Belgium Recording Laws: One-Party Consent, Art. 314bis, and GDPR (2026)

Belgium is a one-party consent jurisdiction for recording private conversations. Under Article 314bis of the Belgian Criminal Code (Code pénal/Strafwetboek), any participant in a communication may record it without informing the other parties. Recording a conversation you are not part of is a criminal offense carrying up to one year in prison.

This guide covers the full scope of Belgian recording law: the governing statutes, Court of Cassation jurisprudence confirming the participant exception, GDPR and Belgian data protection obligations, voyeurism and image-based abuse law, workplace surveillance rules, the right to record police, the EU AI Act's surveillance provisions, and Belgium's new Criminal Code entering force on September 1, 2026.

Information last verified on 2026-05-15. This article presents general legal information and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a lawyer licensed in Belgium for advice on your specific situation.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses Belgian national law on the recording of private communications, including the Criminal Code (Code pénal/Strafwetboek), the Law of June 13, 2005 on Electronic Communications, the Loi du 30 juillet 2018 (Belgian GDPR implementing act), collective bargaining agreements governing workplace surveillance, and directly applicable EU law (GDPR, EU AI Act). It does not address French, Dutch, German, or Luxembourg recording laws in detail; for cross-border considerations, see the neighboring countries comparison section. For Belgian data privacy law broadly, see our Belgium data privacy guide.

---

Quick Answer: Is Belgium a One-Party Consent Country?

Yes. Belgium operates a one-party consent framework under Article 314bis of the Belgian Criminal Code. The statute criminalizes recording only by a person who is not a party to the communication ("auxquelles il ne prend pas part"). If you are actively participating in a conversation -- by phone, video call, or in person -- you may record it without informing the other parties. The Cour de Cassation confirmed this interpretation in rulings on January 9, 2001 (Arr. Cass. 2001, 26) and November 17, 2015, both holding that participant recording without others' knowledge does not violate Article 314bis or Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, two important overlays apply. First, participant recording is criminal if done with fraudulent intent or intent to harm under Article 314bis itself. Second, GDPR requires transparency about data processing even when criminal law permits the recording -- a distinction that catches many businesses off guard. Recording a conversation you are not part of carries up to one year in prison.

---

The Governing Statute: Article 314bis of the Criminal Code

Article 314bis sits within Chapter VIIIbis of the Belgian Criminal Code, addressing offenses against the secrecy of communications not accessible to the public. The article was introduced by the Law of June 30, 1994 and has been amended since, with the version currently in force dated July 14, 2015 per the ejustice.just.fgov.be Justel database.

Article 314bis, Paragraph 1: Non-Participant Recording

Paragraph 1 targets anyone who is not a party to a communication. It punishes, with imprisonment of six months to one year and a fine of 200 EUR to 10,000 EUR (or one of these penalties), any person who intentionally, by any means, listens to, takes knowledge of, or records private communications or telecommunications during their transmission, without the consent of all participants.

Leaving a recording device in a room to capture a conversation between other people -- or using software to tap someone else's phone call -- is a criminal act under this paragraph, regardless of the purpose.

Article 314bis, Paragraph 2: Distribution of Illegally Obtained Recordings

Paragraph 2 carries heavier penalties than the interception offense itself. It punishes with imprisonment of six months to two years and a fine of 500 EUR to 20,000 EUR anyone who knowingly possesses, reveals, or disseminates to another person the content of communications or telecommunications that were illegally intercepted under paragraph 1, or whose content was obtained in violation of paragraph 1.

Sharing a recording that was made by a third party without the consent of all participants also constitutes a crime under paragraph 2. Distributing an intercepted recording through social media can lead to prosecution even if you did not make the original recording.

Watch out: Belgian criminal fines are subject to "opdeciemen" (decimal surcharge multipliers). The multiplier currently in force can increase stated fine amounts by a factor of eight in practice. A fine stated as 10,000 EUR in the code translates to approximately 80,000 EUR when actually imposed.

The Participant Exception: Why Belgium Is One-Party Consent

Article 314bis expressly limits its scope to persons who are not participants in the communication. The Cour de Cassation confirmed on November 17, 2015 that a person who participates in a communication and records it without others' knowledge commits no offense under Article 314bis. An earlier ruling of January 9, 2001 (Arr. Cass. 2001, 26) confirmed that participant recording does not violate Article 8(1) ECHR. The September 9, 2008 ruling (Arr. Cass. 2008, p. 1890) addressed the reasonable expectation of privacy analysis in the context of participant recordings.

