[Focus] The new tariff for Judicial Officers in Belgium: a necessary change

Keywords: tariff • reform • collection fees • solidarity fund • debtor protection • debt collection • social justice • digitalization of procedures • cost transparency

I. A tariff in response to major criticisms

For years, the tariff applicable to judicial officer’s acts has been considered opaque, complex and obsolete. Among the most frequent criticisms was the lack of transparency, due to the use of complicated abbreviations that made the acts incomprehensible to citizens. It was also singled out for its lack of predictability, due to fee calculations that depended on multiple factors that were difficult to anticipate. In addition, some important tasks were not remunerated, and others were inadequately paid. Finally, the double tax burden, combining registration duties and VAT, further increased the bill without any proposed solution.

II. Transparency and simplification of the tariff

This major simplification also involved a reduction in the number of articles of the royal tariff: from 22 articles, it was reduced to 12, which made the entire text more readable. From now on, it will be much easier for a litigant or a lawyer to know precisely what a judicial officer’s intervention will cost. The role of the judicial officer is also rethought he is no longer only an actor of constraint, but also a facilitator of the solution, with a tariff that explicitly recognizes and remunerates this conciliation work.

III. Measures in favour of indebted people

The new tariff takes care to respond to the situations of vulnerable people, especially those facing debts related to public utilities (water, electricity, telephone, etc.). For these people, who are often in financial difficulty, a strict limitation of costs is provided: the basic fee is applied even for large debts, recovery fees are capped, and a Solidarity Fund, financed by the profession, intervenes to reduce the costs related to the most expensive acts (summonses, seizures).

IV. Fee for judicial officer’s deeds

The new tariff for judicial officers in Belgium, which came into force on 1 October 2024, simplifies the fee structure by introducing three classes based on the amount of the claim or the nature of the case. Here are the details of these classes and their respective amounts:

• Class A: EUR 125 per deed
  • The amount of the claim: up to EUR 2,000.
  • Nature of the claim: Debts related to basic needs, such as water, gas, electricity, hospital services, telecommunications or school fees, are always charged according to class A, regardless of the amount due.
• Class B: EUR 175 per deed
  • Amount of the claim: between EUR 2 000.01 and EUR 5 000.
  • Nature of the case: Cases in the Family and Youth Court are systematically classified as category B, regardless of the amount involved.
• Class C: EUR 250 per deed
  • Amount of the claim: more than EUR 5,000.
  • Cases of indeterminate value or mixed nature: This class also applies to records where the value is not specified, or which involve both an obligation to pay and an obligation to do.

These fees cover the drafting, service and processing of documents and minutes. They also include the original of the writ, all copies to be served at the same address, the loading of the writ in the register of dematerialized deeds, and, where applicable, the sending of the original document or a copy to the applicant or his counsel. For each service at an additional address, half of the fee for the corresponding class is due.

V. Emergencies and remuneration for exceptional interventions

The new tariff also introduces precise regulations concerning emergency procedures. Thus, acts performed outside normal hours, on weekends, public holidays or in case of absolute emergency, will see their fees doubled. However, an essential distinction is made: if the act is carried out urgently at the specific request of the creditor (for example, within 24 hours), the additional cost is exclusively borne by the applicant. On the other hand, if it is related to the necessities of the procedure (for example, an eviction that can only be carried out on a Saturday for practical reasons), the cost may be passed on to the convicted party.

VI. Remuneration for Acts Not Served or Avoided

The new tariff also provides for remuneration for documents prepared but ultimately not served. This situation is frequent: a deed is ready but is not delivered, either because an agreement has been reached or because the creditor withdraws. From now on, 50% of the fee will be due, reflecting the work performed. In addition, the tariff introduces the notion of a facilitation act, which remunerates the judicial officer who manages, on the ground, to avoid the service of a document by finding an amicable solution (e.g. immediate payment).

VII. Recovery fees: clarity and predictability

Another major step forward is that the collection fee is now standardised and predictable. It applies if the debtor pays after the judicial officer’s intervention, regardless of the time of payment. This fee is degressive according to the amount of the debt, and capped at €100 for certain small claims, which represents an improvement compared to the complexity of the old revenue and advance fees, which are now abolished.

This collection fee covers the steps essential to any execution procedure: management of payment plans, reminders, reminders, follow-ups, telephone contacts and travel. Thanks to these new rules, the fees are more legible, without hidden costs, and allow the parties to know, from the beginning, the full cost of such a procedure.

