Joris DeeneA lawsuit that is not intended to enforce a right but to silence an opponent is called a SLAPP. The Court of First Instance in Antwerp, Antwerp Division, ruled on June 4, 2026 that such conduct can already be penalized today—not under the European SLAPP Directive, which has not yet been transposed, but under existing Belgian law regarding vexatious and reckless litigation. The plaintiff, a wealthy man who had sued a non-profit organization and its director for 200,000 euros (after threatening to sue for 1.2 million euros), was ordered to pay damages, increased litigation costs, and a fine.
The facts
A retired entrepreneur, living abroad and still a shareholder in various companies, sued a director and two non-profit organizations. These non-profit organizations bring together investors who feel they have been wronged by real estate structures based on leasehold, support their legal proceedings, and submitted a petition to the Chamber requesting a ban on granting consumers rights of use in investment real estate.
The plaintiff believed that the websites of the non-profit organizations and the petition damaged his reputation and his financial interests. He sought the removal of news articles in which his name appeared, the withdrawal of the petition, and provisional damages of 200,000 euros, with the appointment of a court-appointed expert. The defendants argued that the proceedings were nothing more than an intimidation tactic and, in turn, sought damages for vexatious and reckless litigation.
The decision
The court dismissed the main claim as unfounded. The disputed passage on the websites had already been amended prior to the summons and referred, at most, to the directors who bear the family name—not to the plaintiff himself, who no longer holds any directorship. He was not even mentioned in the petition. The court found that there was no evidence of damage to reputation or financial loss and that the actions in question fell within the defendants’ constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech.
The court then explicitly characterized the proceedings as a SLAPP. Nevertheless, it dismissed the reference to the SLAPP Directive Furthermore: that provision had not yet been transposed, has no horizontal effect between private individuals, and its scope is, moreover, limited to cross-border disputes—which was not the case here, since all connecting factors were located in Belgium.
The solution came from domestic law. According to the court, a SLAPP is, by definition, an act of vexatious and reckless litigation (Art. 780bis Jud.C.). The plaintiff knew or should have known that his claim had no chance of success, yet he persisted with it for nearly a year and a half. The court awarded each of the three defendants 2,500 euros in damages, imposed a fine of 1,500 euros (Art. 780bis of the Judicial Code) and awarded the maximum litigation costs due to the manifestly unreasonable nature of the situation (Art. 1022, paragraph 3 of the Judicial Code). It rejected the claimed “deterrent compensation” of 1.2 million euros, the preventive injunction against future proceedings, and the publication order: there is no legal basis for these under current law.
Legal analysis and interpretation
SLAPP classification without a SLAPP law: domestic law as a safety net
What is legally interesting is not that the lawsuit is a SLAPP, but that the court imposed a penalty without applying the directive. The reasoning proceeds in two steps. First, the closure of the European route: a directive whose transposition deadline has expired but which has not yet been transposed can only be invoked vertically—by a citizen against the government. It has no direct effect between citizens. This has been established case law since the judgments Marshall and Faccini Dori. Since none of the parties is a government, and the dispute is, moreover, purely an internal Belgian matter, the directive offers no solution.
Next, regarding the opening of the internal proceedings: the court equates SLAPP with vexatious and reckless litigation. This equivalence is defensible, because Belgian law already had instruments against abuse of process even before the Directive—Art. 780bis of the Judicial Code is the clear expression of this. The court applies those instruments in a manner consistent with the Directive, without using the Directive as a legal basis. This is a subtle but important distinction: it is not a directive-compliant interpretation that sneaks the directive in through the back door, but an autonomous application of Art. 780bis of the Judicial Code, in which the concept of SLAPP serves as a factual description.
The Limits of Judicial Power: No Private Punishment and No Preventive Ban on Prosecution
Where the court draws the line is just as instructive as the penalty itself. It rejects the requested “deterrent compensation” of 1.2 million euros because such a measure amounts to a private penalty, which has no place in civil proceedings. Article 15 of the directive requires Member States to provide for effective sanctions, but it is not for a party to the proceedings to demand them as long as the legislature has not yet enacted them. Here, the court respects the separation of powers: it expressly refuses to preempt a legislative amendment that has not yet entered into force.
