Partnerblog
In three landmark decisions issued on 20 May 2026, the Belgian Council of State has ruled that article VI.25, §1, §1 of the Belgian Economic Law Code (‘BEC’) prohibiting the use of the term ‘sales’ (‘solden’/’soldes’) or equivalent terms outside legally defined sales periods is incompatible with the European Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’).
The Council of State hereby annulled administrative fines totalling EUR 73,500 imposed on three fashion retail companies for violating this provision. This decision fundamentally challenges Belgium’s sales regulation framework and has significant implications for retail marketing practices in Belgium.
Context of the decision
For decades, Belgium has maintained strict regulations governing the announcement of sales (‘solden’/’soldes’). The current framework in Article VI.25, §1 BEC, restricts the use of the term ‘sales’ or equivalent designations to two legally prescribed sales periods:
- 3–31 January (adjusted if January 3 falls on a Sunday); and
- 1–31 July (adjusted if July 1 falls on a Sunday).
This very specific Belgian legislation has been under scrutiny for a long time in respect of its conformity with the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, which mandates maximum harmonization of consumer protection rules. Therefore, when the BEC was reformed in 2013, the Belgian legislator made a critical change by clarifying that the Belgian legislation’s sole objective was to protect fair competition between businesses (particularly small retailers) rather than to protect consumers and this by explicitly adding the phrase ‘In order to ensure fair market practices between enterprises’ into the existing text of article VI.25, §1 BEC.
By this declaration, the legislator aimed to place the regulation outside the scope of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.
Following this reform, the Federal Public Services Economy continued strict enforcement of Article VI.25, §1 BEC, leading to fines for several companies who allegedly used the term ‘sales’ outside the legally prescribed sales periods.
Some of these businesses challenged these fines on the grounds that said article VI.25, §1 BEC was incompatible with the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.
The Council of State invalidates article VI.25, §1, §1 BEC
In the three decisions of 20 May 2026, the Belgian Council of State now confirms that article VI.25, §1 BEC aims to protect consumers (and not only businesses) and that the inclusion in article VI.25, §1 BEC is an attempt to circumvent EU harmonization rules, hereby rejecting the approach of the Belgian legislator.
The Council of State emphasizes that allowing formal declarations to override substantive EU provisions would create a dangerous precedent, enabling member states to circumvent EU harmonization rules by simply changing the stated purpose of existing regulations without altering their substance.
The Council of State concluded that article VI.25, §1 BEC falls within the Directive’s scope. Since the Directive mandates maximum harmonization and does not prohibit using ‘sales’ terminology outside fixed periods, article VI.25, §1 BEC is incompatible with the Directive.
What’s next?
The Belgian Council of State’s decisions represent a significant shift in the interpretation of Belgium’s sales regulations. By rejecting the formal legislative declaration and focusing on the substantive consumer protection effects of the sales period restrictions, the Council of State has effectively invalidated a regulatory framework that has existed for decades in Belgium. Moreover, it emphasizes the limits of formal legislative language in circumventing EU law and affirms that national entities must conduct substantive analysis to determine whether regulations fall within the scope of EU harmonization directives.
Legally, this decision applies only to the parties involved and specific facts of the cases. The legislation regarding the sales period is therefore not immediately repealed and the Federal Public Services Economy remains entitled to impose further fines for violations of article VI.25, §1 BEC.
However, as article VI.25 §1 BEC is in practice rendered a dead letter, Belgian retailers are able to use the term ‘sales‘ (‘solden’/’soldes’) terminology at any time and also outside the fixed periods. Companies that still receive fines for similar violations now have a precedent which can be used to oppose and overturn these fines. Of course, all other rules regarding sales, such as, for example, the display of discounts and their reference price, remain in place.
Authors:
