Publication
Publication
Contacts
Linklaters LLP
Guillaume Couneson
Tel: +(32) 2 501 93 05
Supervisory Authority
National Legislation
Framework Act (Dutch)
Framework Act (French)
DPA Act (Dutch)
DPA Act (French)
(Please note these links are provided for information only. Any translations may not be accurate and the text may not include amendments to that legislation).
Last updated August 2026
General | Data Protection Laws
National Legislation
National Supervisory Authority
Scope of Application
Personal Data
Sensitive Personal Data
Data Protection Officers
Accountability and Privacy Impact Assessments
Rights of Data Subjects
Security
Transfer of Personal Data to Third Countries
Enforcement
ePrivacy | Marketing and cookies
National Legislation
Cookies
Marketing by E-mail
Marketing by Telephone
General data protection laws
The General Data Protection Regulation (EU) (2016/679) (“GDPR”).
The EU is currently considering the Digital Omnibus (2025/0360 (COD)). This proposes a number of amendments to the GDPR including: (a) protection from abusive subject access requests; (b) extending the deadline to notify breaches to a supervisory authority to 96 hours and only applying that notification to high risk breaches; (c) codifying the “relative” approach to the concept of personal data; (d) ensuring a consistent approach to DPIAs; and (e) providing an express legal basis for the training of AI systems. However, some changes are controversial, and it is not clear if they will all be adopted.
Belgium has adapted its national legislation to the GDPR in two steps.
The first is the reform of the Belgian Privacy Commission - now called the Data Protection Authority - in terms of organisation as well as in terms of powers. This was done with the adoption of the law of 3 December 2017 (the “DPA Act”). Tdhe DPA Act was subsequently amended among others by the Act of 25 December 2023, which reformed the composition and procedural rules of the Data Protection Authority in order to strengthen its functioning and independence following concerns over governance and conflicts of interest.
The second step is the Law on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data of 30 July 2018 (the “Framework Act”). The Framework Act is extensive as it both implements the elements which the GDPR left to the national law and also implements the Law Enforcement Directive.
Entry into force
The GDPR has applied since 25 May 2018.
The Belgian DPA Act applies from the same date as the GDPR, except for Section III (Appointment of the members of the Data Protection Authority), which applied as of 10 January 2018 (the date of its publication in the Official Journal).
The Framework Act applies as of 5 September 2018 (the date of its publication in the Official Journal).
Details of the competent national supervisory authority
L’Autorité de protection des données - Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit (the “Data Protection Authority”)
Rue de la Presse - Drukpersstraat 35
1000 Brussels
Belgium
+32 (0)2 274 48 00
+32 (0)2 274 48 35
www.gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be/ (Dutch)
www.autoriteprotectiondonnees.be/ (French)
www.dataprotectionauthority.be/ (English)
The DPA Act provides the Data Protection Authority with additional powers to ensure compliance with the GDPR. It has also organised the Data Protection Authority, with an executive board, a body in charge of general affairs, a front office (for first line advice), an authorisation and opinion service, an inspection service and a litigation chamber.
The Data Protection Authority represents Belgium on the European Data Protection Board.
Notification or registration scheme and timing
There is no obligation to notify regulators of any processing under the GDPR. However, controllers and processors must keep a record of their processing and make it available to their supervisory authority on request (subject to limited exemptions).
Exemptions to notification
Not applicable.
What is the territorial scope of application?
The GDPR applies to the processing of personal data in the context of the establishment of a controller or processor in the EU.
It also contains express extra-territorial provisions and applies to controllers or processors based outside the EU that: (i) offer goods or services to individuals in the EU; or (ii) monitor individuals within the EU. Controllers and processors caught by these provisions will need to appoint a representative in the EU, subject to certain limited exemptions.
The European Data Protection Board has issued Guidelines on the territorial scope of the GDPR (3/2018).
The Framework Act reflects the rules on the territorial scope of application of the GDPR. It applies to: (i) controllers and processors established in Belgium processing personal data in the context of the activities of that establishment, regardless of where the actual processing takes place; and (ii) controllers and processors established outside the EU that either offer goods or services to individuals in Belgium or monitor individuals’ behaviours taking place in Belgium.
