A European commercial dispute had produced a final judgment in one EU member state. The creditor – a mid-sized technology company with Belgian operations – needed to convert that judgment into enforceable Belgian title before the debtor transferred its local assets. The debtor was already taking steps to restructure its Belgian subsidiary. Every week of delay carried a measurable risk of asset dissipation.
Enforcing a foreign judgment in Belgium requires a formal recognition procedure before Belgian civil courts, governed by Belgian private international law and, where applicable, EU civil procedure rules. The creditor must demonstrate that the original decision meets specific conditions: jurisdictional regularity, procedural fairness, absence of conflict with Belgian public policy, and finality. Belgian courts do not re-examine the merits of the underlying dispute, but they do scrutinise the procedural record with care.
This case study outlines the strategy Ferraz & Whitmore applied, the complications encountered during the recognition process, and three transferable lessons for creditors pursuing award enforcement in Belgium or adjacent jurisdictions.
Client profile and the legal challenge
The client was an EU-based technology company holding a final civil judgment obtained in a neighbouring EU member state. The judgment awarded a substantial sum in unpaid licence fees and contractual penalties. The debtor was a Belgian-registered entity with identifiable assets – primarily receivables and bank balances – held within Belgium.
The core challenge was timing. Belgian civil procedure rules require the creditor to file a recognition petition and, separately, to seek interim protective measures if asset preservation is needed. These are distinct procedural tracks. Running them in parallel requires careful sequencing. A misstep in either track can delay the entire enforcement effort by several months.
A secondary complication arose from the nature of the underlying dispute. Although the matter had been decided by a national court rather than an arbitral tribunal (an arbitration panel constituted under agreed rules). The debtor's counsel attempted to characterise certain contractual clauses as constituting an arbitration agreement. The argument was that the dispute should have been referred to arbitration. with a specified seat of arbitration (the legal location governing the arbitral process) outside Belgium – rather than litigated in a national court. This argument, if accepted, could have undermined the regularity of the original judgment.
Our team needed to address both the substantive recognition conditions and this procedural challenge simultaneously. For matters involving litigation and arbitration in Belgium, the distinction between court judgment enforcement and arbitral award enforcement is legally significant. Award enforcement under the New York Convention (the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards) follows a different track than judgment recognition under EU civil procedure rules or Belgian private international law.
Strategy, milestones, and complications encountered
The strategic decision was to pursue recognition under EU civil procedure rules, which provide a streamlined path for judgments issued within the EU. This approach avoids the more demanding conditions that apply to judgments from third-country courts.
The first milestone was filing the recognition application within the correct court district in Belgium. Belgian courts apply jurisdictional rules that tie the recognition petition to the location of the debtor or its assets. Choosing the wrong court at this stage restarts the process entirely.
The second milestone was preparing the evidentiary file. Belgian civil procedure requires certified copies of the original judgment, proof of service on the debtor, and. where the judgment was issued in a language other than French, Dutch, or German – a certified translation. Our team coordinated the translation and certification within ten days to avoid losing the interim protection window.
The arbitration argument raised by the debtor created the most significant complication. The debtor's position relied on UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) model law principles and on language in the underlying contract that referenced ICC Rules. the procedural rules issued by the International Chamber of Commerce. as a dispute resolution mechanism. Our response demonstrated that the contractual clause was permissive rather than mandatory. It did not constitute an exclusive arbitration agreement. The original court had correctly assumed jurisdiction.
Belgian courts dealing with similar challenges have consistently held that an ambiguous dispute resolution clause does not automatically deprive a national court of jurisdiction. This position aligned with our client's case. The court rejected the debtor's argument within the first hearing cycle.
The third milestone was the interim protective order. Belgian civil procedure permits the creditor to apply for a precautionary attachment (saisie conservatoire – a provisional seizure of assets pending final enforcement) in parallel with the recognition petition. We obtained this order before the debtor could complete its subsidiary restructuring. The attachment covered the debtor's main Belgian bank account and a portion of its trade receivables.
The final recognition decision was issued within the standard timeframe for EU judgment recognition in Belgium – measured in weeks rather than months, given the streamlined EU procedure. Once recognition was confirmed, the enforcement order was transmitted to a Belgian bailiff to execute against the attached assets.
For context on how parallel corporate restructuring by a debtor can affect recovery strategy, see our analysis of corporate disputes in Belgium.
To discuss a similar enforcement matter or to assess whether your judgment meets Belgian recognition conditions, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Transferable lessons for cross-border creditors
Lesson 1: Identify the applicable recognition track before filing. Belgium applies different recognition regimes depending on the origin and nature of the underlying decision. An EU court judgment, a third-country court judgment, and a foreign arbitral award each follow a distinct procedural path. Arbitral awards benefit from the New York Convention structure, which imposes a narrow set of refusal grounds. Court judgments from EU member states benefit from the streamlined EU civil procedure regime. Third-country judgments are assessed under Belgian private international law, which involves a broader set of conditions. Selecting the wrong track – or failing to anticipate the debtor's procedural arguments – adds months to the process and may prejudice asset recovery entirely.
Lesson 2: Seek interim protection before the debtor acts. Belgian civil procedure allows protective attachment before the recognition petition is decided. This tool is often underused by creditors who wait until recognition is confirmed. By that point, assets may have been transferred, pledged, or reduced in value. The threshold for obtaining a precautionary attachment is lower than the threshold for final enforcement. Creditors who act promptly at the interim stage preserve their options. Those who do not risk recovering a judgment that is formally recognised but practically unenforceable.
Lesson 3: Anticipate the arbitration challenge. Debtors in recognition proceedings increasingly raise jurisdictional objections grounded in arbitration law. The argument – that the parties agreed to resolve disputes before an arbitral tribunal rather than a national court – can delay recognition even when it ultimately fails. Creditors should audit their contractual dispute resolution clauses before commencing enforcement. Where the clause is ambiguous, an early legal opinion on its scope prevents the debtor from exploiting the ambiguity in Belgian proceedings. Comparable enforcement challenges in other EU jurisdictions are addressed in our related case study on foreign judgment enforcement in Portugal.
About Ferraz & Whitmore
Ferraz & Whitmore is an international law firm based in Lisbon, advising business clients across 46 jurisdictions. Our litigation and arbitration practice covers foreign judgment enforcement, award enforcement under the New York Convention, and cross-border recovery across EU and non-EU markets. We work with international entrepreneurs, institutional investors, and in-house legal teams who require results-oriented counsel across multiple legal systems. As a law firm in Belgium and across Europe, our team combines Portuguese civil law expertise with English common law tradition to deliver enforcement strategies that address both procedural and substantive complexity. Engaging a lawyer in Belgium with cross-border experience is particularly important where the debtor actively contests jurisdiction or deploys restructuring tactics to delay recovery. Our attorneys have advised on enforcement matters before Belgian civil courts and before ICC and UNCITRAL arbitral bodies. To discuss your enforcement situation in Belgium, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.