Belgium Defamation Laws: Civil, Criminal & Defences

In Belgium, defamation is both a criminal offence and a civil wrong. The Penal Code (Code pénal / Strafwetboek) punishes calumny and defamation in articles 443 to 453, and the Civil Code lets the person harmed sue in tort under the general fault rule (historically article 1382, now Book 6 of the Civil Code) for damages and a correction. A new Penal Code, already enacted but not yet in force, will reorganise these offences again from 1 September 2026.

Is defamation civil, criminal, or both in Belgium?

It is both. Belgium criminalises attacks on honour in the Penal Code and also allows the person harmed to sue in the civil courts. The criminal honour offences are grouped in articles 443 to 453, covering calumny (calomnie), defamation (diffamation), calumnious denunciation, and insult (injure). On the civil side, Belgium has no dedicated civil defamation statute; instead, a defamatory statement is treated as a fault under the general extra-contractual liability rule. That rule was historically articles 1382 and 1383 of the old Civil Code and, since the entry into force of Book 6 of the new Civil Code on 1 January 2025, is now set out there. A victim must prove a fault, damage, and a causal link. Because of the constitutional jury rule for press offences, the civil route is the practical mainstay for media cases.

What counts as criminal defamation under the Penal Code?

Belgian law turns on whether the law allows proof of the alleged fact. Article 443 defines the core offence as maliciously imputing to a person a precise fact that is liable to harm their honour or expose them to public contempt and for which legal proof is not adduced. It is calumny (calomnie) where the law admits proof of the imputed fact, and defamation (diffamation) where the law does not admit such proof. Article 444 requires that the imputation be made with publicity, for example in public meetings or places, in writings that are printed or otherwise distributed, or in any other published form. The penalty under article 444 is imprisonment of eight days to one year and a fine, and the statutory fine figures are multiplied by the surcharges (decimes additionnels) that apply to all Belgian criminal fines, not just defamation, currently a factor of ten times the base figure, up from eight, following an increase that took effect 1 February 2026.

Watch out: Belgian criminal fines are stated at nominal historical figures (for example 26 to 200 euros), but they are multiplied by statutory surcharges, currently ten times the base figure as of 1 February 2026, so the actual amount payable is considerably higher than the figure in the article.

What about insult and calumnious denunciation?

Beyond calumny and defamation, the Penal Code addresses two related offences. Insult (injure) under article 448 covers offensive expressions or terms of contempt that do not impute a precise fact, and it carries lighter penalties, generally a short term of imprisonment of eight days to two months and a fine where committed with publicity. Calumnious denunciation (denonciation calomnieuse) under article 445 covers making a malicious, false accusation to an authority, and it carries imprisonment of fifteen days to six months and a fine. The increased minimum penalties for hate-motivated offences can apply where the imputation is driven by discrimination based on protected characteristics such as origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or belief.

What defences and privileges apply?

The key defences track the structure of article 443. For calumny, proof that the imputed fact is true is a complete defence, since calumny by definition concerns facts the law permits to be proved. Diffamation, by contrast, concerns facts the law does not allow to be proved, such as matters protected by private life, so truth is not generally available there. The requirement of malice (mechancete) means a statement made in good faith and without intent to harm may fall outside the offence, and Belgian courts, applying article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, give wider latitude to value judgments and to journalism on matters of public interest. Accurate reporting of parliamentary and judicial proceedings is also protected.

Why is criminal prosecution of the press uncommon?

The Belgian Constitution treats press offences specially. Under article 150 of the Constitution, press offences (delits de presse) must be tried by a jury in the Court of Assize, rather than by an ordinary criminal court. A 1999 revision carved out an exception for press offences inspired by racism or xenophobia, which can go to a correctional court, but ordinary defamation by press remains within the jury's exclusive competence. Because Assize trials are slow and costly and are reserved for the gravest matters, prosecutors rarely pursue press defamation there, which commentators describe as creating near-impunity for press offences at the criminal level. The Court of Cassation has extended the press-offence concept to opinions published online. The practical consequence is that most defamation by media, including online media, is litigated as a civil tort.

What remedies, damages, and limitation periods apply?

On the civil side, a successful claimant recovers compensatory damages for material and moral harm and can obtain measures such as publication of the judgment or a correction. Belgian damages are compensatory and are not subject to a statutory cap. The civil limitation period follows the general rule now found in the Civil Code: a claim is barred five years after the victim becomes aware of the damage and the identity of the person responsible, and in any event twenty years after the event that caused the damage. On the criminal side, honour offences under articles 443 and following are prosecuted only on the complaint of the victim, and press offences carry the reduced three-month limitation period set by the press decree of 20 July 1831, running from the day of the offence or the last act of prosecution.

How is online defamation treated, and how do you sue?

The same rules apply to online statements, including social media posts, reviews, and comments, and the Court of Cassation has confirmed that defamatory content published online can qualify as a press offence for constitutional purposes. To pursue a claim, a victim most commonly brings a civil action before the ordinary civil courts (tribunal de premiere instance) for damages and corrective measures, often the more realistic route given the jury rule for criminal press matters. A criminal complaint can be lodged with the prosecutor for non-press honour offences, and a victim can join a criminal case as a civil party (partie civile) to claim damages. This is general information about Belgian law, not legal advice for any specific dispute.

What changes on 1 September 2026?

A wholly new Penal Code was adopted on 29 February 2024 and published in the Belgisch Staatsblad/Moniteur belge on 8 April 2024 as two separate acts: one introducing Book I, the general rules of criminal law, and one introducing Book II, which consolidates the offences themselves. It takes effect on 1 September 2026. Book I set its own commencement at two years after publication, which would have been 8 April 2026, and that date was pushed back to 1 September 2026 after the adapted traffic, weapons, drugs, and administrative-sanction legislation was not finalised in time.

The new code drops the old three-way split between misdaad/crime, wanbedrijf/delit, and overtreding/contravention and replaces it with eight penalty levels, niveaus. Under Book I article 36, a niveau 1 penalty for a natural person is a fine of 200 to 20,000 euros, a work sentence of twenty to one hundred and twenty hours, probation of six to twelve months, forfeiture, a fine calculated on the advantage obtained from the offence, or a conviction by declaration of guilt. It carries no term of imprisonment at all: under the new scale, imprisonment begins at niveau 2.

Book II regroups the honour offences in chapter 6, section 3, headed Laster en belediging (calumny and insult), at articles 240 to 246, and this is where the substantive change lies. The old truth-based distinction disappears. Article 443's split between calumny, where the law admitted proof of the imputed fact, and defamation, where it did not, is replaced by a single offence of laster in article 240, defined as publicly and with malicious intent imputing to a person a specific fact capable of harming their honour or exposing them to public contempt. Publicity is built into that definition rather than being imposed by a separate article as it is under the current article 444.

In place of the admissibility-of-proof test, article 240 gives the accused a defence: there is no laster where the person accused of it makes it credible by any means that the imputed fact is plausible. That defence is unavailable where the imputation was made with intent to harm and without any reason of public or private interest.

The surrounding provisions carry over in recognisable form. Article 241 suspends a laster prosecution while the imputed fact is itself before a court or a competent authority. Articles 242 and 243 keep calumnious denunciation to a public authority and calumnious imputation against a subordinate as distinct offences. Article 244 keeps belediging (insult), article 245 adds an aggravating factor where the victim is a minor or a person in a vulnerable state, and article 246 preserves the immunity for words spoken and documents produced in court that relate to the case or the parties. All of these offences sit at niveau 1. The Dutch term eerroof does not appear anywhere in Book II.