How does Belgium tackle illegal live streams of sports events?

Since June 1, 2024, anyone who illegally streams a soccer game in Belgium faces one of the fastest blocking procedures in Europe: the president of the Brussels Commercial Court issues a ruling within eight business days, and a specialized unit of the FPS Economy then keeps the block up to date without the need for a new court case. A study Published in July 2026 for the European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee, the study compares the Belgian model with those of Italy, France, Germany, Spain, Greece, and the Netherlands, and describes it as a hybrid model that combines judicial oversight with administrative effectiveness. That same study finds the European framework itself to be too slow and too fragmented, and recommends a binding regulation.

Why a livestream is a different issue than a regular copyright infringement

An illegal copy of a movie remains harmful as long as it is available online. With a live sports event, the situation is different: the economic value of the broadcast evaporates within the duration of the event itself. Blocking the content only after the match is over is too late.

According to the study, live piracy is no longer a marginal phenomenon, but a structured and economically resilient segment of the piracy ecosystem, particularly through illegal IPTV services and apps. For Belgium the Pro League reported In April 2025, an estimated 6 percent of the population—and nearly 20 percent of 18- to 25-year-olds—will be watching illegal content on a daily basis. According to the same source, the piracy of sports broadcasts costs the industry hundreds of millions of euros per year and the government at least 24 million euros in VAT revenue.

The European framework provides building blocks, but no fast-track procedure

The study reviews existing EU law and reaches a twofold conclusion. The building blocks are indeed in place. The unauthorized retransmission of a sports broadcast falls under the rights of communication to the public under the Directive 2001/29/EC on Copyright in the Information Society (InfoSoc Directive). The Enforcement Directive 2004/48/EC allows for orders against intermediaries whose services are used to commit the infringement, and on that basis, national courts have developed static, dynamic, and even live blocking orders. The Digital Services veregulation (DSA) adds reporting and due diligence obligations for platforms.

However, none of these instruments were written with the live broadcast window in mind. They do not include time frames tailored to a 90-minute match. The European Parliament therefore requested in its Resolution of May 19, 2021 a legislative proposal that, among other things, calls for the removal of illegal streams within thirty minutes of a report by a reliable flagger. The Commission responded with the Recommendation (EU) 2023/1018 on combating online piracy of sports and other live events. That recommendation encourages faster processing of reports, dynamic blocking, and cooperation among stakeholders, but it is not binding. According to the study, the Commission’s evaluation does show greater awareness and improved practices, but no significant decline in live piracy within the Union.

Belgium opted for its own expedited procedure in the Code of Economic Law

This is where Belgian law comes into play, and the study devotes an entire chapter to it. The Belgian legislature introduced the law of June 19, 2022, which the Directive 2019/790 on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSM Directive) revenue, a special summary proceeding under: Article XVII.34/1 et seq. of the Code of Economic Law (CEL), effective June 1, 2024.

The procedure works as follows. Any interested party, management company, or professional association may file a unilateral petition or a summons with the president of the Commercial Court in Brussels, which has exclusive jurisdiction. The unilateral petition is admissible with a legal presumption of urgency and even of absolute necessity, which considerably facilitates action against foreign operators. The presiding judge renders a decision within no more than eight business days after the case is entered on the docket (Art. XVII.34/1, § 4 WER).

The chairperson grants the motion subject to three cumulative conditions (Art. XVII.34/1, § 6 WER). The invocation of copyright, neighboring rights or database rights must appear to be valid. The infringement must appear to be clear and significant. And after weighing the interests, rights, and freedoms at stake—including freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of enterprise, and users’ right to privacy—the facts must reasonably justify the requested measures. In doing so, the chairperson explicitly considers the consequences for public access to lawful content.

The order is not necessarily directed against the pirate himself. It can be directed directly against any intermediary whose services are used: internet service providers, hosting services, search engines, domain name registrars, and even payment intermediaries. The measures are not listed exhaustively: complete blocking of a website, blocking of specific URLs or domain names, removal of social media accounts, blocking of livestreams and apps, and dereferencing by search engines are all among the possibilities. Anyone who chooses the expedited procedure must, however, initiate proceedings on the merits within a reasonable period of time (Art. XVII.34/4 WER).

A department within the FPS Economy is keeping the freeze in place

The innovative aspect lies in what happens after the ruling. When a site is blocked, pirates simply move to a mirror site or a new domain, and until recently, that meant a new procedure each time. The Belgian law breaks that cycle: the presiding judge can extend the measures to include mirror sites, and he can Office for Combating Infringements of Copyright and Related Rights on the Internet, established within the FPS Economy at Royal Decree of April 18, 2024 (Art. XVII.34/3 WER), to authorize them to undertake the implementation.

Within a maximum of three business days, that agency shall determine the detailed rules for implementing the decision, identify new mirror sites, provide updated lists to the providers, publish its decisions, and maintain a list of websites that have been made inaccessible. It may not expand or modify the scope of the order; if a measure proves insufficient, excessive, or outdated, it must be referred back to the chairperson. The judge therefore remains the decision-maker, while the administration is the implementing body. This is precisely what the study refers to as the hybrid Belgian model, situated between the heavily administrative Italian Piracy Shield and purely judicial models such as the Dutch one.

The figures show that the system is up and running. One year after the agency was established the FPS Economy announced that 147 websites offering illegal movies, TV series, and sports broadcasts had been blocked; that the first block was implemented, on average, within six business days of the decision; and that the Economic Inspectorate also seized approximately 3,500 illegal decoders.

