Belgium's EAA Fine Isn't Written Down Anywhere — You Assemble It From Three Laws
The Belgian accessibility law contains no euro figure at all. It says "level 2 sanction," which sends you to a second statute for the scale, and a third from 1952 for the multiplier that turns it into a real number. Do the arithmetic and you get €208 to €80,000 — or up to €200,000 if you acted in bad faith.
Quick answer
Belgium's EAA services law (the Law of 5 November 2023) doesn't set a fine. It inserts two sanction articles into the Code of Economic Law that simply say breaches are punished with a "level 2 sanction", or a "level 3 sanction" if committed in bad faith. The scale itself lives in Art. XV.70 of that Code, and every amount in it must be multiplied by 8 under a 1952 law on additional decimes. That produces roughly €208–€80,000 for a standard breach, and a reported ceiling of €200,000 or 6% of annual turnover for bad faith. And there's a bigger catch: the law is an explicitly partial transposition covering only consumer banking and e-commerce — while the separate products decree carries no fine at all.
A number that exists in three places at once
Most countries answer "what's the fine?" with a figure in their accessibility law. Belgium answers with a pointer, which points to a scale, which points to a multiplier. Here is the whole chain:
- The Law of 5 November 2023 says the breach attracts a "level 2 sanction" — no amount.
- Code of Economic Law, Art. XV.70 defines six sanction levels and the fine range attached to each.
- The Law of 5 March 1952 on additional decimes, as amended with effect from 1 January 2017, multiplies every one of those amounts by 8.
Miss any link and you get the wrong answer — which is exactly why published figures for Belgium have ranged from "€1,000–€200,000" to a vague "around €200,000" with no statutory basis given. Both were shots at a number that requires three documents to compute.
What the law says
The two sanction articles inserted by the 2023 law are short enough to quote in full, and their brevity is the point:
« Sont punis d'une sanction de niveau 2, ceux qui commettent une infraction aux articles VIII.59 à VIII.62. Sont punis d'une sanction de niveau 3, ceux qui, de mauvaise foi, commettent une infraction aux articles VIII.59 à VIII.62. »
("Those who commit an infringement of Articles VIII.59 to VIII.62 are punished with a level 2 sanction. Those who, in bad faith, commit an infringement of Articles VIII.59 to VIII.62 are punished with a level 3 sanction.")
— Code de droit économique, Art. XV.101/1, inserted by the Law of 5 November 2023, Art. 33 (Justel)
Articles VIII.59 to VIII.62 are the core service duties: designing and providing the service accessibly, disclosing how it meets the requirements, keeping it compliant over time, and the fundamental-alteration and disproportionate-burden rules.
The parallel article for breaches of implementing decrees is drafted identically:
« Sont punis d'une sanction de niveau 2, ceux qui commettent une infraction aux arrêtés pris en exécution de l'article VIII.57. Sont punis d'une sanction de niveau 3, ceux qui, de mauvaise foi, commettent une infraction aux arrêtés pris en exécution de l'article VIII.57. »
— Art. XV.99/1, inserted by Art. 32
And the multiplier, which is what makes the scale real:
« Les montants repris à l'article XV.70 doivent être multipliés par 8 conformément à l'article 1er de la loi du 5 mars 1952 »
("The amounts in Article XV.70 must be multiplied by 8 in accordance with Article 1 of the Law of 5 March 1952.") — as amended by the Law of 25 December 2016, in force 1 January 2017
Doing the arithmetic
| Level 2 (standard breach) | Level 3 (bad-faith breach) | |
|---|---|---|
| When it applies | Any breach of Arts. VIII.59–VIII.62 | The same breach, committed de mauvaise foi |
| Base range (Art. XV.70) | €26–€10,000 | Up to €25,000 (reported) |
| After the ×8 multiplier | €208–€80,000 | Up to €200,000, or 6% of annual turnover (reported) |
A level 2 sanction rests on a base range of €26 to €10,000. Multiplied by eight: €208 to €80,000. That is the figure to use for an ordinary Belgian accessibility breach, and it is the one Belgian legal press reports.
A level 3 sanction — the bad-faith tier — is higher, and Belgian reporting puts the ceiling at €200,000, or 6% of annual turnover. That is consistent with a €25,000 base carried through the same ×8 multiplier, and it also explains where the loose "~€200,000 Belgium figure" circulating online came from: it isn't invented, it's the bad-faith tier being quoted as though it were the standard one.
A note on sourcing: we have verified the level 2 arithmetic and the ×8 multiplier against primary and legal-press sources. We have not yet been able to read Art. XV.70's own text directly, so the level 3 figures — and the 6%-of-turnover limb in particular — are reported by Belgian legal sources rather than quoted from the statute.
The distinction that matters commercially is not the arithmetic, though. It's "de mauvaise foi." Of the regimes we've read, Belgium is the only one that ties a higher fine tier to your state of mind — the difference between an €80,000 exposure and a €200,000 one. Knowing your service is inaccessible and shipping anyway is a materially different legal position in Belgium than not having checked.
The transposition is explicitly partial — and that's the real Belgian story
The 2023 law describes itself as a transposition partielle, and it means it. It covers exactly two services: consumer banking and e-commerce. Not e-books. Not passenger transport. Not access to audiovisual media. Not telecoms. Those sit in separate instruments, in regional decrees, or — on the evidence available — nowhere yet.