However, the Framework Act does not apply to a Belgian-based processor if: (i) that processor is used by a controller established in another EU Member State; and (ii) the processing takes place in that other Member State. In that case, the law of the other EU Member State applies to the Belgian-based processor.
Is there a concept of a controller and processor?
Yes. The GDPR contains the concept of a controller, who determines the purpose and means of processing, and a processor, who just processes personal data on behalf of the controller.
The European Data Protection Board has issued Guidelines on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR (7/2020).
Both controllers and processors are subject to the rules in the GDPR, but the obligations placed on processors are more limited.
Are both manual and electronic records subject to data protection legislation?
Yes. The GDPR applies to both electronic records and structured hard copy records.
Are there any national derogations?
The GDPR does not apply to law enforcement activities which are instead subject to the Law Enforcement Directive. The GDPR also does not apply to areas of law that are outside the scope of Union law, such as national security, and does not apply to purely personal or household activity.
The Framework Act does not contain any derogations for the processing of employee data. However, it does contain derogations for processing for journalistic, academic, artistic and literary purposes. These types of processing may, depending on the circumstances, be exempt from various obligations under the GDPR including the rights of data subjects and the rules on transborder dataflow.
What is personal data?
Personal data is information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person.
This is a broad term and includes a wide range of information. The GDPR expressly states it includes online identifiers such as cookies. This concept has been considered by the CJEU on multiple occasions. This includes deciding that information will not be personal data where the risk of identification appears in reality to be insignificant (OC v Commission, C 479/22 P) and that a “relative” approach should be taken to identification by considering the means reasonably available to the person holding the information (EDPS v SRB, C-413/23 P).
Is information about legal entities personal data?
No. However, information about sole traders and partnerships is likely to be personal data.
What are the rules for processing personal data?
All processing of personal data must comply with all six general data quality principles. Personal data must be: (i) processed fairly, lawfully and transparently; (ii) collected for specific, explicit and legitimate purposes and not processed in a manner incompatible with those purposes; (iii) adequate, relevant and not excessive; (iv) accurate and, where necessary, up to date; (v) kept in an identifiable form for no longer than necessary; and (vi) kept secure.
The processing of personal data must also satisfy at least one condition for processing personal data. These conditions are that the processing is: (a) carried out with the data subject’s consent; (b) necessary for the performance of a contract with the data subject; (c) necessary for compliance with a legal obligation; (d) necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject; (e) necessary for the public interest or in the exercise of official authority; or (f) necessary for the controller’s or third party's legitimate interests, except where overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject.
The European Data Protection Board has issued Guidelines on the performance of a contract processing condition for online services (2/2019) and Guidelines on processing of personal data based on Article 6(1)(f) (1/2024).
Are there any formalities to obtain consent to process personal data?
The requirements for consent under the GDPR are strict.
To be valid, consent must be in clear and plain language and, where sought in writing, separate from other matters. Consent must be based on affirmative action so pre-ticked boxes are not acceptable. Consent might not be valid if: (i) there is any detriment to the data subject for refusing; (ii) there is an imbalance of power; (iii) consent for multiple purposes is bundled together; or (iv) the consent is a condition of entering into a contract. Finally, consent can be withdrawn at any time.
In practice, other processing conditions should be relied on where possible. Consent will only be an appropriate processing condition if the individual has a genuine choice over the matter, for example, whether to be sent marketing materials.
The European Data Protection Board has issued Guidelines on consent (5/2020).
Are there any special rules when processing personal data about children?
Consent from a child in relation to online services will only be valid if authorised by a parent. A child is someone under 16 years old, though Member States may reduce this age to 13.
In Belgium, the Framework Act reduced the age as from which a child may consent alone to the processing of his/her personal data in the context of online services to 13 years.
Are there any special rules when processing personal data about employees?
The GDPR allows Member States to implement more specific national rules governing the processing of personal data about employees. It may also be possible to process special category personal data where it is necessary for a legal obligation in the field of employment law.
Belgium has not implemented any specific national rules (through an Act or collective bargaining agreement) as a result of the entering into force of the GDPR in relation to the processing of personal data of employees. Such processing is therefore based on legal obligations (such as social security legislation), the performance of the employment contract or the employer’s legitimate interest.
Existing specific employment rules may also apply to the processing, for example, in relation to camera surveillance, the introduction of new technologies or the monitoring of electronic communications.
What is sensitive personal data?
Special category data is personal data consisting of racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, genetic data, biometric data, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation. Decisions such as OT (C-184/20) and Lindenapotheke (C-21/23) indicate this should be interpreted broadly to include information that indirectly discloses these characteristics.
Information about criminal offences is dealt with separately and is subject to even tighter controls.
Are there additional rules for processing sensitive personal data?
Special category data may only be processed if a condition for processing special category data is satisfied. A condition arises where the processing: (a) is carried out with the data subject’s explicit consent; (b) is necessary for a legal obligation in the fields of employment, social security and social protection law; (c) is necessary to protect the vital interests of the data subject or another person where the data subject is unable to give consent; (d) is carried out by a non-profit-seeking body and relates to members of that body or persons who have regular contact; (e) relates to data made public by the data subject; (f) is necessary for legal claims; (g) is for reasons of substantial public interest under EU or Member State law; (h) is necessary for healthcare reasons; (i) is necessary for public health reasons; or (j) is necessary for archiving, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes and is based on EU or Member State law.
The Framework Act clarifies what is to be understood by a ‘substantial public interest’ under Belgian law. It namely covers: (i) processing operations by associations defending fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals (provided such processing is authorised by a Royal Decree); (ii) processing done by the Foundation for Missing and Sexually Exploited Children; and (iii) associations whose main objective is the evaluation, guidance and treatment of persons whose sexual conduct can be qualified as an offence (provided such processing is authorised by a Royal Decree).
The Framework Act also imposes additional requirements on controllers when processing genetic, biometric or health related data, namely to: (i) keep a list of categories of persons having access to the personal data with a description of their function; (ii) make this list available to the Data Protection Authority upon request; and (iii) ensure those persons are bound by a statutory or contractual confidentiality duty towards the data.
Are there additional rules for processing information about criminal offences?
It is only possible to process personal data relating to criminal convictions or offences if: (a) it is carried out under the control of official authority; or (b) when the processing is authorised by EU or Member State law providing for appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of data subjects.
The Framework Act provides for certain exceptions to the prohibition to process the personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences, i.e. when it is: (i) necessary for the management of the controller's own litigation; (ii) done by lawyers or other legal counsel to defend their clients; (iii) necessary for reasons of a substantial public interest; (iv) necessary for scientific, historical or statistical research or for archiving; (v) allowed by the individual’s express written consent; or (vi) relating to personal data which have been made public by the individual itself for one or more specific purposes and the processing remains limited to such purpose.
The Framework Act also imposes additional requirements on controllers when processing personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences, namely to: (i) keep a list of categories of persons having access to the personal data with a description of their function; (ii) make this list available to the Data Protection Authority upon request; and (iii) ensure those persons are bound by a statutory or contractual confidentiality duty towards the data.
Are there any formalities to obtain consent to process sensitive personal data?
Consent to process sensitive personal data must be explicit. The general restrictions on consent, set out above, will also apply. This suggests a degree of formality, such as ticking a box containing the express words “I consent”. It is unlikely explicit consent could be obtained through a course of conduct.
When must a data protection officer be appointed?
Both controllers and processors must appoint a data protection officer if: (i) they are a public authority; (ii) their core activities consist of regular and systematic monitoring of data subjects on a large scale; or (iii) their core activities consist of processing special category personal data on a large scale (including processing information about criminal offences).
What are the duties of the data protection officer?
The data protection officer must be involved in all data protection issues and cannot be dismissed or penalised for performing their role. The data protection officer must report directly to the highest level of management. Details of the data protection officer must be communicated to the relevant supervisory authority.