The same applies to the requested injunction prohibiting the initiation of future SLAPP lawsuits. The court rightly characterizes this as a blank check that would undermine the opposing party’s access to the courts and freedom of speech. No one can be preemptively denied access to the trial court on the basis of what they might claim in the future. That reasoning deserves support: the right of access to the courts (Art. 6 ECHR) also applies to those who have abused it in the past.
The cost debate: why attorneys' fees remain fixed
An underdiscussed but practically crucial issue is the treatment of attorneys’ fees. The defendants sought to recover their full fees as damages. The court rejected this on the basis of Article 1022, paragraph 6 of the Judicial Code: legal fees cannot be part of the damages and are only reimbursed on a lump-sum basis through the litigation allowance, even in cases of abuse of process. Only other damages—non-economic damages, loss of time, and loss of resources—may be awarded cumulatively. This explains why the amounts awarded (3 × 2,500 euros) appear modest in light of the stakes of the dispute.
Here, the judgment clearly illustrates the gap that the implementing law aims to close. The passed bill — adopted by Parliament on May 21, 2026, but not yet published in the Belgian Official Gazette as of the date of the judgment — provides for an amendment to Art. 1022 of the Judicial CodeW., which does allow for the full recovery of attorneys’ fees in cases of manifestly unlawful litigation, and increases the fine under Art. 780bis Ger.W. to 25,000 euros. Furthermore, the Belgian transposition chooses to apply these safeguards to purely domestic disputes as well, and not only to cross-border cases as the directive minimally requires. Had that law already been in force, the financial outcome for the defendants would have been very different.
Specifically, what does this mean?
For anyone involved in public debate (journalists, nonprofit organizations, activists, whistleblowers). Anyone faced with an excessive claim for damages that is clearly intended to intimidate them does not have to wait for the SLAPP Act. The concept of vexatious and reckless litigation (Art. 780bis of the Judicial Code) and the increased litigation costs (Art. 1022, paragraph 3 of the Judicial Code) already offer protection. Important: explicitly state in your pleadings that the proceedings constitute a SLAPP, citing the indicators from Article 4 of the Directive (disproportion between the claim and the evidence, threat of excessive amounts, parallel proceedings). Even though the Directive is not directly applicable, it provides a useful factual framework for assessment. However, do not expect a full reimbursement from your attorney: until the new law enters into force, this remains capped at a fixed amount.
For anyone considering filing a defamation or personal injury claim. Threatening an astronomical sum that is subsequently “reduced” to a lower claimed amount is a red flag that works against you. The court interprets such a discrepancy as an indicator of intimidation. Anyone who files a claim without proof of fault and damage risks not only dismissal but also being ordered to pay damages, the maximum litigation costs, and a fine. Substantiate a liability claim with concrete, quantified evidence before you file a summons.
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
What exactly is a SLAPP?
A SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) is a legal proceeding that is not brought to actually enforce a right, but primarily to intimidate, silence, or financially drain someone who is participating in public debate. Typical victims include journalists, NGOs, activists, and academics.
Can a Belgian court impose sanctions for a SLAPP lawsuit now that the European directive has not yet been transposed?
Yes. The court may treat a SLAPP as a vexatious and reckless lawsuit (Art. 780bis of the Judicial Code) and, on that basis, award damages, increased litigation costs, and a fine. The SLAPP Directive itself, which has not been transposed, cannot be directly invoked in disputes between private individuals, but the existing domestic legal grounds are sufficient.
Can I recover my full legal fees if I win a SLAPP lawsuit?
Under current law, no: attorneys’ fees are reimbursed on a lump-sum basis through the litigation allowance and cannot be recovered as damages, even in cases of abuse of process. The adopted implementing law does provide for an exception in this regard, but it will not take effect until it is published in the Belgian Official Gazette.
Conclusion
This ruling demonstrates that Belgian law can already punish a SLAPP today, despite the delayed transposition of the European directive—albeit subject to the limitations imposed by current law, particularly regarding attorneys’ fees and deterrent sanctions. At the same time, the court carefully safeguards the separation of powers and the right of access to the courts, even for those who have abused that right.
Dutch 
English