO 2CONSUMER LAWincluding the name of the offender (i.e., nominativepublication) during annulment proceedings before theCouncil of State.Previously, such decisions could only be publishedafter the expiry of the 60-day period for lodgingan application for annulment with the Council ofState. Under the proposed amendment, nominativepublication may also occur, in limited instances, duringthe 60-day period. The objective is to warn consumersand businesses in a timely manner about ongoinginfringements and thereby prevent additional harm.The Bills also broaden the purposes for whichnominative publication may take place. In addition towarning consumers and businesses, publication mayalso serve to:• inform other stakeholders, such as regulatoryauthorities, sector associations, or consumerorganisations; and• ensure transparency regarding the consequencesof non-compliance with economic law.Several safeguards are introduced:• publication must always be subject to aproportionality assessment;• personal data must be pseudonymised, meaningthat, in practice, publication will generally belimited to the disclosing of the name of the legalentity concerned;• the decision to publish must be reasoned and bepublished together with the decision imposing anadministrative fine;• if an appeal is pending before the Council of State,the publication must clearly indicate this andprovide information on the outcome of the appealonce available, including any annulment;• publication may be temporarily or permanentlywithdrawn if circumstances change.1. new Article XV.5/1, §1, first paragraph, 4° CEL: theEconomic Inspectorate may order online platforms,search engines and comparison tools to stopreferring to clearly illegal online interfaces, bynotifying them of the relevant URLs; and2. new Article XV.5/2 CEL: the Economic Inspectoratemay order intermediary service providers to takeaction against illegal content and to provideinformation enabling the identification of tradersand the investigation of infringements of economiclaw.According to the explanatory memorandum, theseadditional powers are intended to address:• large-scale online fraud (e.g., fake online shops,ticket scams, pyramid schemes, marketplacefraud);• unfair commercial practices, such as hiddensubscriptions;• online sales of fraudulent or counterfeit products;• fraudulent advertising through social media orinfluencers; and• online offers posing immediate risks to publichealth or safety, such as illegal medicines.These powers would enable the Economic Inspectorateto act more quickly and in a targeted manner, whilefacilitating cooperation with intermediaries such ashosting providers, search engines and online platforms.By enabling blocking measures at multiple points in thedigital chain, the proposed framework should also makeit more difficult for fraudsters to reappear online usingalternative domains or technical methods.Nominative Publication of Administrative Fines DuringAppeal Proceedings (Art. 22 Bill I and Art. 2 Bill II)The Bills expand the possibility to publish decisionsimposing administrative fines pursuant to Book XV CEL© 2026 Van Bael & Bellis www.vbb.com 14 | February 2026VBB on Belgian Business Law | Volume 2026, NO 2CONSUMER LAWBill II further amends Article XV.60/15 CEL to clarifythat businesses may challenge before the Council ofState not only the decision imposing an administrativefine but also the decision ordering its nominativepublication. It also specifies that the suspensory effectof the appeal provided for in Article XV.60/15 CELapplies only to the execution of the decision imposingthe fine and does not extend to the decision orderingits nominative publication.Bill I was adopted by the Committee on Economy,Consumer Protection and Digitalisation on 4 March2026 and is currently awaiting plenary adoption by theChamber of Representatives.Bill II, which concerns procedural rules relating toappeals before the Council of State, is subject to thebicameral procedure. In addition to approval by theChamber of Representatives - which is still pending -it must therefore also be adopted by the Senate, as itconcerns matters relating to institutional arrangementsand judicial review.The Dutch version of Bill I is available here and theFrench version is available here.The Dutch version of Bill II is available here and theFrench version is available here.