The law extends videoconferencing to all Belgian judicial proceedings

The Belgian Official Gazette (Moniteur belge) of October 27, 2026, publishes the law of October 15, 2026, “amending various provisions relating to the use of videoconferencing within the framework of judicial proceedings,” under reference C − 2026/007869, on page 57636. The text was sanctioned in Brussels on October 15, 2026, by King Philippe and countersigned by the Minister of Justice A. Verlinden. In eighteen articles divided into six chapters, it expands the use of videoconferencing beyond the sole current system and secures the identification of persons appearing remotely.

The law regulates a matter referred to in Article 74 of the Constitution, adopted by the House of Representatives (document 56-1654, full report of October 8, 2026). It does not create a new mechanism: all the provisions it amends were inserted by the law of April 25, 2024, whose mechanics it corrects and completes.

The scope is broad, as the text affects five distinct legislative bodies:

• Judicial Code: articles 2 to 6 (articles 759/2, 763bis, 763quater, 763sexies, and 763septies);
• Code of Criminal Instruction: articles 7 to 11 (articles 556, 558, 560, 561, and 566);
• law of July 20, 1990, relating to preventive detention: articles 12 to 14 (articles 38quinquies, 38sexies, and 38octies);
• law of May 17, 2006, relating to the external legal status of convicted persons: articles 15 and 16 (articles 98/3 and 98/4);
• law of May 5, 2014, relating to internment: articles 17 and 18 (articles 84/2 and 84/3).

Another computer system designated by the King

The most visible extension concerns the technical means that can be mobilized. In Article 759/2 of the Judicial Code as well as Article 566 of the Code of Criminal Instruction, the text adds the possibility of resorting to “another computer system designated by the King, or [to] a combination of the aforementioned systems.”

The retention regime follows: recordings may be kept in the videoconferencing system or in the computer system designated by the King, with Article 759/2 otherwise maintaining the thirty-year period already provided for. The phrasing “in the videoconferencing system” thus becomes “in accordance with paragraph 5,” to cover both hypotheses.

Identification of the appearing party and locations of appearance

The identification of persons appearing remotely is handled in two stages. In Articles 763quater of the Judicial Code and 558 of the Code of Criminal Instruction, a new paragraph provides that in the event of the unavailability of the provided authentication means, the judge may accept any other means they deem adequate in order to identify and authenticate the person appearing or participating in the hearing via videoconference.

At the same time, clerks and support staff may carry out their duties “in any other appropriate place, approved respectively by the head of the body or the judge.” Article 560 of the Code of Criminal Instruction further specifies the summons deadlines: no later than the day following the clerk’s notification by fax, simple letter, or electronic means, in accordance with Article 127, § 2.

Hearings without physical appearance and consent

The most sensitive point concerns the agreement of the participants. Under Article 763sexies of the Judicial Code and Article 560 of the Code of Criminal Instruction, it is provided that the participant’s agreement is not required when a prohibition on physical appearance at the hearing has been addressed to all participants, due to a situation referred to in paragraph 3 (respectively 4° and 3°), and the hearing cannot be postponed to a later date in accordance with the law.

The text also adjusts the judge’s assessment: in Article 763septies, “is present” becomes “will be present” and “cannot follow” becomes “will not be able to follow.” In the four other laws, the phrase “the videoconference provides the guarantees” is replaced by “the guarantees […] are met”: the guarantee is no longer attached to the system, but to the procedure itself. Finally, Articles 556 of the Code of Criminal Instruction and 763bis of the Judicial Code temper two obligations with “where applicable.”

Scope for litigants

The law contains no specific provision for entry into force: it therefore falls under the common law applicable to laws published in the Belgian Official Gazette. For litigants, the effect is twofold: more situations where the hearing can be held without physical appearance—including without individual agreement when all participants are subject to a prohibition—and more flexible remote identification when authentication means are lacking, under the supervision of the judge.

Source: law of October 15, 2026 amending various provisions relating to the use of videoconferencing in the context of judicial proceedings, Belgian Official Gazette of October 27, 2026, ref. C − 2026/007869, pp. 57636 to 57639.