Enforcement of Foreign Court Judgments and Arbitral Awards in Belgium

Belgium provides two legally distinct pathways for creditors seeking to give effect to a foreign court judgment or an arbitral award on Belgian territory. The exequatur procedure - a formal judicial recognition mechanism - applies to foreign court decisions, while the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards governs most arbitral awards. Both tracks require active court involvement, carry specific procedural conditions, and present risks that international creditors frequently underestimate. This article maps the legal framework, procedural steps, applicable timelines, cost considerations, and strategic pitfalls for each route, giving business decision-makers a practical foundation for planning enforcement action in Belgium.

Belgium's primary codification of private international law is the Code of Private International Law (Code de droit international privé / Wetboek van internationaal privaatrecht), enacted in 2004 and subsequently amended. Article 22 of that Code sets out the general conditions under which a foreign judgment may be recognised or declared enforceable in Belgium. These conditions are cumulative: the foreign court must have had proper jurisdiction under Belgian conflict-of-jurisdiction rules, the judgment must not be contrary to Belgian public policy (ordre public), the rights of defence must have been respected in the foreign proceedings, and the judgment must be final and enforceable in the state of origin.

For judgments originating within the European Union, the Brussels I Recast Regulation (EU Regulation 1215/2012) largely supersedes the domestic Code. Under the Brussels I Recast, judgments from EU member states are automatically recognised without any special procedure. Enforcement, however, still requires obtaining a declaration of enforceability from the Belgian court, although the grounds for refusal are narrow and exhaustively listed in Articles 45 and 46 of the Regulation.

For arbitral awards, Belgium is a signatory to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The Convention is implemented through Articles 1710 to 1722 of the Belgian Judicial Code (Code judiciaire / Gerechtelijk Wetboek). Article 1721 of the Judicial Code specifies that recognition or enforcement of a foreign arbitral award may be refused only on the grounds listed in Article V of the New York Convention - a deliberately narrow set of defences.

Belgium also maintains bilateral treaties with a number of non-EU states that may affect the applicable recognition regime. Practitioners should verify treaty status before defaulting to the domestic Code, as a bilateral instrument may offer more favourable conditions or impose additional requirements.

The exequatur (exequatur / exequatur) is the Belgian judicial act that transforms a foreign court judgment into a locally enforceable title. Without it, a foreign judgment has no direct coercive force in Belgium, regardless of its validity in the country of origin.

The competent court for exequatur applications is the Court of First Instance (Tribunal de première instance / Rechtbank van eerste aanleg) sitting in the district where the debtor is domiciled or where enforcement is sought. Applications are filed by way of a unilateral petition (requête unilatérale / eenzijdig verzoekschrift), meaning the debtor is not initially summoned. The court examines the application on the documents submitted, without a full adversarial hearing at this stage.

The applicant must produce the following documents:

• A certified copy of the foreign judgment, authenticated where required by the law of the state of origin.
• A certified translation into French, Dutch or German, depending on the linguistic region of the competent court.
• Evidence that the judgment is final and enforceable in the state of origin (typically a certificate issued by the foreign court).
• Where applicable, proof that the defendant was duly served in the foreign proceedings.

The court reviews compliance with Article 22 of the Code of Private International Law. It does not re-examine the merits of the dispute (révision au fond is expressly prohibited). The review is limited to the four conditions: jurisdiction of the foreign court, public policy, rights of defence, and finality.

In practice, the public policy ground is the most frequently invoked basis for refusal. Belgian courts interpret public policy narrowly in the international context (ordre public international), meaning that a foreign judgment will not be refused simply because Belgian substantive law would have produced a different outcome. Refusal requires a manifest incompatibility with fundamental Belgian legal principles - for example, a judgment rendered without any opportunity for the defendant to be heard, or one awarding punitive damages of a scale that Belgian courts consider disproportionate.

Timelines for the exequatur procedure vary. In straightforward cases involving EU judgments under Brussels I Recast, the declaration of enforceability can be obtained within four to eight weeks. For non-EU judgments under the domestic Code, the process typically takes two to four months at first instance, assuming the file is complete. If the debtor challenges the exequatur - which is possible by way of opposition (opposition / verzet) within one month of notification of the order - the matter becomes adversarial and timelines extend significantly, often to six to eighteen months including any appeal.

A common mistake made by international creditors is submitting incomplete documentation, particularly failing to provide a properly legalised or apostilled copy of the foreign judgment. Belgian courts will not grant exequatur on the basis of uncertified documents, and the application will be rejected, requiring re-filing and causing delay.

