BELGIUM Law and Practice Contributed by: Nathalie Colin, Maria-Clara Van den Bossche, Kevin Xhebexhia and Florence Frühling, Freshfields
additional ground for refusal is that the arbitral award is not yet binding or has been set aside or suspended in the country where the award was issued (Article 1721, Section 1 BJC). Enforcement of an Award That is Being or Has Been Set Aside Belgian law now explicitly provides that any prior enforcement order lapses if the award is subsequently set aside, whether the award is domestic or foreign (Article 1720, Section 7 BJC). That said, the initiation of set-aside proceedings does not automatically sus - pend the recognition or enforcement of the arbitral award. Upon a party’s request, Belgian courts may grant a suspension of the enforceability of the award pending the outcome of the set-aside proceedings (Article 1717, Section 8 BJC). The Defence of Sovereign Immunity Immunity from jurisdiction Belgian courts apply customary international law when determining state immunity, guided by the European Convention on State Immunity (ECSI) and the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (UNCSI). Although the latter is not yet in force, it strongly influences Belgian prac - tice. Under Article 17 UNCSI (and similarly Article 12 ECSI), when a State has entered into a written agree - ment to arbitrate commercial disputes with a foreign individual or entity, it generally cannot invoke immunity from jurisdiction in proceedings related to the validity, interpretation or enforcement of the arbitration agree - ment or award – unless the arbitration agreement pro - vides otherwise. Immunity from enforcement Under Article 1412quinquies, Section 1 BJC, assets belonging to a foreign State located in Belgium are, in principle, immune from enforcement. Article 1412quinquies, Section 2 BJC sets out three excep - tions to this principle. A creditor holding an enforce - ment title – or, as the case may be, authentic or private instruments underlying the attachment – may request the attachment judge for leave to attach assets of a foreign power that are located in Belgium, provided the creditor demonstrates that at least one of the fol - lowing conditions is met:
• the foreign State has expressly and specifically consented to the attachability of the relevant assets; • the foreign State has reserved or earmarked the assets for the satisfaction of the claim which is the object of the enforcement title or the underlying instruments; or • the assets are specifically used or intended to be used by the foreign State for other than non-com - mercial public service purposes, with the further limitation that attachment may only cover assets that have a link with the entity against which the enforcement title or the underlying instruments are directed. As a result of a decision of the Belgian Court of Cas - sation dated 19 December 2024, the debtor State’s lack of co-operation or inability to provide evidence as to the nature of the attached assets could signifi - cantly hinder its ability to successfully claim immu - nity from execution. It will be up to the attachment judge to decide – based on their appreciation of the facts – whether or not the absence of collaboration of evidence on the part of the debtor State, or the way it defends itself, entails that the assets are (partially) attachable or not. Furthermore, in a decision of 17 July 2025, the Bel - gian Constitutional Court confirmed that settlement accounts and financial instrument accounts held with a central securities depository (such as Euroclear) benefit from complete immunity from attachment, including where the targeted assets are frozen under international sanctions and no longer participating in the settlement system. The EU’s 18th sanctions package (July 2025) prohibits Belgium from recognising or enforcing arbitral awards or judgments awarding damages in connection with the freezing of Russian assets. It also requires Bel - gium to oppose recognition or enforcement attempts
by relying on all available defences. 12.3 Approach of the Courts General Approach
Belgian courts generally adopt a pro-enforcement stance towards arbitral awards, whether domestic or foreign. In principle, Belgian courts are not permit -
133 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook