An overseas supplier has delivered goods or services to a Belgian company. The invoices are overdue, the payment obligation is documented, and the buyer has not challenged the price, quantity, quality or performance. It simply does not pay.
In many cases, the obvious next step would be ordinary court proceedings. Belgian law provides another possibility.
Articles 1394/20 to 1394/27 of the Belgian Judicial Code establish a special procedure for the recovery of uncontested monetary debts. When its conditions are satisfied, a creditor can move from an unpaid commercial claim to an enforceable title without first litigating the merits of the debt through ordinary proceedings. The procedure is initiated at the request of the creditor’s lawyer and carried out through a judicial officer.
This does not mean that the process is completely judge-free. A magistrate must ultimately make the record of non-contestation enforceable. The important distinction is that the magistrate does not conduct an ordinary trial of the underlying commercial dispute when the statutory route has been properly used.
For a foreign creditor considering debt collection in Belgium, that distinction can materially affect both strategy and timing.
The procedure is only for genuinely uncontested business debts
Article 1394/20 starts with several conditions that should be checked before the procedure is launched.
The claim must concern a sum of money, must be certain and due, and must remain uncontested. There is no general maximum principal amount imposed by Article 1394/20.
The mechanism is designed for business claims. It does not apply where the relevant transaction was not carried out as part of the parties’ business activities. It is also excluded for certain categories of debt, including claims connected with bankruptcy, judicial reorganisation, collective debt settlement and other forms of statutory concurrence between creditors. Claims involving specified public authorities are excluded as well.
Non-contractual obligations are generally outside the procedure, subject to limited statutory exceptions, including situations in which the parties have reached an agreement or there is an acknowledgement of debt.
The word uncontested is particularly important.
The procedure is not intended to convert an existing commercial dispute into an enforceable title merely because no court case has yet been filed. In Judgment No. 62/2018 of 31 May 2018, the Belgian Constitutional Court emphasised the screening role of the creditor’s lawyer. Referring to the legislative history, the Court described the lawyer as the first legal filter in the procedure: if the available correspondence already shows that the claim is disputed, the lawyer should not initiate the special procedure or should stop it.
That can make pre-existing emails commercially decisive. A buyer who has repeatedly complained about defective goods, disputed the agreed price or alleged non-performance presents a very different case from a buyer who has received invoices and reminders but has never challenged the debt.
Foreign EU creditors can qualify — but registry status now matters
The procedure is not restricted to a creditor incorporated in Belgium.
This point became particularly important after a legislative amendment in 2026.
Since 26 February 2026, Article 1394/20(2) refers not only to registration in Belgium’s Crossroads Bank for Enterprises but also to central, commercial or company registers of other European Union Member States that are interoperable through the system of interconnected registers referred to in Article 22 of Directive (EU) 2017/1132.
For a foreign creditor, registration is therefore not a minor administrative detail. It forms part of the statutory eligibility test.
Consider a German supplier selling machinery to a Belgian corporate customer. If the supplier is registered in an eligible interconnected German company register and the Belgian buyer satisfies the Belgian registration requirement, the fact that the creditor itself is not Belgian does not automatically exclude the procedure.
By contrast, a company registered only in a non-EU register may fall outside this route. The position is especially relevant in the post-Brexit context: where the relevant creditor or debtor is registered only in the United Kingdom’s company database and not in the database of an EU Member State, the special Belgian procedure may no longer be available.
This makes registry verification one of the first checks for an overseas creditor.
The judicial officer’s demand starts a one-month decision period
The procedure does not begin with an application asking a judge to determine whether the invoice is payable.
Instead, Article 1394/21 requires a judicial officer to serve a formal demand for payment on the debtor.
The demand must clearly identify the obligation from which the debt arises and provide a clear breakdown and justification of the amounts claimed. It must require payment within one month and explain how the debtor may respond. Copies of the creditor’s supporting documents and the prescribed response form must accompany the demand.
The debtor then has three practically important choices.
It may pay.
It may request payment facilities.
Or it may state the reasons why the debt is disputed.
A reasoned dispute has an immediate procedural consequence. Under Articles 1394/22 and 1394/23, the special recovery procedure ends if the debtor states the reasons for contesting the debt. The creditor remains free to pursue the claim through judicial proceedings, but the uncontested-debt mechanism can no longer simply continue as though no dispute existed.