The Article 29 Working Party has issued Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (WP243).
Is there a general accountability obligation?
The GDPR adds a general accountability obligation under which you must not only comply with these rules, but also be able to demonstrate you comply with them. This means ensuring suitable policies are in place supported by audit and training.
Are privacy impact assessments mandatory?
A data protection impact assessment must be conducted where “high risk” processing is carried out. This includes: (a) systematic and extensive profiling that produces legal effects or significantly affects individuals; (b) processing on a large scale either special categories of personal data or personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences; and (c) systematic monitoring of a publicly accessible area on a large scale (e.g. CCTV). Where the assessment indicates the risk cannot be mitigated, the controller must consult the relevant supervisory authority.
The Article 29 Working Party has subsequently issued Guidelines on Data Protection Impact Assessments (WP 248). It suggests there are nine criteria to consider to determine whether to conduct a data protection impact assessment, and that an assessment should be made if two or more of those criteria are met. This is arguably wider than the criteria set out in the paragraph above.
On 22 March 2019, the Data Protection Authority published in the Belgian State Gazette its list of high risk processing activities for which a data protection impact assessment must be conducted.
Privacy notices
A controller must provide data subjects with a privacy notice setting out how the individual’s personal data will be processed. The privacy notice must contain the enhanced transparency information.
The Article 29 Working Party has issued Guidelines on Transparency (WP260).
Rights to access information
Data subjects have a right to access copies of their personal data by making a request to the controller. They are entitled to both a copy of the personal data and information about the context in which it is processed. The initial request is free, though a charge can be made for subsequent requests. Controllers can refuse the request if it is manifestly unfounded or excessive. The right to obtain a copy of personal data should not adversely affect the rights and freedoms of others. The response must be provided within a month, though this can be extended by two months if the request is complex.
The European Data Protection Board has issued Guidelines on rights of access (01/2022). here have been several important CJEU decisions on the right of access. They indicate data subjects have a right to a faithful and intelligible reproduction of their personal data, including underlying documents where essential to exercise their rights effectively (FF, C-487/21) and that a request is only likely to be considered excessive if made with abusive intent (Rottler, C-526/24). In Österreichische Post (C‑154/21), the CJEU decided that details of specific recipients of the personal data must be disclosed unless this is impossible or manifestly unfounded or excessive.
Rights to data portability
Data subjects also have a right to data portability where the condition for processing personal data is consent or the performance of a contract. It entitles individuals to obtain any personal data they have “provided” to the controller in a machine-readable format. Individuals can also ask for the data to be transferred directly from one controller to another. There is no right to charge fees for this service.
The Article 29 Working Party has issued Guidelines on data portability (WP242).
Right to be forgotten
A data subject can ask that their data be deleted in certain circumstances. However, those circumstances are relatively limited, for example where the processing is based on consent, that consent is withdrawn and there are no other grounds for processing. Even where the right does arise, there are a range of exemptions, for example where there is a legal obligation to retain the data.
The European Data Protection Board has issued Guidelines on the criteria of the Right to be Forgotten in the search engines cases under the GDPR (part 1) (5/2019).
Objection to direct marketing
A data subject can object to their personal data being processed for direct marketing purposes at any time. This includes profiling to the extent related to direct marketing.
Other rights
The GDPR contains a range of other rights, including a right to have inaccurate data corrected. There is also a right to object to processing being carried out in the performance of a public task or under the legitimate interests condition.
Finally, there are controls on taking decisions based solely on automated decision making that produce legal effects or similarly significantly affects the data subject. The Article 29 Working Party has issued Guidelines on Automated Decision Making and Profiling (WP251).
Security requirements in order to protect personal data
The GDPR contains a general obligation to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to protect personal data.
In addition, controllers and processors must ensure, where appropriate: (i) the pseudonymisation and encryption of personal data; (ii) the ability to ensure the ongoing confidentiality, integrity, availability and resilience of its information technology systems; (iii) the ability to restore the availability and access to personal data in a timely manner in the event of a physical or technical incident; and (iv) a process for regularly testing, assessing and evaluating the effectiveness of technical and organisational measures for ensuring the security of the processing.