This participant exception makes Belgium a one-party consent jurisdiction. As long as you are actively taking part in the conversation -- whether by telephone, video call, or in person -- you may record it without notifying anyone.

The Fraudulent-Intent Carve-Out

Participation does not provide absolute protection. Article 314bis provides that even a participant can be liable if the recording is made with "fraudulent intent" (intention frauduleuse) or "intent to harm" (dessein de nuire). Recording a conversation for the purpose of blackmailing the other party, or recording specifically to cause damage to that person, can be prosecuted even though the recorder was a participant. Courts evaluate the purpose of the recording at the time it was made.

Repeat Offenses

Penalties under Article 314bis are doubled if a violation is committed within five years of a prior conviction under the same provisions.

---

Article 124: Electronic Communications Law

The Law of June 13, 2005 on Electronic Communications contains Article 124, which parallels Article 314bis but focuses specifically on electronic and telecommunications networks. Article 124 prohibits anyone from intentionally intercepting, monitoring, or recording electronic communications, or causing others to do so, except where legally authorized. The prohibition covers telephone calls, email, messaging applications, and any electronic communication transmitted over Belgian networks.

Fines for organizational violations under the Electronic Communications Law range from 500 EUR to 50,000 EUR. Articles 314bis and 124 together form a comprehensive prohibition on unauthorized interception by non-participants across all communication channels.

---

Article 259bis: Interception by Public Officers

When illegal interception is carried out by a person exercising a public function -- such as a police officer acting outside proper judicial authorization -- Article 259bis of the Criminal Code applies rather than Article 314bis. Article 259bis carries enhanced penalties: six months to three years imprisonment and fines of 4,000 EUR to 160,000 EUR. This reflects the heightened duty placed on government officials not to abuse surveillance powers.

Lawful law-enforcement wiretapping requires prior authorization by a juge d'instruction (investigative judge, juge d'instruction/onderzoeksrechter) under Article 90ter of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A judge may issue such authorization only when there is serious indication that a specified offense was committed and other investigative methods have proven insufficient or disproportionate.

---

GDPR, the Loi du 30 Juillet 2018, and the Belgian DPA

Recording a conversation captures personal data: a person's voice is personal data under GDPR Article 4(1). This means that even where a recording is lawful under criminal law -- because you are a participant -- you must still satisfy GDPR requirements if the recording is not for purely personal or domestic purposes.

The Belgian GDPR Implementing Act

The Loi du 30 juillet 2018 relative à la protection des personnes physiques à l'égard des traitements de données à caractère personnel (M.B. 5 septembre 2018) is Belgium's national law implementing the GDPR. It establishes the Autorité de protection des données (APD, French) / Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit (GBA, Dutch) as Belgium's independent supervisory authority with authority to impose administrative fines up to 20 million EUR or 4% of annual global turnover for serious GDPR violations.

Legal Basis for Recording Under GDPR

Article 6(1) GDPR requires a valid legal basis before processing personal data. For recording conversations, the most common bases are:

Consent (Art. 6(1)(a)): The data subject has given clear, informed, and specific consent to the recording. GDPR consent must be freely given and withdrawable at any time.

Legitimate interest (Art. 6(1)(f)): The recording serves a legitimate interest of the controller (such as quality assurance or dispute resolution), provided that interest is not overridden by the data subject's fundamental rights. A documented balancing test is required.

Contract performance (Art. 6(1)(b)): Recording may be necessary for the performance of a contract, such as documenting specific client requirements. The APD scrutinized this basis in Decision 57/2023.

Transparency Obligations

Regardless of the legal basis chosen, GDPR Article 13 requires transparency. Data subjects must be informed, before the recording begins, about: the fact that recording is taking place; the purpose; the legal basis relied upon; the retention period; and their data subject rights (access, erasure, portability). Secret recordings without any prior notice are not GDPR-compliant, even when lawful under Article 314bis criminal law. This distinction is critical for businesses: criminal law permits participant recording without notice, but data protection law still requires transparency about the processing.

Belgian DPA Enforcement

The APD has actively enforced recording-related GDPR obligations. In Decision 57/2023, the APD fined a controller 40,000 EUR for refusing to provide a data subject with copies of their recorded phone conversations when the data subject exercised the right of access under Article 15 GDPR. The controller had invited the data subject to come to the office to listen to the recordings, but refused to provide copies. The APD held that this did not satisfy the Article 15 obligation.