To receive a checklist for preparing an exequatur application for foreign court judgments in Belgium, send a request to info@vlolawfirm.com.

Belgium's arbitration framework is among the more liberal in Europe. The country has maintained a policy of minimal judicial interference in arbitration since the 1985 reform of its arbitration law, and the current framework under Articles 1710-1722 of the Judicial Code reflects that tradition.

A foreign arbitral award - meaning an award made outside Belgium or treated as foreign under applicable rules - is recognised and enforced in Belgium through an application to the Court of First Instance. The application is made by unilateral petition, similar to the exequatur procedure for court judgments. The competent court is determined by the domicile of the debtor or the location of the assets to be seized.

The applicant must produce:

• The original arbitral award or a duly certified copy.
• The original arbitration agreement or a certified copy.
• A certified translation of both documents if they are not in French, Dutch or German.

The court's review is strictly limited to the grounds in Article V of the New York Convention. These grounds fall into two categories. The first category - raised only at the request of the party opposing enforcement - covers defects in the arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice, awards exceeding the scope of submission, irregular composition of the tribunal, and awards not yet binding or set aside in the country of origin. The second category - which the court may raise on its own motion - covers non-arbitrability of the subject matter and violation of Belgian public policy.

Belgian courts have consistently applied the pro-enforcement bias embedded in the New York Convention. The burden of proof lies on the party resisting enforcement. A mere allegation that the award is incorrect on the merits is not a valid ground for refusal. Courts have declined to refuse enforcement even where the underlying contract was governed by a law other than Belgian law, or where the arbitral procedure differed from Belgian domestic arbitration rules.

One non-obvious risk concerns awards that have been challenged or set aside in the country of origin. Under Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention, enforcement may be refused if the award has been set aside by a competent authority in the country where it was made. Belgian courts have discretion here - they are not automatically required to refuse enforcement of a set-aside award - but in practice they will scrutinise the circumstances of the annulment carefully. If the annulment was obtained through a procedure that itself violated due process, Belgian courts have shown willingness to enforce the award notwithstanding the foreign annulment.

Timelines for enforcing arbitral awards are broadly similar to those for court judgments: four to eight weeks for uncontested applications, and considerably longer if the debtor mounts opposition. The opposition period is one month from notification of the enforcement order.

Many underappreciate the importance of the arbitration agreement's formal validity. Belgian courts applying the New York Convention will examine whether the agreement satisfies the formal requirements of Article II of the Convention - a written agreement signed by the parties or contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams. Modern electronic communications generally satisfy this requirement, but the applicant should be prepared to demonstrate the chain of consent clearly.

Scenario one: EU judgment against a Belgian subsidiary. A German company obtains a judgment against its Belgian subsidiary in a German court. The judgment is final and concerns a commercial debt of EUR 800,000. Under Brussels I Recast, the judgment is automatically recognised. The German company files for a declaration of enforceability in the Belgian Court of First Instance in Brussels. The court issues the declaration within six weeks. The Belgian subsidiary does not challenge the declaration. The German company then instructs a Belgian bailiff (huissier de justice / gerechtsdeurwaarder) to levy execution on the subsidiary's bank accounts. Total legal costs at this stage - excluding bailiff fees - are in the low thousands of EUR.

Scenario two: ICC award against a Belgian real estate owner. A Singaporean company holds an ICC arbitral award for USD 3.5 million against a Belgian individual who owns real estate in Antwerp. The award was rendered in Paris. The Singaporean company files a New York Convention enforcement application in the Court of First Instance in Antwerp. The Belgian debtor opposes enforcement, arguing the arbitration agreement was invalid. The court examines the agreement and finds it satisfies Article II of the Convention. The opposition is dismissed. The enforcement order is upheld on appeal eight months later. The Singaporean company then registers a judicial mortgage (hypothèque judiciaire / gerechtelijke hypotheek) on the Antwerp property. Legal costs across both instances run into the mid-five figures in EUR.

Scenario three: Non-EU judgment with public policy challenge. A US company obtains a judgment including punitive damages against a Belgian distributor. The judgment is for USD 12 million, of which USD 9 million represents punitive damages. The Belgian Court of First Instance grants exequatur for the compensatory portion but refuses it for the punitive damages component, finding that the quantum of punitive damages is manifestly contrary to Belgian international public policy. The US company appeals. The Court of Appeal partially upholds the refusal but allows a reduced punitive element. The process takes approximately twenty months. This scenario illustrates that partial exequatur is possible and that the public policy ground, while narrow, has practical bite in cases involving punitive or exemplary damages.