If the parties agree on payment facilities, the special procedure is suspended.
This is one of the central safeguards of the Belgian system. The procedure is designed to process debts where there is no genuine controversy, not to replace a court when factual or legal issues actually need to be decided.
Silence does not produce an enforceable title immediately
A debtor’s failure to react within the initial month is important, but the creditor still does not receive an enforceable title the next day.
Article 1394/24 imposes an additional waiting period.
Only at the earliest eight days after the one-month response period has expired may the judicial officer, at the creditor’s request, draw up a record of non-contestation.
The record may be drawn up where the debtor has failed to pay all or part of the debt, has not requested or obtained payment facilities and has not stated reasons for disputing the debt. It may also be used where payment facilities were agreed but were subsequently not respected.
The statutory timing therefore matters.
A creditor should not treat the mechanism as an instant administrative conversion of an invoice into an enforcement instrument. The debtor receives a defined opportunity to react, followed by a further statutory interval before the record of non-contestation can be established.
A magistrate still stands between the record and enforcement
The expression “without ordinary court proceedings” needs to be used carefully.
The judicial officer’s record of non-contestation is not automatically an enforceable title merely because it has been drawn up.
Under Article 1394/24 §2, the judicial officer must request that the record be made enforceable by a magistrate of the relevant Management and Supervision Committee. Once the enforceable formula is applied, the record constitutes an enforceable title and may be executed under the enforcement provisions of the Judicial Code.
The Belgian Constitutional Court has explained that the magistrate verifies compliance with the statutory formal requirements but does not conduct a substantive examination of the underlying debt comparable to an ordinary trial.
That distinction explains why the Belgian procedure is unusual.
There is a judicial checkpoint, but there is no ordinary merits litigation unless a genuine dispute is raised or a party subsequently brings the matter before a court.
The 10% cap can change the creditor’s strategy
The special procedure can be attractive for a straightforward unpaid invoice, but it is not always economically equivalent to ordinary litigation.
Article 1394/20 limits the amount of interest and contractual indemnity clauses recoverable through this procedure to a combined maximum of 10% of the principal claim. Statutory increases and recovery costs are addressed separately in the provision.
The distinction can matter significantly where a commercial contract provides for substantial default interest or a sizeable contractual indemnity.
Suppose the principal debt is €100,000 and the creditor considers itself contractually entitled to €15,000 in interest and contractual indemnity amounts. The special Article 1394/20 route does not permit the whole €15,000 to be recovered under those two heads: the combined amount recoverable through that mechanism is capped at €10,000.
The Belgian Court of Cassation addressed precisely this strategic problem in C.17.0622.N, 10 May 2019.
The Court held that where a creditor is entitled, or could reasonably believe itself entitled, to interest and contractual penalty amounts exceeding 10% of the principal, it does not commit a fault by choosing ordinary recovery proceedings instead of the special uncontested-debt procedure.
The case shows why “faster” does not automatically mean “better”.
Before choosing the procedure, the creditor should compare the amount that can realistically be recovered under the special mechanism with the amount it intends to pursue through ordinary litigation.
Ordinary court proceedings remain a legitimate choice
Belgian law does not require every qualifying creditor to use the uncontested-debt procedure.
That point was confirmed by the Court of Cassation in C.17.0120.N, 12 October 2017.
The Court held that choosing ordinary judicial proceedings instead of the special procedure does not in itself constitute fault or an abuse of procedure.
This is commercially important.
A creditor may prefer ordinary proceedings where:
- the debtor has already raised substantive objections;
- witness or expert evidence may be needed;
- the creditor seeks interest or contractual compensation materially exceeding the special-procedure cap;
- questions of contractual interpretation must be decided;
- additional claims need to be pursued together with the unpaid principal;
- there is uncertainty over whether the statutory requirements for the simplified route are satisfied.
The decision should therefore be based on the characteristics of the actual claim rather than on an assumption that the special procedure must always be used whenever an invoice appears uncontested.
The debtor can still obtain full judicial review
An enforceable record of non-contestation does not eliminate access to the courts.
