Belgium's Anti-SLAPP law

At the end of April 2026, the Belgian Government approved the bill that aims to prevent Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). SLAPPs are legal proceedings brought not to genuinely assert a right, but primarily to silence, intimidate or financially exhaust individuals who speak out on matters of public interest. Typical targets include journalists, human rights defenders, NGOs, academics, trade unions, artists and whistleblowers. The chilling effect of SLAPPs goes beyond the individual target: prolonged litigation, reputational damage and mounting legal costs encourage self-censorship and impoverish public debate to the detriment of democracy as a whole.

Under the bill, Belgium will transpose EU Directive 2024/1069 of 11 April 2024 on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings. Member States had until 7 May 2026 to transpose the anti-SLAPP Directive into national law, a deadline that Belgium will not meet as the bill is still subject to debate and a final vote in the national parliament. 

Belgium uses the minimum harmonisation window offered by the Directive to provide stronger protection in several respects.

Broader scope: all civil cases, not just cross-border

The Directive only mandates protection in civil or commercial proceedings with cross-border implications, as required by the EU's competence over judicial cooperation. The Belgian bill deliberately extends the same safeguards to purely domestic proceedings. According to the Minister of Justice, there is no objective justification for treating victims of domestic SLAPPs less favourably than those involved in cross-border cases: the chilling effect is identical regardless of whether a cross-border element is present.

Amendments to the Judicial Code

The bill inserts new provisions and amends existing ones in the Judicial Code to give practical effect to all key safeguards:

• Security for costs – The defendant may require the claimant to provide security for costs at any stage of the proceedings, and this request must be dealt with swiftly. The court may even order such security ex officio. The amount of the security must not disproportionately infringe the claimant's right of access to justice. 
• Early dismissal of the claims – The defendant may request early dismissal of the claims against it at any stage, in writing or orally at the hearing. Requests are given priority status, using a succinct-debate procedure when filed at the introductory hearing. Once an early dismissal request is filed, the claimant must substantiate the claim sufficiently for the court to assess whether it is manifestly unfounded. An early dismissal decision may be appealed; a refusal to dismiss may not.
• Remedies following a finding of abuse – Cost orders, damages and sanctions are all available even if the claimant subsequently amends or withdraws its claim.

Enhanced civil fine: up to €25,000

The Judicial Code, which already provides for a civil fine in cases of procedural abuse, will be amended to raise the maximum to €25,000 for SLAPP-related abuse (Article 780bis of the Judicial Code). This sanction is cumulative with any damages the victim may claim. 

If passed, the bill will also amend the Judicial Code on the procedural indemnity (rechtsplegingsvergoeding/indemnité de procedure – Article 1022 of the Judicial Code). The courts will be required, upon finding any form of procedural abuse, to increase the procedural indemnity – potentially above the statutory maximum – to cover the victim's full legal costs unless excessive, codifying the Court of Cassation's judgment of 22 December 2021.

Amicus curiae mechanism

Building on existing intervention rights in Articles 15 and 17 of the Judicial Code, the bill introduces a formal amicus curiae mechanism. Certain legal persons (associations, NGOs, trade unions and similar entities with a legitimate interest in protecting public-participation rights) may submit written observations to inform the court – without becoming a party to the proceedings.

FIRM/IFDH as the central contact point

Article 19 of the Directive requires Member States to make information about safeguards and support measures available through a single access point. Belgium formally designates the Federal Institute for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights (Federaal Instituut voor de bescherming en de bevordering van de rechten van de mens/ Institut fédéral pour la protection et la promotion des droits humains) as the unique national contact point for (potential) SLAPP victims. The Institute will provide centralised information on legal rights, judicial protections and support measures (legal, psychological and financial) available to those targeted.

Private International Law amendments

The Code of Private International Law is amended to transpose Articles 16 and 17 of the Directive: a specific ground is created to refuse recognition and enforcement of third-country decisions where the underlying claim would be considered manifestly unfounded or abusive under Belgian law. Belgian courts also acquire jurisdiction to hear compensation claims by Belgian residents for harm suffered as a result of SLAPP proceedings brought before a third-country court. Belgian proceedings on such claims are suspended while the foreign proceedings remain pending.

Conclusion for businesses and organisations active in matters of public interest

Any entity that publishes, communicates or advocates on matters of public concern – including environmental, health, governance or consumer issues – can benefit from these safeguards if sued in Belgian civil proceedings. The extended domestic scope means that the protections apply regardless of whether a foreign element exists, providing a broader safety net than required by the Directive.