Can a judge pre-emptively ban the publication of a press article to protect your privacy?

Are you afraid that an impending press article will damage your good name or privacy and do you want to stop its publication in advance through the courts? The answer in Belgium is almost always no, due to the absolute prohibition of preventive censorship. A judge cannot preclude the press from publishing certain information or personal data, even if the publication of the article itself is not itself explicitly prohibited.

The facts and legal context

The case revolves around a journalistic investigation into suspected corruption in the European Parliament by the Huawei company.

• One Sunday afternoon, a journalist from Le Soir newspaper sent an e-mail to a lobbyist asking about a suspicious bank transfer of 2,000 euros.
• The journalist announced that the article would be published the very next day and asked for a response under the right of reply.
• The lobbyist's lawyer demanded that his client's name and identity details not be published, referring to the seriousness of the allegations and the potential reputational damage.
• When the journalist did not respond immediately, the lobbyist filed a unilateral petition with the presiding judge Monday morning in extremis.
• The judge initially prohibited the publication of the man's identity information.
• The newspaper and the journalist filed third-party opposition to this.

The court's decision

The president of the French-speaking court of first instance in Brussels judged in the opposition proceedings on June 18, 2025, that the earlier ban on the press was unjustified.

• The judge clearly stated that forbidding the media to mention, prior to a publication, elements about a person amounts to pre-emptive censorship.
• There is no legal basis in the Belgian legal system that allows the judiciary to restrict the content of a publication in preparation.
• Moreover, the exact content of the article was unknown at the time the petition was filed, as was the extent or even the existence of any damages.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This judgement illustrates the classic legal tension between, on the one hand the right to respect for private life and the presumption of innocence (as guaranteed by Article 8 ECHR and Article 22 of the Constitution) and on the other hand freedom of speech and freedom of the press (protected by Article 10 ECHR and Articles 19 and 25 of the Constitution).

The Belgian legal system has a very strict and protective interpretation of freedom of the press. Article 25 of the Constitution states resolutely that the press is free and that censorship can never be introduced. Historically, the constitutional legislator opted exclusively for a system where crimes committed by the press can only be punished a posteriori (ex post facto). At the time, the Belgian Constitution explicitly refused to allow exceptions to this freedom in order to protect the rights of third parties, such as privacy.

Any interference prior to publication requires a legal basis that is lacking in current law. Consequently, it is impossible for a judge in summary proceedings, deciding only prima facie (superficially), to preemptively interfere with the press's editorial freedom.

Also read our earlier blog: Can a judge ban a press article even before it is published? - ICT Legal Guide Lawyer

What this specifically means for practice

This decision has important strategic implications for all actors involved:

• For individuals and companies in the crosshairs of the press: You can virtually never have an unfavorable or potentially harmful article stopped through the courts before it appears. You will have to wait until after its publication to seek redress, rectification or damages for defamation, libel or tort through proceedings.
• For journalists and publishers: The decision is a strong affirmation of editorial independence. The judge may not pre-emptively intervene in the choices of editors. However, this does not relieve the press of its responsibility áfter the fact; publishing is always done at its own risk.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

What is preventive censorship in the media?
Preventive censorship is the prior banning or restricting of information by a government or court before it is published. Even banning the mere mention of a person's name in an otherwise permissible article constitutes an impermissible form of preventive censorship.

When can a unilateral petition be filed?
A unilateral petition can and should be filed only in cases of “absolute necessity.” This refers to an exceptional situation of extreme urgency where it is impossible to apply the adversarial principle. Although in theory this petition may be admissible in the event of acute time constraints just before a deadline, it will almost always fail in substance against the press because of the legal prohibition on censorship.

Can I invoke data protection legislation (GDPR) to keep my name out of the newspaper?
Although data subjects often invoke the right to data erasure (Article 17 GDPR) to remain anonymous, this case law shows that this right cannot simply override constitutional freedom of the press and the absolute prohibition of prior censorship for publication.

Conclusion

Case law is very clear: the press in Belgium is free and the judge cannot act as a censor beforehand. Even with serious allegations and threats of reputational damage, the lack of a legal basis for preventive censorship prevails. Consequently, a legal response to damaging press articles is invariably a matter of remediation after the fact.