Anyone who publishes, investigates, demonstrates, or voices criticism regarding a matter of public interest can be dragged into court over it. Not because the opposing party wants to prove a point, but because the legal proceedings themselves are the weapon: they cost money, time, and energy, and are intended to silence the person involved. Since June 22, 2026, Belgian law has provided a specific set of protections against this. Below, we explain what the new regulations entail, whom they protect, and what they mean in practice.
What is a SLAPP?
SLAPP stands for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” It refers to a legal proceeding that is not initiated to actually enforce a right, but whose primary purpose is to prevent, limit, or punish participation in public debate.
The typical scenario: a journalist publishes an investigative report on fraud, an environmental group sounds the alarm about a permit, or an academic criticizes a product. The targeted party—often financially or politically more powerful—responds not with a rebuttal, but with a summons. The stakes of the lawsuit are excessive, the proceedings are unnecessarily dragged out, and the message is clear: keep quiet, or it will cost you a fortune.
The crux of the matter, therefore, is not the substance of the claim, but the improper use of the judicial system. The right to access the courts is being exploited to silence a fundamental right— freedom of speech .
Where does this regulation come from?
The Belgian regulation implements the Directive (EU) 2024/1069 , the so-called SLAPP Directive of April 11, 2024. This European regulation requires member states to implement safeguards against manifestly unfounded claims and the abuse of procedural law against those who participate in public debate.
This directive was transposed into Belgian law by the Act of May 30, 2026, published in the Belgian Official Gazette on June 12, 2026, and in effect since June 22, 2026. This law amends the Judicial Code, the Code of Private International Law, and the law establishing the Federal Institute for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights.
On one key point, the Belgian legislature goes beyond what the EU required. The European directive covers only cases with cross-border implications. The Belgian law extends this protection to all civil proceedings, including purely domestic ones. The reasoning is that there is no justifiable distinction between a victim of a cross-border SLAPP and a victim of a purely domestic SLAPP—the chilling effect is the same in both cases.
Who is protected?
The law protects anyone who participates in the public debate on a matter of public interest. The law deliberately uses broad definitions.
Participation in public debate includes any statement or activity carried out in the exercise of freedom of expression and information, freedom of the arts and sciences, or freedom of association and assembly. This includes journalism, scientific and academic work, art, satire, lobbying, demonstrations, campaigns, and even preparatory or supporting activities directly related to them.
Important: Anyone who facilitates the speaker is also covered by this protection. An online platform, a printer, a publisher, or a store that sells the text can just as easily be the target of a SLAPP lawsuit. After all, a lawsuit against these intermediaries can be just as effective in silencing a voice.
A matter of public interest is, in the words of the law, any matter that affects the public in such a way that it may have a legitimate interest in it. Examples include fundamental rights, public health, safety, the environment and climate, the conduct of public figures, or allegations of corruption and fraud. The list is expressly not exhaustive.
The five safeguards in practice
The law adds a new chapter to the Judicial Code (Articles 1385/1 through 1385/7) and also amends several existing provisions. Together, they constitute five specific protective mechanisms.
1. Early dismissal of claims that are manifestly unfounded
Anyone who is sued for participating in public debate may ask the court to dismiss the claim early on the grounds that it is manifestly unfounded. That request may be made at any stage of the proceedings, either in writing or orally during the hearing, and will be given priority over all other cases.
In such cases, the burden of proof shifts. It is not up to the defendant to prove that the claim is unfounded, but up to the plaintiff to demonstrate that his claim is not manifestly unfounded. The defendant need only demonstrate that he is being targeted because of his participation in the public debate.
A decision dismissing the claim at an early stage is subject to appeal (to be heard under the expedited procedure set forth in Article 1066 of the Judicial Code). A decision denying the early dismissal is not subject to appeal—after all, such a denial does not prejudge the final outcome.
2. Security
The court may require the plaintiff to provide security to cover the defendant’s potential damages and costs. This may be done on its own initiative or at the defendant’s request, at any stage of the proceedings. The court itself determines the nature of the security.
There is one strict limit: the security deposit must not impede the plaintiff’s access to the courts. The amount must therefore not be so high as to make the claim effectively impossible. The measure is treated as a provisional arrangement regarding the parties’ situation (Art. 19, paragraph 3, of the Judicial Code), through brief hearings.
3. Full reimbursement of attorneys' fees
Traditionally, the litigation reimbursement covers only a lump-sum portion of the actual attorneys’ fees. In cases of established abuse of procedural law, the new regulation overrides that flat-rate provision: the judge may increase the reimbursement, if necessary, to an amount exceeding the maximum, so that all costs and fees of the victim’s attorney are covered—unless they are excessive.