The Brussels courts already apply this system to sports, books, and IPTV

The study lists the first Belgian rulings, which demonstrate how widely this instrument is now being used. In a ruling dated April 30, 2025 (RR2500030), the president of the French-speaking Commercial Court in Brussels ordered DNS blocking measures against major Belgian internet service providers, public DNS providers, search engines, and hosting-related intermediaries, due to the unauthorized streaming of matches from the Belgian Pro League. The order was not limited to the initial list of domains but extended to mirror, redirect, and copycat domains that meet specified criteria, and its enforcement was synchronized with the match schedule so that the blocking takes effect precisely during the live broadcast window. The Service’s enforcement decision was issued on May 7, 2025.

The same approach was reiterated in the ruling of July 16, 2025, regarding the illegal digital libraries associated with the Internet Archive and Open Library, with an enforcement decision dated October 1, 2025, that explicitly exempted access to lawful content and works in the public domain. And in a decision dated January 30, 2026 (RR260003), implemented on February 12, 2026, the system was applied to illegal IPTV services offering live and on-demand broadcasts.

Two findings from the study deserve attention. Belgium went further than most member states by extending blocking obligations to public DNS providers—the resolvers that users typically use to circumvent provider-imposed blocks. Meanwhile, several third-party opposition proceedings are currently pending before the president of the Brussels Commercial Court, initiated by technical intermediaries affected by the measures. The law also provides for the right to appeal and the possibility of having the measures lifted, including in cases where they have a disproportionately deterrent effect on freedom of expression.

The study calls for Europe to adopt the Belgian and Italian models on a broader scale

The study’s final recommendations read like a plea to enshrine at the EU level what Belgium and Italy have established at the national level. The author recommends a regulation, not a directive, precisely to avoid further fragmentation during transposition. That regulation would include a binding notice-and-takedown mechanism for liveinfringements, with a maximum timeframe of, for example, thirty minutes—following the example of Italy’s Piracy Shield—and a generalized right to dynamic, real-time blocking orders that adapt to the infringement without requiring a new procedure each time.

In addition, the study proposes that each member state designate an independent administrative authority and that the obligations be extended to the entire technical chain: content delivery networks, DNS resolvers, VPN services, and providers of dedicated servers. This expansion is balanced by safeguards: limiting the measures to the duration of the event, judicial or administrative oversight, and strict proportionality in accordance with the case law of the Court of Justice. Finally, the study calls for clarity regarding the legal status of sports organizers—which currently depends on contracts and varying national provisions such as “house rules”—and for greater attention to be paid to legal streaming options, including through the European portal. Agorateka.

Specifically, what does this mean?

For Belgian rights holders, from sports leagues to publishers and producersIn short, the message is that the tool is already in place. Anyone facing a clear and significant online infringement can obtain a dynamic blocking order within eight business days—if necessary, as a preventive measure before the infringement begins—and leave the follow-up against mirror sites to the Service. However, the procedure is limited to copyright, related rights, and database rights; for trademarks, patents, and designs, the traditional summary proceedings and cease-and-desist orders remain the appropriate avenues. Thorough preparation of the case file, including evidence of the rights and the extent of the infringement, remains crucial, and anyone considering this step would be well advised to seek assistance from a attorney specializing in copyright law.

For intermediaries, ranging from internet service providers to DNS providers, search engines, and payment service providersUnder the Belgian model, a court order can directly affect them, even if they have committed no fault. Their defense centers on a balancing of interests: public access to lawful content, the prohibition on general monitoring obligations, and the proportionality of the requested measures. Anyone affected by an existing order may file a third-party objection or request its revocation, and the ongoing third-party objection proceedings in Brussels demonstrate that this avenue is indeed being pursued.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Is it a crime to watch an illegal stream yourself?
The European Parliament’s resolution of May 19, 2021, explicitly places the responsibility for illegal broadcasting on the providers of the streams and the platforms, not on the viewer, who often stumbles upon illegal content unintentionally. Nevertheless, offering and distributing protected content without authorization constitutes an infringement; you can read more about this on our page about illegal downloading.

How quickly can an illegal streaming site be blocked in Belgium?
The presiding judge of the Brussels Commercial Court renders a decision within no more than eight business days after the case is entered on the docket, and the Service of the FPS Economy establishes the technical implementation rules within three business days of receiving the decision. In practice, the FPS Economy reported an average of six business days between the decision and the first effective freeze. Since May 17, 2026, the order may even be issued before the infringement begins, as soon as it is about to take place.

Can a blocked website or an affected intermediary defend itself?
Yes. The order may be appealed, and anyone affected by an order obtained through a unilateral petition may file a third-party objection. Furthermore, the measures may be lifted during their term, including on grounds such as a misrepresentation of the facts, abuse of the order, or a disproportionately chilling effect on freedom of expression or freedom of information.

Conclusion

According to the study for the European Parliament, the European framework against live piracy remains functional on paper but incomplete in practice: the InfoSoc Directive, the Enforcement Directive, the DSA, and a non-binding recommendation are insufficient to address an infringement where the damage occurs within ninety minutes. Belgium is leading the way with Article XVII.34/1 et seq. of the WER: a decision within eight business days, dynamic blocking extending to public DNS providers, preventive action in the event of an imminent infringement, and a specialized service that monitors enforcement under judicial supervision. Whether the European Union will adopt this model in a regulation with a 30-minute deadline is the question the study raises. Until then, Belgian law remains the arena where the battle over live content is being fought for rights holders and intermediaries.