© 2026 Van Bael & Bellis www.vbb.com 15 | February 2026VBB on Belgian Business Law | Volume 2026, NO2DATA PROTECTIONThe CJEU noted that, when a decision is adoptedfollowing several procedural stages, only acts thatdefinitively determine an institution’s position andproduce binding legal effects vis-à-vis third partiesare challengeable. By contrast, intermediate measuresexpressing a provisional position and producing noautonomous legal effects are not challengeable.In the present case, the CJEU found that the wordingof Articles 65 and 68 GDPR, as well as the contentof the act concerned and the powers of the body inquestion, indicated that the EDPB decisions are bindingon third parties. Indeed, the DPC was bound by theEDPB’s findings and even had to attach the EDPB’sdecision to its own final decision. The EDPB decisiondefinitively resolved the legal issues referred to it andwas therefore not merely preparatory in nature.EDPB Decision Was of Direct Concern to WhatsAppThe CJEU also found that the GC had erred inconcluding that the EDPB decision was not of directconcern to WhatsApp under Article 263(4) TFEU.The Court observed that the fact that an act is notformally addressed to the applicant, or that it does notconstitute the final stage of a composite procedure,does not prevent the applicant from being directlyconcerned, provided that the authority responsiblefor implementing the act has no margin of discretion.In addition, the Court reiterated the two cumulativecriteria for direct concern. First, the act must directlyaffect the legal situation of the applicant. In this case,by finding that WhatsApp had infringed specificprovisions of the GDPR, the EDPB decision directlyaffected WhatsApp’s legal situation, in particular bycompelling it to adapt its contractual relationship withusers. The CJEU considered that the fact the DPC isthe sole interlocutor of WhatsApp has no bearing onthat finding.Court of Justice of European Union Holds that BindingDecisions of European Data Protection Board Can BeChallenged Before European CourtsOn 10 February 2026, the Court of Justice of theEuropean Union (CJEU) held that binding decisions ofthe European Data Protection Board (EDPB) adoptedpursuant to Article 65 of the General Data ProtectionRegulation (GDPR) are liable to be challenged beforethe European Courts (WhatsApp Ireland Ltd v EuropeanData Protection Board - C-97/23 P).BackgroundIn 2018, the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC),acting as lead supervisory authority, opened aninvestigation into WhatsApp’s compliance with thetransparency principle under the GDPR. Severalsupervisory authorities raised objections under theconsistency mechanism, and the case was referred tothe EDPB pursuant to Article 65 GDPR.On 28 July 2021, the EDPB adopted a binding decisionrequiring the DPC to amend its draft findings. TheEDPB considered that “lossy hashed data” constitutedpersonal data, leading to additional infringements anda higher fine. In August 2021, the DPC adopted its finaldecision and imposed a fine of EUR 225 million onWhatsApp. WhatsApp challenged this binding decisionbefore the General Court of the European Union (GC),which dismissed the action as inadmissible.WhatsApp then appealed that decision to the CJEU.CJEU Recognises EDPB Binding Decisions asChallengeable ActsThe CJEU first examined whether the EDPB bindingdecision constituted a challengeable act within themeaning of Article 263(1) TFEU and agreed withWhatsApp that the GC had erred in law in that regard.According to the CJEU, whether an act is open tochallenge must be assessed objectively, based onthe substance of the measure, rather than on theapplicant’s position.DATA PROTECTION© 2026 Van Bael & Bellis www.vbb.com 16 | February 2026VBB on Belgian Business Law | Volume 2026, NO2DATA PROTECTIONSecond, the act must leave no discretion to theauthorities responsible for implementing it. TheEDPB decision was binding on the DPC and the otherconcerned authorities, which could not depart fromits conclusions. It definitively settled key legal issues,including the finding of GDPR infringements, thequalification of specific data as personal data and theobligation to increase the level of fines.Accordingly, the CJEU held that WhatsApp was directlyconcerned by the EDPB decision.ConclusionThis judgment follows the Advocate General’s Opiniondelivered in March 2025 and clarifies an importantprocedural question under the GDPR enforcementframework. Companies now have the possibility todirectly challenge EDPB binding decisions before theEU Courts, in addition to appealing the final decision ofthe national supervisory authority. This offers a moredirect procedural avenue and may facilitate fasterjudicial scrutiny at EU level, contributing to a moreuniform interpretation of the GDPR.The judgment also clears the way for judicial review onthe merits in several other cases that had been stayedpending the outcome of this appeal.DATA PROTECTION© 2026 Van Bael & Bellis www.vbb.com 17 | February 2026VBB on Belgian Business Law | Volume 2026, NO 2COMPETITION LAW COMMERCIAL LAWDefinition and ScopeIndirect FDI - A first objective of the Draft Revised FISRwas to bring indirect FDI exercised through an EU entityunderthe scope of the EU FDI screening frameworkfollowing the Xella judgment of the Court of Justiceof the European Union (See, VBB on Competition Law,Volume 2023, Nos. 7-8). Accordingly, the new rulesalso apply to intra-EU investments by EU entitiesdirectly or indirectly controlled by a foreign investor(i.e., an individual who does not hold the nationality of aMember State or a legal