---

Phone Recording and In-Person Recording

Belgian law applies the same Article 314bis framework to both telephone recordings and face-to-face recordings, but practical differences exist.

Phone and Video Call Recording

Both Article 314bis and Article 124 of the Electronic Communications Law apply to phone and video call recordings. As a participant, you may record your own calls without notifying the other party. For businesses recording customer service calls, GDPR requires upfront disclosure. The standard practice of playing an announcement such as "This call may be recorded for quality and training purposes" addresses the GDPR transparency obligation and helps establish an implied consent or legitimate-interest basis.

In-Person Conversation Recording

Recording a face-to-face conversation follows the same one-party consent principle. Active participation in the conversation is the key factor. You cannot place a hidden recording device in a room and leave, as that would make you a non-participant for any conversation occurring during your absence.

The expectation of privacy matters in court. The Cour de Cassation has recognized that a business-oriented discussion in a corporate meeting room carries a lower expectation of privacy than a personal conversation in someone's home. Courts consider this when assessing admissibility and weight of recordings.

---

Workplace Recording and Surveillance

Workplace recording in Belgium is governed by criminal law, GDPR, and two collective bargaining agreements that carry the force of law for all private-sector employers in Belgium.

CBA No. 68 (CCT 68): Camera Surveillance

Collective Bargaining Agreement No. 68, adopted by the National Labour Council on June 16, 1998, governs camera/video surveillance in the workplace. CBA 68 defines "camera surveillance" broadly to include any system using one or more cameras to monitor places or activities at the workplace from a remote point.

Continuous camera surveillance is permitted only for:

• Safety and health of employees
• Protection of company property
• Control of the production process
• Control of machinery

Temporary camera surveillance is permitted for:

• Monitoring the production process
• Monitoring employee work performance (limited duration only)

Permanent surveillance of employee performance or behavior is explicitly prohibited. An employer cannot install cameras with the primary purpose of continuously monitoring how employees perform their work. Hidden cameras in the workplace are prohibited under all circumstances. Before implementation, the employer must inform the works council (or, where none exists, the union delegation or employees directly) of: the number and location of cameras; the purpose; storage duration; and operating hours.

CBA No. 81 (CCT 81): Electronic Communications Monitoring

Collective Bargaining Agreement No. 81 governs the monitoring of electronic communications data in the workplace. CBA 81 covers all forms of electronic communication transmitted or received by employees in the course of employment -- email, internet use, instant messaging, and other digital communications -- regardless of whether they are internal or external.

CBA 81 requires employers to observe three core principles:

Purpose: Monitoring must serve a legitimate purpose from a defined list. Monitoring for the purpose of collecting evidence of wrongdoing requires specific justification.

Proportionality: Only data necessary for the stated purpose may be collected and retained. Bulk collection of all employee communications is impermissible.

Transparency: Employers must consult the works council before implementing any monitoring system and must provide each employee individually with advance notice of: what is being monitored; why; for how long data is stored; and whether monitoring is permanent or temporary.

CBA 81 operates alongside CBA 68 (cameras) and GDPR. Together, the two CBAs and GDPR create a layered workplace surveillance framework that is more employee-protective than the baseline criminal law alone.

Audio Recording by Employees at Work

Audio recording in the workplace follows the general rules of Article 314bis. An employee who participates in a meeting or conversation with a colleague or manager may record it without giving notice, because the employee is a participant. However, GDPR significantly complicates this. A workplace recording is not covered by the "personal or domestic use" exception in GDPR Article 2(2)(c). The employee is therefore processing personal data and must identify a valid legal basis -- which is typically difficult to establish without consent from all parties.

Belgian courts have recognized that in serious workplace disputes (such as harassment or discrimination claims), a secretly recorded conversation may be admitted as evidence, particularly where the employee had no other practical means of proving the conduct. This is assessed under the Antigoon doctrine (discussed below).

The Camera Act of March 21, 2007

The Camera Act (Loi Caméras/Camerawet), as revised in 2018, governs surveillance cameras outside the workplace: in public spaces, businesses open to the public, and private properties. Key requirements include registration of cameras with the police, display of pictograms indicating surveillance, and maintaining an internal register of camera activities. Publishing camera footage on the internet or social media is generally prohibited, even when the footage shows criminal activity such as shoplifting.

---

Recording in Public Places

Belgium allows photography and filming in public spaces, but individual portrait rights and GDPR create meaningful limits on what can be published.