Specific rules governing processing by third party agents (processors)
A controller must ensure that any processor it instructs will ensure adequate security for personal data and otherwise meet the requirements of the GDPR.
The controller must have written contracts with its processor containing the enhanced processor clauses.
Notice of breach laws
A personal data breach must be notified to the relevant supervisory authority unless it is unlikely to result in a risk to data subjects. The notification must, where feasible, be made within 72 hours. If the personal data breach is a high risk for data subjects, those data subjects must also be notified.
Notice of breach laws apply to specific industry sectors under other regimes. For example, under EU DORA and under the national laws implementing the Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive and NIS II.
The European Data Protection Board has issued Guidelines on Personal Data Breach Notification (9/2022) and Examples regarding Personal Data Breach Notification (1/2021).
Moreover, controllers in certain sectors may be required to inform sectoral regulators of any breach as may be required by other laws.
Restrictions on transfers to third countries
The GDPR contains a restriction on transborder dataflows. This restriction does not apply if the transfer is to a whitelisted country (which includes US organisations participating in the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework).
Transfers can be made: (i) pursuant to a set of Standard Contractual Clauses; (ii) pursuant to binding corporate rules; (iii) to an importer who has signed up to an approved code or obtained an approved certification; or (iv) where otherwise approved by the relevant supervisory authority. However, following the decision in Schrems II (C-311/18) any transfer made on this basis must be subject to a transfer impact assessment of the laws of the relevant third country and supplemented by supplementary protections where necessary.
The European Data Protection Board has issued Recommendation on European Essential Guarantees for surveillance measures (2/2020) and a Recommendation on measures that supplement transfer tools (1/2020) to help conduct this transfer impact assessment. The European Commission has also issued an FAQ on the new Standard Contractual Clauses.
Transfers are also possible if an individual derogation applies. These derogations allow a transfer if it: (i) is made with the data subject’s explicit consent; (ii) is necessary for the performance of a contract with, or in the interests of, the data subject; (iii) is necessary or legally required on important public interest grounds, or for legal claims; (iv) is necessary to protect the vital interests of the data subject; (v) is made from a public register; or (vi) is made under the so-called minor transfer exemption.
The European Data Protection Board has issued Guidelines on derogations applicable to international transfers (2/2018). Finally, the European Data Protection Board has issued Guidelines on the interplay between Article 3 and international transfers (05/2021) to help identify when a transfer takes place.
Notification and approval of national regulator (including notification of use of Standard Contractual Clauses)
In general, there is no need for prior approval from a supervisory authority. However, this depends on the justification for the transfer.
For example, there is no obligation to get approval for the use of Standard Contractual Clauses (though it is possible some supervisory authorities may want to be notified of their use). In contrast, it is necessary to get approval to rely on binding corporate rules, and the supervisory authority must be informed of transfers made using the minor transfers exemption.
Use of binding corporate rules
The GDPR places binding corporate rules on a statutory footing. It isx possible to obtain authorisation from one supervisory authority (subject to approval through the consistency mechanism) that covers transfers from anywhere in the EU.
In Belgium, the Data Protection Authority is usually supportive to the adoption of binding corporate rules. It has often served as lead supervisory authority in their adoption framework.
Fines
The GDPR is intended to make data protection a boardroom issue. It introduces an antitrust-type sanction regime with fines of up to 4% of annual worldwide turnover or €20m, whichever is the greater. These fines apply to breaches of many of the provisions of the GDPR, including failure to comply with the six general data quality principles or carrying out processing without satisfying a condition for processing personal data.
A limited number of breaches fall into a lower tier and so are subject to fines of up to 2% of annual worldwide turnover or €10m, whichever is the greater. Failing to notify a personal data breach or failing to put an adequate contract in place with a processor fall into this lower tier.
There are a number of CJEU judgments on administrative fines. For example, the CJEU has stated that fines can only be imposed where there is an intentional or negligent infringement of the GDPR, see Deutsche Wohnen (C-807/21).