To receive a checklist for enforcing arbitral awards in Belgium under the New York Convention, send a request to info@vlolawfirm.com.

Obtaining an exequatur or an enforcement order is only the first step. The creditor must then locate and seize assets in Belgium. Belgian enforcement law is governed by Part V of the Judicial Code (Articles 1386 onwards), which provides for several forms of execution.

The most common enforcement measures available once a Belgian enforcement title exists are:

• Seizure of bank accounts (saisie-arrêt / beslag onder derden), directed at Belgian banks holding funds of the debtor.
• Seizure of movable assets (saisie mobilière / roerend beslag), covering inventory, equipment and other tangible property.
• Judicial mortgage on immovable property (hypothèque judiciaire / gerechtelijke hypotheek), which creates a security interest in Belgian real estate.
• Garnishment of receivables owed to the debtor by third parties.

All enforcement measures in Belgium must be carried out through a bailiff. The bailiff has exclusive competence to serve enforcement documents and to conduct seizures. Creditors cannot self-help. The bailiff's fees are regulated and are generally modest relative to the amounts at stake, but they add to the overall cost of enforcement.

A practical difficulty arises in identifying the debtor's Belgian assets. Belgium does not maintain a single public register of all assets. Bank account information is not publicly accessible. The Central Contact Point for Accounts and Financial Contracts (Point de contact central des comptes et contrats financiers / Centraal Aanspreekpunt van rekeningen en financiële contracten), maintained by the National Bank of Belgium, allows bailiffs - but not private parties directly - to identify the banks where a debtor holds accounts, once an enforcement title exists. This mechanism significantly improves the creditor's ability to locate funds, but it requires the enforcement title to already be in hand.

For real estate, the Belgian mortgage register (Conservation des hypothèques / Hypotheekkantoor) is publicly accessible and allows creditors to verify ownership and existing encumbrances before committing to enforcement action.

A common mistake made by foreign creditors is assuming that obtaining the exequatur automatically freezes the debtor's assets. It does not. Belgian law does not provide for automatic asset freezing upon recognition. A creditor who fears dissipation of assets before the exequatur is granted should consider applying for a conservatory seizure (saisie conservatoire / bewarend beslag) in parallel. A conservatory seizure requires a showing of urgency and the existence of a claim, but does not require a final enforceable title. It can be obtained on an ex parte basis within days, and it prevents the debtor from disposing of the seized assets pending the main enforcement procedure.

The risk of inaction is real: a debtor who becomes aware of impending enforcement proceedings has time to transfer assets to other jurisdictions or to third parties. Belgian courts have tools to address fraudulent transfers - the actio pauliana (action paulienne / Pauliaanse vordering) under Article 1167 of the former Civil Code allows creditors to challenge dispositions made in fraud of their rights - but litigation of such claims adds cost and delay. Acting promptly after obtaining the enforcement title is therefore commercially critical.

We can help build a strategy for asset identification and seizure in Belgium. Contact info@vlolawfirm.com to discuss your situation.

Jurisdiction of the Belgian court. The choice of the correct court is not merely procedural. Filing in the wrong district can result in the application being declared inadmissible, requiring re-filing and losing weeks or months. The general rule is that the court of the debtor's domicile is competent. Where the debtor has no domicile in Belgium but assets are located there, the court of the place where the assets are situated has jurisdiction. For legal entities, domicile is the registered office.

Translation requirements. Belgian courts operate in three official languages: French, Dutch and German, depending on the linguistic region. A judgment or award submitted in English - or any other language - must be accompanied by a certified translation into the language of the court. Errors or omissions in translation are a frequent cause of delay. The translation must be produced by a sworn translator (traducteur juré / beëdigd vertaler) recognised in Belgium.

Limitation periods. Belgium imposes limitation periods on enforcement actions. Under Article 2262bis of the former Civil Code (now largely replaced by the new Civil Code, Nouveau Code civil / Nieuw Burgerlijk Wetboek, which entered into force progressively from 2020), the general limitation period for enforcement of a judgment is ten years from the date the judgment became final. For arbitral awards, the same ten-year period applies by analogy. Creditors who delay enforcement risk losing their right to act entirely.

Public policy as a strategic defence. Debtors in Belgium frequently invoke the public policy ground as a delaying tactic, even where the substantive basis is weak. Belgian courts are generally resistant to such arguments, but the debtor's right to raise opposition means that even a clearly meritorious enforcement application can be delayed by six to eighteen months if the debtor is determined to resist. Creditors should factor this into their timeline and cash-flow planning.