entity established or otherwiseorganised under the laws of a third country).Control or effective participation in management - TheDraft Revised FISR further defines “foreign investments”as investments carried out either by a foreign investoror through a foreign investor’s EU subsidiary, “aiming toestablish or to maintain lasting and direct links betweenthe foreign investor and a Union target” “enablingeffective participation in the management or controlof that Union target”. Consideration 16a of the DraftRenewed FISR adds that such effective participation inthe management or control “might also exist where theforeign investor, without having decisive influence overthe Union target, can nonetheless materially impactits commercial policy, behaviour or decisions, forexample through shareholding, voting rights, contracts,including leverage resulting from supplier relationships,and significant board representation”.Portfolio investments exclusion - Consideration 16of the Draft Revised FISR clarifies that acquisitionsof securities intended purely for financial investmentwithout any intention to influence the managementor control of the company (i.e., portfolio investments)should not be covered by the Draft Revised FISR. Thisresonates with case law of the Court of Justice of theEuropean Union on the free movement of capital.EU Institutions Publish New Draft Revised EU ForeignInvestment Screening RegulationOn 11 February 2026, representatives of the EuropeanCommission (the Commission), the Council of theEuropean Union (the Council) and the EuropeanParliament (the Parliament) published a new draft textof the proposed revision of the EU foreign investmentscreening regulation (the Draft Revised FISR). Thedraft is the result of the trilogue negotiations betweenCommission, Council and Parliament that gave rise toa provisional political agreement on 11 December 2025(See, VBB on Belgian Business Law, Volume 2025, Nos.11-12).Status of Draft Revised FISRThe Draft Revised FISR is currently subject to revisionby lawyers-linguists but is expected to be formallyapproved by the Parliament and the Council in April orMay of 2026. As it provides for a transitional periodof 18 months following publication, the final versionwill likely apply as from the beginning of 2028. In themeantime, Regulation (EU) 2019/452 on the screeningof foreign investments in the Union (the FISR) willcontinue to apply to foreign direct investments (FDI).Evolution, No RevolutionSimilar to the FISR, the Draft Revised FISR provides fora common minimum standard for screening FDI into theUnion. It creates a common minimum sectoral scopeof application, common minimum risk assessmentcriteria, and common procedural standards requiringMember States to align their screening procedures upto a certain point.However, the power to screen and authorise FDIremains with the Member States, and the Draft RevisedFISR still leaves room for Member States to divergefrom its minimum standards. As a result, the new ruleswill not create full harmonisation.FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT© 2026 Van Bael & Bellis www.vbb.com 18 | February 2026VBB on Belgian Business Law | Volume 2026, NO 2COMPETITION LAW COMMERCIAL LAWMandatory ScreeningMandatory screening mechanism - Unlike the FISR,which encourages but does not require MemberStates to have an FDI screening mechanism, the DraftRevised FISR would impose an obligation on MemberStates to adopt an FDI screening mechanism thatsatisfies minimum requirements. However, since theintroduction of the FISR, many Member States haveestablished their own screening mechanisms.Mandatory ex ante notification - Importantly, theDraft Revised FISR stipulates that Member Statesshould subject FDI in the following sectors to a priornotification requirement, if the target:• Develops, produces or commercialises dual-useitems listed on the common list of dual-use itemssubject to export controls;• Develops, produces or commercialises goods andtechnology listed on the EU common military list;• Produces, conducts research in or developssemiconductors or quantum technologies, orconducts research in or develops AI, each beingfurther defined in the Draft Revised FISR (theconcept of AI is based on the EU AI Act, focusingon general purpose AI models suitable for space ordefence or posing systemic risk);• Is active in the transport, energy or digitalinfrastructure sectors and is considered criticalpursuant to a risk-based targeted assessmentperformed by the Member State (still, there is noconnection with the Cybersecurity Directive (NIS2)or the Critical Entities Resilience (CER) Directive);• Explores, extracts, processes, recycles, recoversor stockpiles critical raw materials as defined in theCritical Raw Materials Act;• Qualifies as a specific financial institution; or• Owns, develops or operates specific votingsystems.EU’s resolution tool exclusion - Unsurprisingly, the DraftRevised FISR stipulates that it does not apply to FDImade