This amendment to Article 1022 Jud.C. goes beyond SLAPP alone: it applies to any form of abuse of procedural law. It also immediately enshrines the Court of Cassation’s case law, which had already ruled that a party that prevails in a case may not suffer a substantial reduction in its claim due to the necessity of defending itself against a manifestly unreasonable claim.
4. An increased fine
Anyone who abuses procedural law to stifle public debate risks a civil fine. For ordinary vexatious and reckless lawsuits, this is limited to 2,500 euros, but specifically for SLAPPs, the maximum is raised to 25,000 euros (amended Art. 780bis of the Judicial Code). The higher threshold reflects the particularly harmful nature of a proceeding that infringes upon freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
Crucially, these sanctions may be imposed even if the plaintiff later amends his claim or withdraws from the proceedings. This cuts off the option of withdrawing from the proceedings to avoid a judgment.
5. Protection against legal proceedings from third countries
SLAPPs are sometimes deliberately filed in a far-right jurisdiction, where defending against them is costly and complicated. The law therefore provides for a special basis of jurisdiction: anyone who resides or is established in Belgium and has been the victim of a SLAPP in a country outside the European Union may claim compensation for all damages and costs incurred before the Belgian court of first instance of their place of residence or establishment (new Art. 1385/6 of the Judicial Code and Art. 96/1 of the CPIL).
In addition, the recognition and enforcement in Belgium of a foreign judgment is refused if the underlying claim would be considered manifestly unfounded or an abuse of process under Belgian law (amended Art. 25 CPIL).
How does a judge identify a SLAPP?
The law provides the judge with a list of indicators (Art. 1385/5 of the Judicial Code). None of these is decisive on its own, and the list is not exhaustive, but the more indicators that are present, the more likely it is that the case involves a SLAPP. These include, among others:
- the disproportionate, excessive, or unreasonable nature of the claim, including an excessive value of the dispute;
- the existence of multiple proceedings concerning similar matters, brought by the plaintiff or parties affiliated with him;
- intimidation, harassment, or threats by the plaintiff, before or during the proceedings;
- the abuse of an unequal power dynamic, such as financial dominance or political influence, to exert pressure;
- procedural games played in bad faith, such as delaying the proceedings or waiving rights too late;
- deliberately targeting individuals rather than the organization responsible for the disputed act.
The judge evaluates the case as a whole. Requesting a higher amount of damages than is ultimately awarded is not unusual in itself—it is up to the judge to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the line between reasonable and unreasonable has been crossed.
A role for human rights organizations
The law allows legal entities with a social purpose focused on the protection of human rights or fundamental freedoms to submit written comments in SLAPP proceedings without becoming a party themselves (Art. 1385/2 of the Judicial Code). This involves the role of the amicus curiae, the “friend of the court,” who contributes their expertise to help the judge assess whether abuse has occurred. The judge is not bound by these comments.
Anyone involved in a SLAPP can also contact the Federal Institute for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights, which has been formally designated as the central point of contact. There, you can find information about the available protections and about legal, financial, and psychological support.
What does this mean for you?
Are you a journalist, activist, whistleblower, researcher, or media organization? For the first time, the law provides you with specific tools to have a proceeding intended to silence you dismissed at an early stage, to compel the opposing party to provide security, and to have your full defense costs covered. Anyone who receives a summons that feels like an attempt at intimidation would be wise to respond quickly: requests for early dismissal and security are now being processed more expeditiously, and raising them in a timely manner can turn the proceedings around at an early stage.
Are you an association, an NGO, or a labor union? In addition to protecting your own public performance, you may, under certain conditions, participate as an amicus curiae in others’ legal proceedings and make your expertise available to the court.
Are you considering taking legal action against someone who has made public statements about you? In that case, the other side of this law comes into play. A claim that the court deems to be an abuse of process could result in a fine of up to 25,000 euros, in addition to full reimbursement of the opposing party’s attorney’s fees. Of course, a valid complaint regarding an unlawful publication remains possible—the law targets only the improper use of the courts, not the legitimate defense of your good name. A careful assessment in advance is therefore essential.
Conclusion
The anti-SLAPP law shifts the balance of power in legal proceedings surrounding public debate. Whereas the threat of a costly, protracted lawsuit used to be enough to discourage critical voices, the victim now has access to a fast-track dismissal option, a safeguard mechanism, increased liability for costs, and a deterrent fine. At the same time, it requires greater diligence from anyone considering legal action, as allegations of abuse now carry greater weight.
Dutch 
English