Meanwhile the products side went out as a separate Royal Decree of 1 October 2023, and that decree contains no sanctions provisions at all. Its enforcement was deliberately parked in a future Book XV amendment; the government's own delegate told the Conseil d'État as much. What the 2023 services law does give products is a formal non-conformity procedure (Art. XV.18/7) covering CE-marking and documentation failures — but the remedy there is restriction, prohibition or withdrawal from the market, not a fine.
The Conseil d'État also found the products decree's micro-enterprise carve-out too narrow: Art. 11 §4 makes the documentation exemption discretionary and request-based, where EAA Art. 14(4) grants it automatically. Belgian micro-enterprises in the products space may therefore carry slightly more documentation exposure than the Directive contemplates — a rare, sourced instance of a member state under-transposing a carve-out.
Add the regional layer — a Flemish broadcasting decree of 25 May 2022 covering terminal equipment within Community competence, with Brussels-Capital and Wallonia unaccounted for — and Belgium is one of the most fragmented EAA jurisdictions in the Union. There is no single Belgian accessibility law to read.
Two features worth knowing
Fixing it can switch the fine off. Art. XV.62/7, also inserted by the 2023 law, lets the competent officials decide that an administrative fine will not be enforced, or only partly, where the offender applies corrective measures the officials specify in the decision — with verification by inspection. That is an unusually explicit "remediate and the penalty goes away" mechanism, and it makes early engagement worth real money in Belgium.
There's a civil injunction route. Art. 36 of the 2023 law adds the accessibility titles to Art. XVII.37 of the Code, extending Belgium's action en cessation — the judicial cease-and-desist procedure — to accessibility breaches. As in France, that opens a path for consumers and organisations to seek a court order compelling compliance, independently of whether the regulator acts. Belgium hasn't yet had a court case like France's, but the mechanism is in place.
Who enforces it
| Area | Authority |
|---|---|
| Covered services (consumer banking, e-commerce) | FPS Economy (SPF Economie / FOD Economie), which also runs the public "report an infringement" channel |
| Financial services supervision | FSMA and/or the National Bank of Belgium, under the Law of 2 August 2002 |
| Radio equipment | BIPT (carved out of the products decree) |
| Broadcasting-related terminal equipment | The Communities |
Practically: a Belgian bank with an e-commerce arm and a connected device could answer to three different authorities under three different instruments.
Has it been enforced yet?
No fines have been reported. What Belgium does have is evidence of the scale of the problem: a 2024 Digital Trust Index assessment found 94% of 7,408 Belgian websites tested failed accessibility criteria, placing Belgium 7th of 18 European countries. That is almost exactly the failure rate the Dutch regulator found when it audited its own top webshops — the difference being that in the Netherlands the regulator did the counting.
Belgian commentary on the gap is blunt about the cause: « Le manque de connaissances des normes constitue la base du problème » — a lack of knowledge of the standards is the root of it — with accessibility treated as a one-off project rather than an ongoing practice.
What this means for your business
- Check whether you're in scope of the federal services law. If you sell e-books, transport tickets, telecoms or audiovisual access in Belgium, the 5 November 2023 law does not reach you — which is not the same as being safe, because the EAA obligations still bind Belgium as a member state and the gap invites later legislation, regional rules, or an action en cessation.
- If you are in scope — banking or e-commerce — your working number is €208–€80,000, not the €200,000 you'll see quoted. But treat "bad faith" as the variable that matters: document what you knew and when, because in Belgium the difference between negligence and knowledge is worth more than a factor of two.
- Engage early. Art. XV.62/7 is an explicit statutory route to having the fine set aside in exchange for corrective measures. Few countries write that down.
Frequently asked questions
What is the EAA fine in Belgium?
Roughly €208 to €80,000 for a standard breach — a "level 2 sanction" under Art. XV.101/1 of the Code of Economic Law, once the ×8 multiplier from the 1952 law on additional decimes is applied. Bad-faith breaches attract a level 3 sanction, reported at up to €200,000 or 6% of annual turnover.
Why do sources say €200,000?
Because they're quoting the bad-faith tier as though it were the standard one. Level 3 applies only where the breach was committed de mauvaise foi.
Does Belgium's law cover my service?
Only if it's consumer banking or e-commerce. The Law of 5 November 2023 is an explicitly partial transposition and does not cover e-books, passenger transport, audiovisual media access or telecoms.
What's the fine for a non-compliant product?
There isn't one yet. The products Royal Decree of 1 October 2023 contains no sanctions; enforcement was deferred to a separate Book XV amendment. The available remedy is market restriction, prohibition or withdrawal.
Can I avoid the fine by fixing the problem?
Possibly. Art. XV.62/7 allows officials to decide that a fine will not be enforced, in whole or in part, where you apply the corrective measures they specify.
Related
- ← Back to EAA Fines by Country — the full 27-state comparison
- Official text: Loi du 5 novembre 2023 (Justel)
- The Netherlands' EAA fine — the other 94%-failure market, where the regulator did the counting
- France's EAA penalty — where an association-led court case produced a daily penalty