Portrait Rights

Belgian law recognizes strong portrait rights grounded in Article 8 ECHR and Belgian Civil Code principles. A person's prior consent is required before copying or distributing a recognizable image of them, subject to exceptions: public figures photographed in public for non-commercial or journalistic purposes; incidental appearances in crowd scenes; and images of news events in the public interest. A person who appears incidentally in a photograph of a public space does not require individual consent. A person who is the recognizable subject of the image does require consent before publication.

Audio Recording in Public Spaces

Article 314bis protects "private communications." A conversation in a public place may still qualify as private if participants had a reasonable expectation of not being overheard -- for example, two people speaking quietly at a cafe table. Recording ambient sounds, street noise, or a public speech does not implicate Article 314bis, as these are not private communications.

---

Recording Police and Public Officials

There is no general prohibition in Belgian law on recording police officers carrying out their duties in a public place. The Court of First Instance of East Flanders confirmed on October 9, 2025 that "the mere recording of a police intervention, for example as evidence, is in principle not punishable."

The right to record police is grounded in freedom of expression and the accountability function of citizen journalism. Police officers, acting in their official capacity in public, have a reduced expectation of privacy regarding their conduct.

However, the following limits apply:

Non-interference: You may not interfere with police operations or disobey lawful orders to maintain a distance.

No false attributions: Criminal Code Article 276 prohibits attributing false statements to an identifiable officer with intent to harm their reputation. The October 2025 East Flanders case involved a conviction for posting manipulated footage that falsely accused an officer of making racist statements. The court ordered 50 hours community service and 3,250 EUR compensation for the officers.

Publishing on social media: Publishing recognizable images of officers on social media constitutes processing of personal data under GDPR. A legitimate purpose must exist -- genuine journalistic reporting on police conduct generally qualifies; posting to embarrass or harass an officer generally does not.

---

Voyeurism, Non-Consensual Intimate Images, and Deepfakes

Belgium has specific criminal provisions targeting image-based sexual abuse, alongside a developing legal framework for AI-generated synthetic content.

Article 371/1: Voyeurism

Article 371/1 of the current Criminal Code criminalizes voyeurism: intentionally observing or recording images of a person in a private situation while that person is naked or engaging in explicit sexual activity, without that person's consent, and in circumstances where the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Under the new Criminal Code taking effect September 1, 2026, the voyeurism offense is renumbered as Article 135.

Articles 417/9-417/10: Non-Consensual Intimate Images (NCII)

Article 417/9 criminalizes the non-consensual distribution of material of a sexual nature. Article 417/10 provides aggravated penalties where the offense is committed with malicious intent or for financial gain: imprisonment and fines are increased. Where the victim is between 16 and 18 years old, imprisonment is 5 to 10 years; where the victim is under 16, imprisonment is 10 to 15 years. Under the new Criminal Code (September 1, 2026), these offenses are renumbered as Articles 136 (standard offense) and 137 (aggravated offense).

Urgent interim relief (référé) is available to obtain content removal within 6 hours, enforceable against both original creators and hosting platforms. Non-compliance with removal orders can result in penalties of 1,600 EUR to 120,000 EUR.

Deepfakes and the Legal Gap

Belgium does not yet have a specific statute criminalizing the creation or distribution of AI-generated synthetic intimate images (deepfakes/deepnudes). The Liège Court of Appeal ruled on November 4, 2024 that crude photomontages placing identifiable faces on unrelated nude bodies did not constitute voyeurism under Article 371/1 or NCII under Article 417/9. The court reasoned that existing statutes target recordings of actual nudity, and the crude photomontages were not genuine recordings of the persons depicted. Notably, the court stated that hyperrealistic AI-generated deepfakes might receive different legal treatment given their greater capacity to damage victims' sexual integrity and dignity.

The new Criminal Code (Articles 135-137, effective September 1, 2026) renumbers the voyeurism and NCII offenses but does not, as reported in available commentary, address synthetic content specifically.

At the EU level, Directive 2024/1385 of May 14, 2024 on combating violence against women and domestic violence requires member states to criminalize the fabrication and dissemination of deepfakes depicting sexual activities of a person without their consent. Belgium must implement this directive by its transposition deadline. Until specific legislation is enacted, victims of sexual deepfakes in Belgium may pursue civil remedies under GDPR (unauthorized processing of personal data), image rights (requiring consent for distribution of recognizable images), and general civil liability under Belgian tort law.