The EDPB has published Guidelines on the calculation of administrative fines(04/2022).
In addition to the administrative fines provided for in the GDPR, the Framework Act also reintroduces criminal sanctions that vary depending on the nature of the infringement of the GDPR and/or the Framework Act. Those criminal sanctions apply to both controllers and processors as well as their representatives and agents. In some cases, gross negligence or malicious intent must be proven to establish an infringement. In other cases, mere negligence is sufficient.
Imprisonment
The Framework Act does not provide for any imprisonment as sanction for breaches of the GDPR and/or the Framework Act.
Compensation
Data subjects have a right to compensation in respect of material and non-material damage.
The CJEU has issued a large number of judgments on compensation. They confirm that the mere infringement of the GDPR is not sufficient to give a right to compensation and there must be a causal link between the infringement and the damage to the individual. However, there is no minimum threshold of seriousness (Österreichische Post, C-300/21) and even negative feelings experienced by the data subject because of the misuse of their data may be sufficient to trigger a right to compensation (Quirin Privatbank, C-655/23).
The Framework Act allows not-for-profit bodies, organisations and associations to claim compensation on behalf of data subjects in court proceedings, subject to such bodies, organisations and associations meeting certain criteria in relation to their legal status and scope of activities.
On 12 January 2023, the Belgian Constitutional Court ruled that interested third parties can challenge decisions by the Data Protection Authority. The DPA Act only allowed parties directly involved in enforcement proceedings to appeal against the Data Protection Authority’s decisions. According to the Constitutional Court, this difference in treatment violates the Belgian constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination. The legislative act aimed at modifying Article 108 of the DPA Act has been adopted on 7 September 2023 and was published in the Belgian State Gazette of 7 February 2024.
Other powers
Regulators have a range of other powers and sanctions at their disposal. This includes investigative powers, such as the ability to demand information from controllers and processors, and to carry out audits. They ill also have corrective powers enabling them to issue warnings or reprimands, to enforce an individual’s rights and to issue a temporary or permanent ban on processing.
The EU has also adopted Regulation (EU) 2025/2518 which lays down additional procedural rules for enforcement of the GDPR in cross-border cases. It will apply from April 2027.
Practice
The most significant fines issued by the Belgian Data Protection Authority are set out below:
According to its 2025 Annual Report, the Belgian Data Protection Authority received 1,216 data breach notifications (compared to 1,455 in 2024), 3,034 information requests (compared to 3,051 in 2024), 1,394 complaints (compared to 837 in 2024), 222 requests for advice on draft legislative texts (compared to 293 in 2024), and 1,161 DPO notifications were received (with 8,533 organisations having an active DPO registered with the Data Protection Authority as at 31 December 2025). The Data Protection Authority's Litigation Chamber published 214 decisions in 2025, with total fines imposed amounting to €75,700. Twenty appeals were lodged against Litigation Chamber decisions, and the Brussels Market Court issued 25 rulings in 2025 (9 final, 3 interim), with 13 decisions totally or partially annulled.
Strategic Plan 2026–2028: the Belgian Data Protection Authority recently published its Strategic Plan for 2026–2028. The plan identifies two fundamental principles — prioritisation and collaboration — and signals a shift towards more proactive, less complaint-driven enforcement. The Data Protection Authority's two thematic priorities for the period are: (i) large-scale processing presenting potentially high risks to individuals' rights and freedoms; and (ii) the processing of personal data of minors. The Data Protection Authority also indicates that it will no longer systematically respond to all information requests, preferring to address recurring questions through broader communication channels. The plan further provides for a reform of the complaint-handling process, giving the first-line service greater discretion to pursue mediation and to refer unresolved cases to the Inspection Service or the Litigation Chamber. Administrative fines and other corrective measures remain key enforcement tools alongside mediation.