Under the current Article 1394/24 §3, execution of the record may be suspended through a judicial action brought by contradictory petition within one month after service of the enforceable record.
The Belgian Constitutional Court has also made an important point about the scope of that subsequent judicial review. When a court is seised through the statutory challenge mechanism, it must be able to exercise full jurisdiction and examine the factual, legal and procedural aspects of the case.
The special procedure therefore does not create an irreversible title that prevents the debtor from ever having the substance of the claim examined.
Its logic is different: where no real dispute exists, an ordinary merits trial does not have to be the first stage in obtaining an enforceable title.
Insolvency and an existing dispute are major warning signs
Two checks should take place before procedural speed becomes the creditor’s main consideration.
The first is whether the debt is genuinely uncontested.
If the buyer has already raised a documented defence, the Article 1394/20 procedure should not be treated as a method of avoiding judicial determination of that defence.
The second is the debtor’s insolvency status.
Article 1394/20 expressly excludes debts concerning bankruptcy, judicial reorganisation, collective debt settlement and other forms of statutory concurrence.
For an overseas creditor, this means that a clean invoice file is not enough. The debtor’s current legal status should also be checked before the procedure is selected.
A rapid enforceable title has limited practical value if the creditor has chosen a route that is unavailable because collective insolvency rules have already intervened.
Example: a German supplier and a Belgian buyer
Assume that a German industrial supplier delivers equipment worth €68,000 to a Belgian company.
The parties are properly registered in eligible business registers. Delivery is documented. The invoices have fallen due. The Belgian customer has never complained about the equipment, disputed the agreed price or alleged breach of contract. Several reminders have gone unanswered.
On those facts, the creditor’s Belgian lawyer can examine whether the statutory requirements for the uncontested-debt procedure are met.
If they are, a judicial officer serves the formal demand together with the supporting documents and response form.
The Belgian buyer then has one month to pay, request payment arrangements or explain why the claim is disputed.
If the debtor remains silent, the judicial officer must still respect the additional eight-day statutory period before drawing up the record of non-contestation.
The record then requires the statutory magistrate’s formal approval before becoming an enforceable title.
The outcome changes immediately if the buyer responds with a genuine reasoned dispute — for example, alleging that specific machines were defective and producing correspondence showing that the issue had already been raised. The special procedure stops, and the creditor must decide whether to pursue the disputed claim through ordinary litigation.
The same creditor may also decide from the outset that ordinary proceedings are preferable if the contract gives rise to interest and contractual compensation substantially above the 10% limit applicable within the special procedure.
What an overseas creditor should check before using the procedure
For a foreign company, the decisive work often takes place before the judicial officer serves anything.
The creditor should verify:
- whether the debt is monetary, certain and already due;
- whether existing correspondence contains any substantive objection to the debt;
- whether the underlying transaction was carried out in the course of business;
- whether both parties satisfy the applicable business-register requirement;
- whether the debtor is subject to bankruptcy, judicial reorganisation or another collective procedure;
- whether contracts, orders, invoices, delivery records, acceptance documents and correspondence support the amount claimed;
- how much interest and contractual indemnity is being claimed compared with the 10% statutory limit;
- whether an ordinary claim would be strategically preferable because the matter requires a judicial determination of disputed facts or contractual rights.
The February 2026 amendment makes the registry check particularly important in cross-border cases. A creditor should verify the actual register in which the foreign company is entered rather than assume that any foreign corporate registration is sufficient.
A fast track, not a shortcut around a real dispute
Belgium’s uncontested-debt procedure can give a commercial creditor something valuable: a route from an unpaid B2B claim to an enforceable title without first conducting ordinary litigation over the merits.
But its usefulness depends on the reason the invoice remains unpaid.
Where the debt is genuinely uncontested, the parties meet the registration requirements, no excluded insolvency situation exists and the 10% limitation does not materially undermine the creditor’s claim, the procedure can provide an efficient enforcement path.
Where the buyer has already raised a real defence, significant contractual additions exceed the special-procedure limit, or insolvency has intervened, ordinary litigation or another recovery strategy may be more appropriate.
For an international creditor, the practical question is therefore not simply whether Belgium offers a fast-track procedure. It is whether the particular debt still fits within that procedure before the first formal demand is served.