Interaction with Belgian insolvency proceedings. If the Belgian debtor is subject to insolvency proceedings - judicial reorganisation (réorganisation judiciaire / gerechtelijke reorganisatie) under the Law of 31 January 2009, or bankruptcy (faillite / faillissement) under the Code of Economic Law (Code de droit économique / Wetboek van economisch recht) - enforcement actions may be automatically stayed. A creditor who obtains an exequatur while insolvency proceedings are pending may find that the enforcement title cannot be executed until the insolvency is resolved. Early identification of the debtor's financial situation is therefore essential before committing to the cost of enforcement proceedings.

Cost-benefit analysis. The economics of enforcement in Belgium depend heavily on the amount at stake and the nature of the debtor's assets. For claims below EUR 50,000, the cost of full enforcement proceedings - including translation, legal fees, bailiff costs and potential appeal - may consume a significant portion of the recovery. For claims above EUR 500,000, the cost-benefit ratio is generally favourable, particularly where the debtor has identifiable Belgian real estate or bank accounts. Legal fees for enforcement proceedings typically start from the low thousands of EUR for uncontested applications and rise into the mid-five figures for contested multi-instance proceedings.

De jure vs de facto requirements. The Code of Private International Law formally requires only that the foreign judgment be final and enforceable in the state of origin. In practice, Belgian courts also expect the applicant to demonstrate, through documentary evidence, that the foreign court had proper jurisdiction under Belgian conflict rules. This de facto requirement goes beyond what the statute literally demands, and applicants who fail to address it risk having the application returned for supplementation.

To receive a checklist for managing enforcement risks and avoiding common pitfalls in Belgium, send a request to info@vlolawfirm.com.

What is the most significant practical risk when enforcing a foreign judgment in Belgium?

The most significant practical risk is the debtor's ability to dissipate assets between the time the creditor initiates the exequatur procedure and the time the enforcement title is obtained and executed. Belgian law does not automatically freeze assets upon filing an enforcement application. A creditor who does not apply for a conservatory seizure in parallel with the exequatur procedure may find that the debtor has transferred funds or property by the time enforcement is possible. The conservatory seizure mechanism is available on an urgent ex parte basis and provides meaningful interim protection, but it requires a separate application and a showing of urgency. Failing to use this tool is one of the most costly strategic errors in Belgian enforcement practice.

How long does enforcement typically take, and what does it cost?

For uncontested EU judgments under Brussels I Recast, the full process from filing to execution can be completed in two to four months, with legal costs starting from the low thousands of EUR. For non-EU judgments under the domestic Code, or for arbitral awards where the debtor mounts opposition, the process routinely extends to twelve to twenty-four months across all instances, with legal costs rising into the mid-five figures in EUR for complex contested matters. Bailiff fees and translation costs are additional. The cost of inaction - allowing a debtor to dissipate assets or become insolvent - typically far exceeds the cost of prompt enforcement action, which is why early engagement with Belgian counsel is commercially important.

When should a creditor choose conservatory seizure over immediate exequatur proceedings?

Conservatory seizure and exequatur proceedings are not mutually exclusive - they can and often should run in parallel. Conservatory seizure is the right tool when there is a credible risk that the debtor will transfer or conceal assets before the enforcement title is obtained. It requires only a showing of urgency and the existence of a claim, not a final judgment or award. Once the conservatory seizure is in place, the creditor has time to complete the exequatur or New York Convention enforcement procedure without the risk of asset dissipation. If the debtor's assets are stable and there is no dissipation risk - for example, where the debtor owns Belgian real estate that cannot easily be transferred - the creditor may proceed directly to exequatur without a conservatory seizure, saving the cost and procedural burden of the interim measure.

Enforcing a foreign court judgment or arbitral award in Belgium is a structured process governed by clear legal rules, but it demands careful preparation, correct documentation, and strategic timing. The exequatur procedure and the New York Convention track each offer reliable pathways to enforcement, provided the applicant understands the conditions, the procedural sequence, and the risks of debtor resistance. The interaction with conservatory seizure, insolvency law, and asset identification tools makes Belgian enforcement a multi-layered exercise that rewards early planning and specialist legal support.

Our law firm VLO Law Firm has experience supporting clients in Belgium on recognition and enforcement matters, including exequatur proceedings, New York Convention applications, conservatory seizures and post-enforcement asset recovery. We can assist with structuring the next steps, preparing documentation, coordinating with Belgian bailiffs, and managing contested enforcement proceedings. To receive a consultation, contact: info@vlolawfirm.com.