In a recent interview with a local journalist on 16 May 2026, the Chair and Co-chair of the Direction Committee shared some insights on their new approach to enforcement. First, they intend to concentrate on major cases, such as those with the greatest impact on citizens, large-scale data processing and processing activities involving minors. This marks a significant shift in practice: instead of spending considerable time on so‑called “individual cases” (for example, complaints by employees about the processing of their personal data by their employer), they aim to target large platforms and data brokers whose processing activities may affect a high number of data subjects. Second, the Chair and Co-chair voiced dissatisfaction with recent decisions of the Brussels Market Court in data protection matters, which they consider treat data protection as a trivial issue, in comparison with the other compliance requirements for companies. As a result, in specific cases, they plan to rely on other instruments, such as criminal law enforcement (for example, direct summons before the criminal courts or criminal settlements (transaction pénale / minnelijke schikking in strafzaken)).
ePrivacy laws
Belgian ePrivacy laws are contained in the Electronic Communications Act of 13 June 2005, the Framework Act, the Code of Economic Law (the “CEL”) and the Royal Decree of 4 April 2003 on the sending of advertising by e-mail (the “RD”), with regard to e-mails. These instruments implemented Article 13 of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive. Belgian law has been amended to implement some of, but not all, the amendments to the Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive. In particular, the Law of 21 December 2021 transposing the European Electronic Communications Code transferred the cookie consent provisions from the Electronic Communications Act to the Framework Act, formally establishing the Data Protection Authority's competence in relation to cookies.
In addition, Belgium has adopted on 21 December 2021 the law transposing the European Electronic Communications Code (“EECC”). This law amends a number of legislative texts, including the above Act of 13 June 2005 as well as the Framework Act.
Conditions for use of cookies
The cookie consent requirements are now set out in the Framework Act (as transferred from the Electronic Communications Act by the Law of 21 December 2021 transposing the European Electronic Communications Code). It is only possible to use cookies if: (i) clear and specific information has been provided to the individual regarding the purposes of the data processing and their rights, all in accordance with the general requirements of the GDPR; and (ii) the individual provides consent after receiving this information. These restrictions do not apply to cookies that are strictly necessary for a service requested by an individual. Last, users must be allowed to withdraw their consent free of charge.
Regulatory guidance on the use of cookies
As in most other Member States, the law does not specify how consent from users should be obtained. This matter has to be clarified through regulatory guidance.
In a decision of December 2019, the Data Protection Authority ruled that cookie consent must comply with the GDPR’s requirements, including the need for a clear affirmative action, and cannot be validly obtained through pre-ticked boxes. It also stated that websites must allow a ‘granular’ consent per cookie or at least per category of cookies and that the cookie policy must be made available in the language(s) of the target audience.
The Data Protection Authority confirmed such requirements in a guidance that it published in April 2020. In this guidance, the Data Protection Authority also specified that functional cookies should in principle only be set for the duration of the session or even less, that cookie walls are not authorised, and that social network plug-ins on an internet site or mobile app cannot be activated without first obtaining user consent thereto. In October 2023, the Data Protection Authority published a checklist detailing the "do's and don'ts" in relation to the use of cookies and similar tracking mechanisms (see here (in Dutch) and here (in French)). The checklist recalls previous guidance from the European Data Protection Board but also addresses new and controversial points, such as cookie walls, “accept/reject all cookies” buttons and deceptive design patterns. In May 2022, the Data Protection Authority imposed a €50,000 fine on press group Roularta for its cookie management on two websites, further to an investigation of the inspection service regarding the management of cookies on Belgian media websites (see here (in Dutch) and here (in French)). The Data Protection Authority found that Roularta did not meet the GDPR requirements for collecting cookie consent, including the obligation to obtain prior, informed and unambiguous consent (which the user should be able to withdraw as easily as it has been given). In its decision, the Data Protection Authority underlined that “statistical” cookies cannot in principle be considered strictly necessary, and should therefore also be subject to prior consent.
Conditions for direct marketing by e-mail to individual subscribers
The CEL prohibits the use of e-mails for advertising purposes without prior, free, specific and informed consent of the addressees. Such consent can be revoked at any time, without any justification or any cost for the addressee. This consent requirement also constrains the available GDPR legal basis: the controller must rely on GDPR consent and may not rely on legitimate interests.