pursuant to the EU’s resolution tools for failingbanks or insurance companies. This is because in suchcircumstances “time is of the essence and decisionsare often made overnight”. While the same may be truefor other transactions, the interest of avoiding financialstability risks would justify the exclusion.Internal restructurings exclusion - As expected, theDraft Revised FISR will not apply to internal corporaterestructurings if they do not result in a change ofthe beneficial ownership and if no new legal entityestablished in a third country not already present in theupstream ownership chain of the target is introducedinto that chain.As such, in addition to the concepts of “control”(when establishing whether an EU entity might qualifyas a foreign investor) and “effective participationin the management or control” (when establishingthe acquisition threshold), the Draft Revised FISRunhelpfully refers to beneficial ownership as anotherform of ownership or control. The draft definesbeneficial ownership but makes no link to the existingconcept of beneficial ownership under EU anti-moneylaundering legislation (which is, for instance, explicitlymade in the current Belgian FDI screening mechanism).Beneficial ownership would also be relevant to thesubstantial risk assessment.Divergence in acquisition thresholds - MemberStates retain the discretion to apply lower acquisitionthresholds and also have the power to subject internalrestructurings to their own national FDI screeningmechanisms.Greenfield investments - Similarly, Member Statesremain free to decide whether or not to capturegreenfield investments.FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT© 2026 Van Bael & Bellis www.vbb.com 19 | February 2026VBB on Belgian Business Law | Volume 2026, NO 2COMPETITION LAW COMMERCIAL LAWespecially considering that most deals are cleared inthe first phase. However, the Draft Revised FISR doesnot impose a hard deadline on screening authorities toconfirm the completeness of a notification (at whichtime the 45 calendar day period starts running): theyare only required to do so “without undue delay”. Inaddition, the Draft Revised FISR imposes no concretelimitation on the second phase review period. As aresult, the timing of reviews may still be a source ofdivergence between Member States and, dependingon the Member State, affect the predictability of dealtimelines.Under the current Belgian FDI screening mechanism,the screening authorities have 30 calendar days toinform the investor whether the notified investment isapproved, or will be subject to an in-depth investigation,absent which it is deemed to be approved. In light ofthe new maximum period of 45 calendar days for firstphase reviews under the Draft Revised FISR, as wellas the procedural deadlines for Member States andthe Commission to provide comments and opinions,the question arises whether Belgium will increase themaximum period for first phase reviews.Cooperation mechanism - The Draft Revised FISRpreserves the current cooperation mechanism pursuantto which Member States share specific notifiedtransactions with each other and the Commission,allowing them to submit comments and opinionsregarding those notifications. The Draft Revised FISRseeks to streamline the functioning of the cooperationmechanism.For instance, notified FDI that fall under the minimumscope of investments subject to a prior notificationobligation under the Draft Revised FISR should beshared if the foreign investor (i) is controlled by a thirdcountry government, (ii) is sanctioned, or (iii) has beenrefused a FDI under an EU FDI screening mechanismor was authorised subject to mitigating measures andrepeatedly or significantly violated those measures.Member States will also be required to share notifiedFDI through the cooperation mechanism if they initiatean in-depth investigation and the target (i) is active in alisted project or programme of Union interest or (ii) hasMember States will remain free to have a more extensivesectoral scope of application. The question remains towhich extent Member States will bring their existingsectoral scopes in line with the above minimum scopeof the Draft Revised FISR. For instance, the BelgianFDI screening mechanism arguably already subjectsspecific FDI in the above sectors to a prior notificationobligation (See, this Newsletter, Volume 2025, Nos.11-12). However, the question is whether Belgium willtake the opportunity to narrow down the existing scopeby, formally or informally, bringing it in line with theminimum scope provided for by the Draft Revised FISR,and excluding internal restructurings.Mandatory ex officio screening - In addition, MemberStates will be required to screen non-notified butnotifiable FDI for at least 24 months followingcompletion. Surprisingly, Member States will alsobe required to authorise their screening authoritiesto screen and adopt screening decisions regardingnon-notifiable FDI falling within the scope of theirscreening