However, unlike in France, this system still has an important limitation: in Belgium, the collection fee remains entirely at the expense of the debtor. In France, on the other hand, the law has provided that these fees are payable by the creditor, i.e. the person who mandates the judicial officer to obtain payment, with some exceptions. This French approach is based on a more balanced reflection on responsibility for the creation of debt. Indeed, today, the debtor is not always the only one responsible for his debt. Large institutional creditors (such as banks, credit companies, telecom operators, large commercial brands, or energy suppliers) massively grant services or loans without sufficient verification of the creditworthiness of their customers, or real risk assessment. These creditors, through their sometimes aggressive or lax commercial behaviour, actively participate in the creation of debts, particularly among vulnerable groups.

The French system, by requiring the creditor to bear the collection fees, encourages him to manage risk responsibly, to better evaluate his debtors before granting a service or a loan. In Belgium, unfortunately, this reflection does not seem to have been sufficiently integrated into the reform. The collection fee is therefore added, for the debtor, to the principal amount of the debt and the cost of the judicial officer’s acts, further adding to a debt that is sometimes already insurmountable. This can have the perverse effect of making repayment more difficult and aggravating the debtor's precariousness, even though some creditors do not take their responsibilities when the debt arises.

Thus, the absence of shared responsibility in the Belgian tariff remains a major weakness of the reform, which would benefit from drawing inspiration from the French model to better protect over-indebted people and encourage creditors to adopt more responsible commercial practices.

VIII. Single administrative fee

The former multiple small fees are now grouped under a flat rate of €50, covering: the identification of the debtor, the credit check, and the administrative procedures for opening and managing the file. This single flat rate makes the costs more understandable for the litigant and the lawyers, and avoids price drifts.

IX. Units of time for complex procedures

The new tariff also introduces the concept of compensation per unit of time for complex or long procedures. For each 30-minute period started, a fixed compensation of €50 is provided, aimed at seizures, reports or enforcement reports.

X. Digital innovations and simplification of procedures

The 'Digitalisation II' law introduces the electronic service of documents and eliminates certain unnecessary intermediaries, such as the stockbroker for the seizure of shares, thus helping to streamline and speed up procedures.

XI. Rate Checker: a transparency tool

In the interests of transparency and good information for the public, the National Chamber of Judicial officers has set up the "Checker Tariff", accessible at the address www.huissiersdejustice.be/tarif-checker. This online tool allows anyone (litigant, lawyer, creditor or debtor) to easily consult and check the tariff applicable to judicial officer’s acts. Thanks to a user-friendly interface, it is possible to quickly identify the cost of a specific procedure, to obtain a detailed overview of the associated costs and fees, and to better understand the composition of the amount claimed. This initiative aims to guarantee total transparency on the fees charged, to prevent disputes, and to allow citizens to be informed before taking steps, thus strengthening confidence in the profession.

XII. Conclusion: a fairer and more balanced tariff

The new judicial officer’s tariff, which came into force on 1 October 2024, is an important and ambitious reform, which aims to modernise, simplify and make more transparent the cost of judicial officer’s interventions. Among the notable advances are the clarification of fees through the three flat-rate classes, the creation of a single administrative package, and the desire to protect the most vulnerable debtors, through a cap on costs and the establishment of a Solidarity Fund.

This tariff also tends to encourage a more conciliatory approach, by valuing the role of the judicial officer as a facilitator of amicable solutions, which is an important step towards a more humane justice. However, it is legitimate to wonder how these intentions will be translated into concrete action on the ground. Indeed, it will be necessary to verify whether the facilitation procedure, which is supposed to reduce the number of documents served, will really be privileged and whether the debtors will derive a tangible benefit from it.

In addition, although collection fees are now better regulated, they remain the responsibility of the debtor, which could limit the protective effect sought for people in difficulty.

Therefore, it would be desirable to carry out an initial evaluation of the application of Tariff One one year after its entry into force, to assess whether the objectives of simplification, transparency and protection of vulnerable parties have been achieved. Such an assessment would make it possible, if necessary, to adjust the mechanisms put in place so that this reform fully meets its ambitions to improve the system for all parties concerned.

For more information: www.huissiersdejustice.be/tarif.

© Reproduction interdite, sauf autorisation écrite préalable