Conditions for direct marketing by e-mail to corporate subscribers
The sending of direct marketing e-mails does not require consent if they are sent to a legal entity using “impersonal” electronic contact details (e.g. info@company.be). The use of addresses such as john.smith@company.be, however, remains subject to the requirement for prior consent.
Exemptions and other issues
It is permitted to send e-mail for the purposes of direct marketing if the similar products and services exemption applies. The Belgian DPA clarified the conditions of the soft opt-in exception, reminding that the controller: (i) obtained the contact details directly from an existing customer in the context of a sale of a product or service; (ii) uses those details solely to promote its own analogous products or services; and (iii) offers a clear, simple and free opportunity to object both at the point of collection and in each subsequent marketing communication. The exception does not permit sharing contact details with third parties for advertising purposes – including group companies such as subsidiaries, sister companies or parent companies, without separate prior consent. The CEL also prohibits direct marketing e-mails from being sent if: (i) the identity of the sender is disguised or concealed; or (ii) an opt-out address is not provided. The sender must also include the eCommerce information.
Regulatory guidance on the processing of personal data for direct marketing purposes. The Data Protection Authority published an updated recommendation on the processing of personal data for direct marketing purposes (Recommendation 01/2026), replacing and superseding the recommendation of February 2020 on the processing of personal data for direct marketing purposes (currently only available here (in French)). The purpose of this recommendation is to help controllers using (or participating in) direct marketing techniques develop appropriate reflexes on how to act in accordance with the GDPR. The 2026 recommendation clarifies some points of law such as the conditions for consent, the rules on consent renewal, profiling and automated decision-making in a direct marketing context, the use of contact details of existing customers (the 'soft opt-in' rule) and the fact that the e-Privacy opt-out right is additional to, and does not replace, the unconditional right to object to processing for direct marketing purposes under Article 21(2) GDPR.
Conditions for direct marketing by telephone to individual subscribers (excludes automated calls)
Marketing calls to individual subscribers are prohibited in relation to subscribers who object to such marketing calls.
The CEL created an obligation on network operators to enable subscribers to exercise their opt-out right, free of charges. The CEL requires the setting up of a file in which every opt-out request by the subscribers is registered. The operator must give access to this file to the persons involved in direct marketing activities. Such an opt-out list has been put in place on behalf of the industry by the Belgian Direct Marketing Association (the “BDMA”).
By signing the so-called “Ne m’appelez plus/Bel me niet meer” list, subscribers indicate that they no longer wish to receive direct marketing by phone. Phone calls for direct marketing purposes to a phone number which is listed in the “Ne m’appelez plus/Bel me niet meer” list are prohibited.
The BDMA has also put in place another opt-out list which is not set forth in the law. The so-called “Robinson list” follows the same principles but covers marketing by mail. BDMA members undertake not to use these subscribers' addresses for marketing purposes.
Conditions for direct marketing by telephone to corporate subscribers (excludes automated calls)
Non-automated marketing calls to corporate subscribers are prohibited in relation to subscribers who object to such marketing calls.
Exemptions and other issues
No exemptions apply.
Regulatory guidance on the processing of personal data for direct marketing purposes. The Data Protection Authority published an updated recommendation on the processing of personal data for direct marketing purposes (Recommendation 01/2026), replacing and superseding the recommendation of February 2020 on the processing of personal data for direct marketing purposes (currently only available here (in French)). The purpose of this recommendation is to help controllers using (or participating in) direct marketing techniques develop appropriate reflexes on how to act in accordance with the GDPR. The 2026 recommendation clarifies some points of law such as ways to address the elevated risk of transparency failures given the oral nature of telephone marketing, and notably that: (i) controllers must ensure that callers inform recipients, before any promotional content is communicated, of the minimum required information under GDPR Articles 13 and 14, (ii) a layered approach is acceptable, for example by sending an SMS link to the privacy notice at the conclusion of the call, and (iii) where VoIP is used in a manner that conceals the caller's identity, such that the recipient cannot identify who is calling or call back, this constitutes a failure to comply with the transparency obligation.
Contents