---

Criminal Penalties for Illegal Recording

Penalties Table

Offense	Imprisonment	Fine (stated)	Fine (with opdeciemen x8)
Non-participant interception/recording (Art. 314bis, para. 1)	6 months to 1 year	200 EUR to 10,000 EUR	up to ~80,000 EUR
Distributing illegally obtained recording (Art. 314bis, para. 2)	6 months to 2 years	500 EUR to 20,000 EUR	up to ~160,000 EUR
Public officer intercepting without authorization (Art. 259bis)	6 months to 3 years	4,000 EUR to 160,000 EUR	up to ~1,280,000 EUR
Electronic communications violation (Art. 124, Law of 2005)	Varies	500 EUR to 50,000 EUR	varies

Repeat offenses within five years of a prior conviction: penalties doubled.

Civil Liability

Beyond criminal penalties, victims of illegal recording may pursue civil damages under Belgian tort law. Publication of personal recordings without consent that interferes with someone's private life or causes mortification entitles the victim to compensation under the Belgian Civil Code. Victims may also pursue damages under GDPR Article 82 for unauthorized processing of personal data.

---

Admissibility of Recordings as Evidence: The Antigoon Doctrine

Belgium does not automatically exclude unlawfully obtained evidence from proceedings. The Antigoon doctrine, established by the Cour de Cassation on October 14, 2003, and codified in Article 32 of the Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2013, provides a balancing framework.

Criminal Cases

In criminal proceedings, unlawfully obtained evidence (including recordings made in violation of Article 314bis) may only be excluded if: (1) formal requirements sanctioned by nullity were violated; (2) the unlawfulness compromises the reliability of the evidence; or (3) use of the evidence would violate the right to a fair trial.

Civil Cases

The Cour de Cassation extended the Antigoon doctrine to civil proceedings in its judgment of June 14, 2021 (J.L.M.B. 2021, p. 1470). In that case, a party submitted a secretly recorded phone conversation as evidence. The Court held that evidence obtained in civil proceedings should be excluded only if the reliability of the evidence was compromised by the illegality, or if its use would undermine the right to due process. The mere illegality of how evidence was obtained is not enough to require exclusion.

This means a recording made in violation of Article 314bis or GDPR may still be admitted as evidence if the judge determines it is reliable and its use is compatible with fair trial rights. However, admissibility is not guaranteed: courts conduct a full factual assessment, and recordings obtained in particularly egregious circumstances (including by state actors outside proper authorization) remain subject to stricter scrutiny.

---

Business Compliance: Call Recording in Belgium

Businesses recording customer or employee calls in Belgium must navigate both criminal law and GDPR. The following five-step framework reflects current APD enforcement priorities.

Step 1 -- Identify a GDPR legal basis. For customer service quality assurance, legitimate interest under Article 6(1)(f) is commonly used, but requires a documented balancing test weighing organizational interest against caller privacy. Contract performance under Article 6(1)(b) may apply when the recording documents specific client requirements. Consent under Article 6(1)(a) is the clearest basis but the hardest to implement at scale (must be freely given and withdrawable).

Step 2 -- Provide upfront notice. Play an audio announcement before or at the start of every recorded call: that the call is being recorded; why; the legal basis; how to opt out if applicable; and where to find the full privacy notice. This satisfies GDPR Article 13 transparency obligations.

Step 3 -- Maintain a Record of Processing Activities (ROPA). Include call recording in your GDPR Article 30 ROPA. If recording is systematic and large-scale, conduct a Data Protection Impact Assessment under Article 35.

Step 4 -- Honor data subject access requests. The APD held in Decision 57/2023 that recorded callers have the right to request copies of their specific recordings under GDPR Article 15. Businesses must be able to locate, extract, and provide those copies within the one-month deadline. Inviting the data subject to listen at your premises is not an adequate substitute for providing a copy.

Step 5 -- Enforce retention schedules. Store recordings only as long as necessary for the stated purpose. Implement and enforce automatic deletion. Indefinite retention violates the GDPR principle of storage limitation under Article 5(1)(e).

---

The EU AI Act and Surveillance in Belgium

The EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) applies directly in Belgium as a directly applicable EU regulation. Several provisions affect recording and surveillance practices.

Provisions in Force from August 2025

As of August 2, 2025, the AI Act's Chapter 5 (obligations for general-purpose AI model providers), Chapter 7 (governance framework), and Chapter 12 (sanctions) are in force. This includes requirements for providers of AI systems that generate synthetic content -- including AI-generated audio or video of real persons -- to label outputs as AI-generated.