mechanisms for at least 15 months and upto a maximum of 5 years following completion. Whilethe Belgian FDI screening mechanism already satisfiesthese requirements, many Member States will have toupdate their screening mechanisms accordingly.Procedural HarmonisationCommon structure - In a welcome move, the DraftRevised FISR will require all Member States to organisetheir screening mechanisms on the basis of a commontwo-phase structure. In the first phase, Member Stateswill perform an initial review and decide whether anin-depth investigation is necessary. In the secondphase, Member States will, if necessary, carry out anin-depth investigation to determine whether an FDI islikely to affect security or public order. While manyMember States, such as Belgium, already work inaccordance with a two-phase structure, others, likeItaly and Spain, will have to adjust their screeningmechanisms.New timelines - The Draft Revised FISR limits thefirst phase review to 45 calendar days, which maycontribute to the predictability of deal timelines,FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT© 2026 Van Bael & Bellis www.vbb.com 20 | February 2026VBB on Belgian Business Law | Volume 2026, NO 2COMPETITION LAW COMMERCIAL LAW• protection of sensitive information;• freedom and pluralism of media;• protection of electoral processes;• protection of public health and food security;• listed projects and programmes of EU interest; and• security of military and other sensitive facilities andtheir immediate proximity,- information on the foreign investor, including whether it:• may pursue a third country’s policy objectives;• has a history of non-compliance with mitigationmeasures;• has already been involved in activities affecting thesecurity or public order of a Member State;• has engaged in illegal or criminal activities;• is established in a jurisdiction lacking robust antimoney-laundering or transparency regimes;• is subject to third-country legislation requiringinformation sharing for intelligence purposeswithout due process or oversight; or• has an “opaque” ownership structure.The Commission plans to make available a riskevaluation form to facilitate this assessment. However,Member States will remain free to consider additionalrisk criteria.Information gathering assistance - The Draft RevisedFISR provides for the possibility of the screeningMember State or the Commission to request anotherMember State to gather information from a personwithin its territory. A screening Member State may alsoor is part of a group with one or more subsidiaries inat least one other Member State, or in any case if theyestimate that the FDI could affect security or publicorder in another Member State.Multijurisdictional notifications - With respect totransactions that will be notified for FDI screeningpurposes in multiple Member States, the Draft RevisedFISR provides for specific rules to harmonise proceduraltimelines. Unhelpfully, the Draft Revised FISR requiresforeign investors to endeavour filing in all relevantMember States on the same day, thereby increasing theadministrative burden on foreign investors that have tocoordinate multiple filings.Joint EU platform - The Draft Revised FISR provides forthe option of creating a joint EU portal for submitting FDInotifications upon the request of nine Member States.It is unclear when this portal will come into existence,if ever. The Draft Revised FISR will also require theCommission to issue guidelines and a notificationform for Member States to notify investments to thecooperation mechanism (as it currently already does).Identifying and Addressing RisksCommon minimum substantive review criteria - Witha view to establishing a common minimum baselineagainst which screening authorities should assessrisks to safety and public order, the Draft RevisedFSR provides for minimum substantive review criteria.These should help guide foreign investors to identifyany type of scrutiny which their envisaged FDI mayencounter. The criteria will require Member States andthe Commission when assessing FDI to consider:- potential effects on the:• availability of critical technologies and protectionand availability of intellectual property;• continuity of supply of critical inputs;• security, integrity, resilience and functioning ofcritical infrastructure;FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT© 2026 Van Bael & Bellis www.vbb.com 21 | February 2026VBB on Belgian Business Law | Volume 2026, NO 2COMPETITION LAW COMMERCIAL LAWrequest the Commission to gather such information inanother Member State, provided that the other MemberState does not object.EU solidarity - When screening Member States receivecomments or an opinion from other Member States orthe Commission, the Member State will be requiredto share the operative part of the ultimate screeningdecision, together with a summary and main reasonsfor the decision, as well as the extent to which itgave due consideration to the Member States orCommission’s