Belgium does not escape the phenomenon either. The Federal Institute for Human Rights (FIRM) points out that SLAPP is "a real risk" in Belgium (website consulted on October 1, 2023):

Opponents deliberately obstruct the work of journalists by starting legal proceedings against them. First of all, this is a deliberate form of intimidation, among other things because of the often high fees demanded. In addition, these procedures are also a heavy burden for journalists, especially for those who work as freelancers or for small editors, and therefore cannot call on extensive support in their working environment. After all, even when the complaints ultimately turn out to be unfounded, journalists have already had to invest a lot of money and time in their defence. Money and time they could not put into their investigative work.

Leuven/Louvain

For example, property developer Resiterra tried to silence the Leuven Historical Society about the development of the Hertogen site in Leuven, which would involve demolishing heritage. Resiterra summoned the Society's board and demanded 100,000 euro in damages from each board member before the civil court for the delay in the project caused by the Society's appeals against the issued permits. However, the developer's claim was rejected in April 2021.

Apache

The independent journalistic research platform Apache also got into trouble with a property developer. Erik Van der Paal (Land Invest Group) tried with a series of lawsuits against Apache's investigative journalists to thwart the investigations into his real estate projects and his links with the Antwerp city council. Van der Paal appealed and even appealed in cassation, but all those cases were dismissed. If his intention was to hit Apache financially, he inflicted considerable costs on the platform. The Antwerp Court of Appeal awarded Apache 10,000 euros in damages for aggravated or reckless litigation, but that was far from enough to cover all legal fees (more than 70,000 euros, not counting the costs paid by insurance) (see also here).

Pollinkhove

A company based in the centre of Pollinkhove, a borough of Lo-Reninge, is compromising safety around the adjacent municipal school and the liveability of the village. At least that is the opinion of local resident Rigobert Declercq, who is trying to take action. The manager of Voeders Nollet, the company involved, filed a complaint for stalking against Declercq in July 2021. In october 2023 he appears before the criminal court on charges of harassment “by taking photos and videos of the Nollet feeding company, the managers, the staff and the customers” and also risks a restraining order and thousands of euros in damage. By judgment of November 6, 2023, the court of first instance West Flanders, Ypres department, acquits him in the first instance due to lack of evidence. No appeal has been lodged against this judgment. And the complaint for defamation from the same company against Declercq has now been dismissed.

RSCA Anderlecht vs Hauspie/Humo

Following an article in Humo about the malaise at football club Anderlecht, Royal Sporting Club Anderlecht (RSCA) sued journalist Jan Hauspie for damage to its reputation. With a ruling of 15 April 2024, the Brussels court of first instance swept aside all objections to the article in unusually sharp terms. The judge finds that RSCA conducted these proceedings to intimidate the journalist and concludes that the claim ‘at least flirts with the limits of the terrifying and reckless’. Read an article on this case here (PDF, Dutch), reproduced with permission from De Juristenkrant of 8 May 2024.

Creadomus

The Belgian property developer Creadomus sells real estate, including in Germany. Some 150 Belgians who bought a flat in North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony through Creadomus between 2015 and 2018 felt cheated afterwards, took the real estate company to court and united in the non-profit organisation Samen Sterk! Since then, the administrators of the association have been threatened with criminal and other proceedings by renowned law firms such as Eubelius by means of formal notices and frightening damages because of critical information on their website www.samensterkvzw.be. Newspaper editors who published critical articles or reported on these proceedings against Creadomus were also threatened and some editors took certain articles and statements offline. The non-profit organisation Samen Sterk! itself did not respond to demands to remove information from its website.

In a series of proceedings in Germany, the aggrieved were vindicated at first instance, as a result of which dozens of purchase deeds have since been annulled. Creadomus has appealed, and the threats of SLAPPs also continue. Meanwhile, Samen Sterk! is also fighting for better consumer protection in this context. It submitted a petition to the Belgian Parliament at the House of Representatives (“the Chamber”) asking the legislature to ban the sale of all business use rights on investment property to consumers. That too provoked another exhortation from a law firm, this time Arcas Law, demanding that the petition, which has since been published on the Chamber's website, be withdrawn. It also demands that several press articles and critical information regarding Creadomus and Creadomus-related companies be removed from the website of Samen Sterk! The law firm’s notice threatens with a claim for damages in the amount of €1.2 million and criminal proceedings for defamation.

Once again, it shows how some lawyers and reputable law firms take the lead to silence critical voices and participation in the public debate by threatening with legal proceedings that amount to SLAPPs or show clear characteristics of abuse of process or vexatious and reckless litigation.