High-Risk AI Provisions (from August 2, 2026)

Requirements for high-risk AI systems, including biometric identification systems and real-time remote surveillance systems, become enforceable on August 2, 2026. Deployers of emotion recognition or biometric categorisation systems must inform individuals exposed to those systems. Retrospective (post-event) facial recognition requires a binding authorization from a judicial or administrative authority, established on grounds of strict necessity for a specific criminal offense, with documentation requirements for each use.

Belgian Regulatory Structure

Belgium designated BIPT (the telecom regulator) as its primary market surveillance authority for the AI Act in the Government Declaration of January 31, 2025. The APD retains jurisdiction over GDPR aspects of AI systems processing personal data. For AI-based surveillance tools used by employers, both BIPT, the APD, and the labor-law framework (CBA 81) apply concurrently.

---

Belgium's New Criminal Code (Effective September 1, 2026)

Belgium adopted a completely new Criminal Code, published in the Moniteur belge (Belgian Official Gazette) on April 8, 2024. This replaced the Criminal Code of 1867, one of the oldest codifications of criminal law in Europe. The new code represents the first comprehensive overhaul in over 150 years, introducing a unified sanction scale (eight penalty levels replacing the felony/misdemeanor distinction) and modernizing the structure and language of Belgian criminal law.

The entry into force was originally set for April 8, 2026 (two years after publication). However, the Belgian Chamber of Representatives voted in March 2026 -- unanimously, with abstentions only from PTB and Ecolo-Groen -- to delay entry into force to September 1, 2026, providing additional time for the legislative adaptations still needed across Belgian law.

Under the new code, key offenses in this area are renumbered. Voyeurism (currently Art. 371/1) becomes Article 135. Non-consensual distribution of intimate material (currently Arts. 417/9-417/10) becomes Articles 136-137. The direct equivalent of Article 314bis in the new code's numbering was not confirmed in available official sources at the time of this writing -- practitioners should consult the official Moniteur belge text and any official concordance table published by the Federal Public Service Justice before the September 1, 2026 effective date.

The fundamental principles governing recording -- one-party consent for participant recordings, prohibition on non-participant recording, protection of the secrecy of private communications -- continue under the reformed framework.

---

Key Differences from Neighboring Countries

Understanding how Belgium compares to its neighbors is important for travelers and cross-border businesses.

Country	Rule	Key Statute
Belgium	One-party consent (participant may record)	Art. 314bis Code pénal
France	One-party consent (participant), but publishing without consent can be prosecuted	Code pénal Art. 226-1
Germany	All-party consent (every participant must consent)	Strafgesetzbuch § 201
Netherlands	One-party consent (participant may record)	Wetboek van Strafrecht Art. 139a
Luxembourg	All-party consent (every participant must consent)	Code pénal Art. 259-1

For cross-border conversations involving participants in Germany or Luxembourg, the safest practice is to follow the stricter all-party consent rule. Whether Belgian or German law governs the recording may depend on where the interception is made and where the parties are located -- a question requiring legal advice on the specific facts.

Note on Belgian's trilingual legal system: Belgium's legislation is published in three official languages -- French (Code pénal), Dutch (Strafwetboek), and German (Strafgesetzbuch). The substance is identical across all three versions. When citing the statute, citing the French or Dutch version is equally authoritative. Government sources are available in all three languages at ejustice.just.fgov.be.

---

Disclaimer

This article presents general legal information about recording laws in Belgium, including the Belgian Criminal Code (Code pénal/Strafwetboek), the Law of June 13, 2005 on Electronic Communications, the Loi du 30 juillet 2018 (Belgian GDPR implementing act), collective bargaining agreements CBA 68 and CBA 81, and directly applicable EU law including the GDPR and EU AI Act. The information was verified as of May 15, 2026. It does not constitute legal advice and does not address your specific situation. Laws may have changed since the verification date. Consult a lawyer licensed in Belgium for advice tailored to your circumstances.

About the Author

[PLACEHOLDER -- author roster pending. Article researched and drafted by RecordingLaw.com editorial team, May 2026.]

---

Last updated: 2026-05-15. Statutes cited reflect their in-force version as of 2026-05-15. The new Belgian Criminal Code is expected to enter force September 1, 2026; article number changes will be reflected in the next scheduled review.