comments or opinion, or the reasons forits disagreement.Outcome and mitigating measures - The Draft RevisedFISR stipulates that Member States should authorisetheir screening authorities to approve FDI subject tomitigating measures or prohibit or unwind the FDI. Inthis respect, the draft provides, by way of example, fora list of mitigating measures. Interestingly, the draftstipulates that Member States may only prohibit orunwind FDI if the impact on security or public ordercannot be adequately addressed through other means.Increased TransparencyGuidelines - The Draft Revised FISR further introducesseveral measures to enhance the transparency of thenational FDI screening mechanisms. For example,Member States will be required to publish guidance onthe scope, thresholds, triggers for notification, timelinesand procedural rules of their screening mechanisms.Specific Member States, such as Belgium, have alreadypublished such guidelines, but explicitly shy away fromoffering meaningful guidance on material scope.Reporting, databases and complaints - Finally, the DraftRevised FISR provides for increased annual reportingobligations on the Member States, the creation of acentral EU case database, and the obligation of theCommission and Member States to publish contactdetails for the submission of confidential informationconcerning FDI.The Draft Revised FISR is available here in English.FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT© 2026 Van Bael & Bellis www.vbb.com 22 | February 2026VBB on Belgian Business Law | Volume 2026, NO 2Since the implementation of Article 7 of Directive2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and ofthe Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcementof intellectual property rights (the EnforcementDirective), protective letters have become part of theintellectual property practice in Belgium. This provisionrequires Member States to ensure that measures forpreserving evidence are available before proceedingson the merits start. In Belgium, such measures alreadyexisted through descriptive seizure proceedings, butthe novelty introduced by the Enforcement Directivelies in the possibility of being heard at the initial stageof the procedure. The possibility of being heard beforethe execution of the measures was implemented byArticle 1369bis/1, § 4 of the Belgian Judicial Code.However, this right only applies to actual seizuremeasures and not to purely descriptive measures.Therefore, Belgian practice progressively developedthe use of protective letters without any formal basis.However, the lack of a formal registration systemhas led specific courts to refuse such letters. Itnevertheless appears that most Enterprise Courts arewilling to receive and consider protective letters, withthe exception of the French-language Enterprise Courtof Brussels and the Enterprise Court in Liège.Already in 2009, the Dutch-language Brussels Barissued limited guidelines requiring that the protectiveletter be submitted in a sealed envelope, accompaniedby a short cover letter containing only the informationstrictly necessary to identify the parties and theIP rights concerned. The attachment in the sealedenvelope was required to set out the arguments againstthe descriptive seizure order. The envelope was openedonly following a filing of a petition for a descriptiveseizure order. It was also good practice to refer inthe cover letter to the recommendation of the Dutchlanguage Brussels Bar, so that the court’s registry hadno doubt regarding the nature of the protective letter.Dutch-Language Enterprise Court of BrusselsIntroduces Intellectual Property Litigation Protocoland Formalises Use of Protective LettersOn 20 February 2026, the Dutch-language EnterpriseCourt of Brussels and the Dutch-language Brussels Barsigned a protocol entitled “IP Litigation Best Practices”(the Protocol). The Protocol entered into force on 2March 2026 and aims to strengthen cooperationbetween the judiciary and the legal profession inintellectual property disputes. It provides the followingbest practices:• clear and timely communication between all partiesinvolved;• efficient organisation of hearings;• agreements regarding procedural documents,bundles of exhibits, and language use;• the introduction of a verification hearing to avoidthe loss of (pleading) time;• attention to the protection of trade secrets andconfidentiality; and• the encouragement of alternative disputeresolution.Interestingly, the Protocol also clarifies the use ofprotective letters in IP disputes.Protective Letters in BelgiumProtective letters originate from the German practiceof Schutzschriften. In Germany, Schutzschriften arewidely used not only in intellectual property disputesbut more generally in any legal context in which aparty anticipates a unilateral application for interimrelief, including interim injunctions or seizure orders.Protective letters are also used in Belgium, France, andthe Netherlands.