Belgium’s revised penal code has expanded the term “state secret” to cover handling and receiving restricted documents deemed to be damaging to the country’s national interests. But the Constitutional Court struck down a provision that would have opened up the way for prison terms of up to 5 years — also for the 920 leak‑driven EU-accredited journalists in Brussels.
The annulled article, 586 of the future Code Pénal, would have allowed prosecutors to seek three to five years in prison for any journalist who knowingly received a document deemed a state secret even without malicious intent. Vaguely worded, the measure could have made common reporting practices in Brussels, Belgium — from handling restricted or secret leaked documents from Coreper or the European Commission — legally hazardous.
“We’re glad about the —partial— victory. We’ll closely monitor possible impacts from the new definition and provisions on press freedom,” said Charlotte Michils, secretary‑general of the Flemish journalist association VVJ. “The new criminal code applies to all journalists operating on Belgian soil,” she added for BraveNews.eu.
The case was brought to Belgium’s Constitutional Court by the French-speaking and Flemish journalist associations, AJP and VVJ, together with the Belgian human rights association.
Broadened Definition of “State Secrets” Still a Concern
Jil Theunissen, head of legal service at Belgium’s French speaking journalist association AJP, also warns that the definition of a state secret has been significantly broadened. The new provisions in the penal code define the term “state secret” as including “objects, plans, documents or information” that must remain confidential if their disclosure could harm not only state security and defense, but also “the democratic and constitutional order,” “the economic or scientific potential of the country,” and “the functioning of the State’s decision-making bodies.”
The new criminal code applies to all journalists operating on Belgian soil, says Charlotte Michils, secretary‑general of the Flemish journalist association VVJ.
Press advocates’ attempt to kill off Belgium’s sweeping new state secrets definitions fell short this week. While the Constitutional Court tossed out parts of the penal code, it left intact controversial articles on the ‘disclosure’ and ‘transmission’ of classified info—a move the VVJ and AJP warn leaves a target on journalists’ backs. ‘Unfortunately,’ the groups said in a joint post-mortem, ‘the Court did not grant these requests.’
Partial Victory: The Good News and the Bad News
The good news is that Belgian journalist associations convinced the Court to strike down provisions seen as “disproportionate interference” with press freedom. Journalists receiving information classified as a state secret could have been prosecuted simply if they knew that the information constituted a state secret and that they were not authorized to receive it. The rule previously required no specific intent from journalists.
The bad news is that the Court’s 121-page ruling upholds two other contested articles: the vastly expanded definition of a state secret and the offense covering disclosure, reproduction, or transmission. And the “essential interests” of Belgium are defined as including a state to which Belgium is “bound by an international agreement for the purpose of common defense”.
The broadened definition could still instill fear in Brussels reporters, or their sources, for leaked documents, especially those classified as sensitive such as the upcoming revision of EU sanctions against Russia. Even more mundane leaks circulating in Brussels would fall under the definition, especially if market-moving or otherwise geo-politically sensitive.
Fragile Legal Terrain for EU Correspondents
For leak-driven Brussels‑based EU correspondents the ruling removes what media freedom experts saw as a loaded weapon—the threat of a 5-year prison sentence. But the legal terrain around leaks remains fragile. And EU and Belgian press badges have not spared colleagues in the past from previous brush-ins, overreach or administrative snafu with over-worked federal police.
Background: Police & Brussels Journalists
David Price (Belgium, 2025)
Belgian federal judicial police raided the Brussels home and office of UK journalist David Heilbron Price, 82, editor of eurDemocracy and Schuman.info, on 24 June 2025. Authorities seized laptops, backup drives, documents, and personal papers without leaving a warrant or written notice. Equipment was held for over seven months before being returned in February 2026. The case has been referred to Belgium’s Police Supervisory Committee (Comité P).
Hans-Martin Tillack (Belgium, 2004)
Belgian police raided the home and office of German journalist Hans-Martin Tillack after he reported on alleged corruption inside EU institutions. Acting on a request from OLAF, authorities seized computers, phones, notebooks, and files. In 2007, the European Court of Human Rights ruled the operation violated press freedom and ordered Belgium to pay €40,000 in damages and costs.
Martin Banks (UK, 2022)
Brussels-based journalist and Foreign Correspondents’ Association member Martin Banks was detained for six hours by UK border officials under counter-terrorism legislation. Authorities confiscated his laptop and two mobile phones, gaining access to confidential journalistic material.
Resources for Journalists: Where to File Complaints
Journalists in Belgium can seek redress through several oversight bodies:
- Comité P: Investigates police misconduct and failures in procedure.
- Belgian Data Protection Authority: File complaints if digital privacy or device searches violated rules.
- European Ombudsman: Handles maladministration involving EU institutions.
- Press-Freedom Support: IPI, EFJ, and API‑IPA.
