The Federal Public Service of Economy (“Federale Overheidsdienst Economie” / “Service public fédéral Economie”) has published its second annual report on the Belgian Foreign Direct Investment (“FDI”) screening mechanism, covering the period from 1 July 2024 up until 30 June 2025. The report demonstrates a system that is consolidating and evolving in its second year since the implementation on 1 July 2023.
I. Key figures
A. Notifications
The Interfederal Screening Commission (“Interfederale Screeningscommissie” / “Comité de filtrage interfédéral”) (“ISC”) received 100 notifications between 1 July 2024 and 30 June 2025, a significant increase from the 68 notifications in the first year.
Of these, 89 investments were authorised (up from 53), 1 was authorised with mitigating measures (none in the first year), and no investments were refused (unchanged). 2 notifications were withdrawn by the investor (for reasons unknown), and 8 cases remain pending at the time of reporting.
The ISC also notes that one additional transaction was authorised with mitigating measures, but as it concerned a case pending from the previous year, it was not included in the second annual report.
While no ex officio procedures were commenced (as opposed to 1 last year), additional information was requested in relation to 16 non-notified investments to determine whether notification was required. The ISC is thus becoming more proactive in identifying missed filings.
The proportion of notifications leading to a formal screening procedure (second phase) decreased slightly, from 7% in the first year to 5% in the second year. This suggests that, while the volume of notifications has grown, the threshold for deeper scrutiny remains high.
B. Timing
The assessment phase started on average within 2 days after the initial submission of the notification forms (down from 6 days last year). In 15 notifications (13 last year), information was missing, which prevented the immediate launch of the verification procedure.
In 7 cases (4 last year), the ISC requested additional information during the procedure. The average processing time for the assessment phase remained stable at 31 days. Given that the legal time limit is in principle 30 days, this indicates that additional information was generally swiftly provided by investors and processed by the ISC.
C. Insights on targets, investors and sectors
Only 22% of notified investments in the second year involved Belgian entities as the main target (as opposed to 23.5% in the first year), confirming that most cases concern foreign groups with Belgian subsidiaries.
A complete takeover occurred in 59% of cases (down from 66.2%). In the vast majority of transactions (91%), the investor acquired control over the target, a slight increase from 85.3% last year.
There were 22 internal restructurings (up from 11), with most not resulting in a new ultimate beneficial owner. This further underlines the concern of many practitioners regarding the relevance of including such transactions within the scope of application of the FDI screening mechanism.
The most impacted sectors shifted slightly: in 2024-2025, sensitive information/personal data (21 cases), digital infrastructure (14), and energy (13) led the list, followed by health (12) and dual use (9). In 2023-2024, data and health each accounted for 13 notifications, followed by digital infrastructure, transport, and electronic communications.
Flanders remained the top region for investments (71 cases, up from 46), followed by Brussels (31, up from 22) and Wallonia (16, up from 14).
The USA remained the leading country of origin of investors (45% of cases, slightly up from 43.4%), followed by the UK (22%, down from 29%), with Japan, Canada, and China rounding out the top five.
The estimated total investment for all notified cases was €131.5 billion (down from €173.3 billion), with the Belgian component rising sharply to €6.97 billion (from €2.06 billion).
II. New developments and regulatory outlook
A. Practical improvements and first use of mitigating measures
The ISC introduced updated notification forms and IT enhancements to streamline the process. The system’s growing maturity is reflected in the increased number of cases handled, with no impact on processing times.
For the first time, an investment was authorised subject to mitigating measures, such as placing technology or know-how in the custody of a Belgian third party, guarantees to ensure process continuity, or appointing compliance officers. This marks a new phase in the application of the screening mechanism, reflecting increased sophistication and risk management.
B. Underlined importance of the Coordination Committee on Intelligence and Security
The ISC also underlines the role of the Coordination Committee on Intelligence and Security (“Coördinatiecomité Inlichtingen en Veiligheid” / “Comité de coordination du renseignement et la sécurité”) (“CCIS”). The CCIS assesses whether an investment poses potential risks to national security, public order or the strategic interests of the country. It has 25 days to deliver its opinion to the ISC but is entitled to extend that deadline if necessary (this happened in less than 10% of the cases).
C. Proposed revision of EU FDI Regulation
The European Commission’s proposed revision of the FDI Regulation advanced further in 2025, with the Council adopting its position and interinstitutional negotiations underway. The revision aims to harmonise national screening mechanisms, to introduce a minimum scope, and to strengthen cooperation and transparency. Belgium’s mechanism will require review and possible adaptation once the new EU framework is finalised.
III. Main takeaways
The number of notifications rose by nearly 50%, with the system maintaining efficient processing times. Most investments continue to be approved without a formal screening procedure. The threshold for deeper scrutiny remains high, but the first use of mitigating measures signals a more nuanced approach.
However, the broad scope of the mechanism and ongoing EU reforms mean that uncertainty remains for investors. The wide application of the screening mechanism continues to pose (administrative) challenges for foreign investors. Notably, the large number of investments being authorised immediately following the assessment phase is an indication that the scope of the mechanism might be too broad, potentially capturing transactions that do not present genuine risks to national security or public order. This raises questions about the proportionality and efficiency of the current system, and highlights the importance of the ongoing evaluation and possible refinement of the notification requirements as the EU moves forward with regulatory reforms.
IV. Conclusion
The second year of Belgium’s FDI screening mechanism demonstrates a system that is both active and evolving. While the vast majority of investments are approved, the introduction of mitigating measures and the ongoing regulatory reforms at EU level suggest that the landscape will continue to shift. Investors are still advised to “notify when in doubt” (particularly given the ISC proactiveness in identifying missed filings) and to monitor developments closely as Belgium and the EU refine their approaches to economic security and openness.
If you have questions hereto, feel free to reach out to the authors of this article.
***
This newsletter is not a legal advice or a legal opinion. You should seek advice from a legal counsel of your choice before acting upon any of the information in this newsletter.