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY© 2026 Van Bael & Bellis www.vbb.com 23 | February 2026VBB on Belgian Business Law | Volume 2026, NO 2The Protocol now clarifies that in the event of aunilateral petition, the President of the court will verifywhether a protective letter has been filed, and if that isthe case, the parties will be summoned to appear in thechambers of the court. This is an important clarificationwhich provides some legal certainty as to how the courtwill deal with such protective letters. However, it isuncertain how long the court will be required to keepthe protective letters which it receives.While the Protocol’s application is formally limited tothe Dutch-language Enterprise Court of Brussels, it ishoped that the Protocol will influence the practice offiling protective letters before other Enterprise Courtsin IP disputes.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY© 2026 Van Bael & Bellis www.vbb.com 24 | February 2026VBB on Belgian Business Law | Volume 2026, NO 2Nominal Value of Meal Vouchers Increased to EUR 10As of 1 January 2026, the maximum nominal value ofmeal vouchers wasincreased from EUR 8 to EUR 10(See, Koninklijk besluit tot wijziging van artikel 19bisvan het koninklijk besluit van 28 november 1969 totuitvoering van de wet van 27 juni 1969 tot herzieningvan de besluitwet van 28 december 1944 betreffendede maatschappelijke zekerheid der arbeiders/ Arrêtéroyal modifiant l’article 19bis de l’arrêté royal du28 novembre 1969 pris en exécution de la loi du 27juin 1969 révisant l’arrêté-loi du 28 décembre 1944concernant la sécurité sociale des travailleurs - theRoyal Decree). Accordingly, the maximum employer’scontribution increases from EUR 6.91 to EUR 8.91, whilethe minimal employee’s contribution remains at EUR1.09.However, this nominal value will not increaseautomatically. Employers will be obliged to implementthis increase if the relevant sector’s collective labouragreement provides for such an increase (e.g. in thechemical and food industries). However, an employercan also voluntarily implement the increase byconcluding a collective labour agreement at companylevel or amending individual employment agreements.Simultaneously, the rules on tax deductibility have beenupdated. Employers providing the maximum employer’scontribution of EUR 8.91 can deduct up to EUR 4 permeal voucher from the corporate income tax, comparedto EUR 2 previously. On the other hand, meal voucherswhose value has not been increased remain deductibleup to a maximum of EUR 2 per meal voucher.The Royal Decree can be found here (Dutch) and here(French).New Measures on Unemployment Allowances andMeal Vouchers Entered into ForceEntitlement to Unemployment Allowances afterResignation or Mutual TerminationEmployees may, as of 1 March 2026, rely on a onetime entitlement to unemployment benefits ifthey resign or if their employment agreement isterminated by mutual consent (Programmawet van18 juli 2025/Loi-programme du 18 juillet 2025 - theProgramme Law). Under normal circumstances,employees who resign or consent to the terminationof their employment agreement can be sanctionedby the National Employment Office (Rijksdienst voorArbeidsvoorziening/Office National de l’Emploi).Employees can be temporarily suspended for aperiod of 4to 52 weeks and thus precluded fromreceiving unemployment allowances, as this form ofunemployment is not considered to have arisen againstthe will of the employee (See, this Newsletter, Volume2025, No. 8).This one-time measure applies to terminations as from1 March 2026 and to employees who have accumulatedat least 10 professional career years or similar periodsover the course of their entire career (and not solelywith their current employer). In such cases, theseemployees are entitled to unemployment benefits for alimited period of 6 months. However, this period may beextended once to 12 months if the employee has trainingin a sector characterised by labour shortages (e.g.nursing assistant, worksite manager, tiler, maintenanceelectrician) during the first 3 months of receivingunemployment allowances and successfully completessuch training. The claim to unemployment allowancesmust be submitted within 30 days of the notificationof exclusion from unemployment allowances due toabandonment of employment.The Programme Law can be found here (Dutch) andhere (French).LABOUR LAWBrussels officeGlaverbel BuildingChaussée de La Hulpe 166B-1170 BrusselsBelgiumPhone:+32 (0)2 647 73 50Fax:+32 (0)2 640 64 99Geneva office26, Bd des PhilosophesCH-1205 GenevaSwitzerlandPhone:+41 (0)22 320 90 20Fax:+41 (0)22 320 94 20London office5, Chancery LaneLondonC4A 1BLUnited KingdomT +44 (0)20 7406 1471www.vbb.comBrusselsGlaverbel BuildingChaussée de La Hulpe 166TerhulpsesteenwegB-1170 BrusselsBelgiumPhone: +32 (0)2 647 73 50E-mail: [email protected], Chemin des MinesCH-1205 GenevaSwitzerlandE-mail: [email protected] Gate330 High HolbornLondonWC1V 7QHUnited KingdomPhone: +44 (0)20 7406 1471E-mail: [email protected]