1. Source of the legal provision

Law of 23 March 1995 [Loi tendant à réprimer la négation, la minimisation, la justification ou l’approbation du génocide commis par le régime national-socialiste allemand pendant la seconde guerre mondiale] as amended by Law of 21 December 2018 [Loi portant des dispositions diverses en matière de justice].[1]

2. Legal provision in English

Article 1. Anyone who, in any of the circumstances indicated in Article 444 of the Criminal Code, denies, grossly minimises, seeks to justify or approves of the genocide committed by the German National Socialist regime during the Second World War, shall be punished by imprisonment of between eight days and one year or a fine of between twenty-six and five thousand francs.[2] For the purposes of the previous paragraph, the term genocide is understood to have the meaning given to it in Article 2 of the International Convention of 9 December 1948 on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. (The convicted person may also be sentenced to disqualification in accordance with Article 33 Criminal Code).[3] Article 2. In the event of a conviction for an offence under the present law, it may be ordered that the judgment be published in full or in excerpts in one or more newspapers and posted at the expense of the convicted person. Article 3. Chapter VII of Book One of the Criminal Code and Article 85 of the same Code shall apply to this law. Article 4. The Centre interfédéral pour l’égalité des chances et la lutte contre le racisme et les discriminations,[4] created by the cooperation agreement of 12 June 2013, as well as any legal entity which proposes, through its articles of association, to defend the moral interests and honour of the Resistance or deportees and which meets the conditions set out in Article 17, Section 2, 1° to 3°, of the Judicial Code, may take legal action in all disputes to which the application of this law may give rise.

3. Legal Provision in the original language

Article 1. Est puni d’un emprisonnement de huit jours à un an et d’une amende de vingt-six à cinq mille francs quiconque, dans l’une des circonstances indiquées à l’article 444 du Code pénal, nie, minimise grossièrement, cherche à justifier ou approuve le génocide commis par le régime national-socialiste allemand pendant la seconde guerre mondiale. Pour l’application de l’alinéa précédent, le terme génocide s’entend au sens de l’article 2 de la Convention internationale du 9 décembre 1948 pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide. (Le condamné peut, en outre, être condamné à l’interdiction conformément à l’article 33 du Code pénal.) Article 2. En cas de condamnation du chef d’infraction à la présente loi, il peut être ordonné l’insertion. du jugement intégralement ou par extrait, dans un ou plusieurs journaux, et son affichage, aux frais du condamné. Article 3. Sont applicables à la présente loi le Chapitre VII du livre premier du Code pénal et l’article 85 du même Code. Article 4. Le Centre interfédéral pour l’égalité des chances et la lutte contre le racisme et les discriminations, créé par l’accord de coopération du 12 juin 2013, ainsi que toute personne morale qui se propose, par ses statuts, de défendre les intérêts moraux et l’honneur de la résistance ou des déportés et qui remplit les conditions prévues à l’article 17, alinéa 2, 1° à 3°, du Code judiciaire, peuvent ester en justice dans tous les litiges auxquels l’application de la présente loi pourrait donner lieu.

4. Key Points

  • Belgium possesses a specific Holocaust denial ban, introduced in 1995, which was inspired by a similar provision in France.
  • In 2019, Belgium additionally adopted a crime of contestation of other mass crimes which have been recognised by an international court, thereby implementing the EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (hereafter ‘EU FD 2008’).
  • Unlike the general provision concerning the contestation of mass crimes, the specific Holocaust denial ban does not require an intent to incite hatred.
  • In case of a conviction for Holocaust denial, the sentence is imprisonment of between eight days and one year, and a fine of between five and twenty-six thousand francs. The sentence can also involve community service work, including orders to visit a concentration camp memorial.
  • Criticism of the law ranges from unintentionally creating backlash, to objections that the memory of the Armenian genocide, a particular concern among the sizable Armenian diaspora in Belgium, remains unprotected.

5. Background

Strongly influenced by the French Loi Gayssot of 1990, two parliamentarians and members of the Socialist Party proposed to adopt a similar law in Belgium in 1992. The provision, which was ultimately adopted in 1995, called in its title for punishment of the contesting, questioning, denying or condoning of crimes against humanity and war crimes.[5] However, following the French example, the drafters limited its scope to crimes as defined in Article 6 of the Statute of the International Military Tribunal.[6] Alluding to the Holocaust (although not mentioning it explicitly), the lawmakers stressed its singularity, since “humanity has never known such an enterprise to exterminate populations on the basis of their ethnic or religious affiliation, carried out with such terrible political, administrative, police and military efficiency”.[7] In their reasoning, they noted a “disturbing rise” in the expressions of racism and antisemitism in Belgian society, but also invoked the need to protect the memory of victims and to safeguard against the rehabilitation of a political system that is opposed to democratic principles.[8] In particular, the rising electoral success of the Flemish nationalist party Vlaams Blok [Flemish Block] and the creation of the so-called Vrij Historisch Onderzoek [Free Historical Research] organisation – which exploited the new reach of the Internet to distribute negationist literature – caused worries among legislators.[9] Lawmakers also highlighted already existing legal mechanisms against negationism in neighbouring countries, and wondered whether Belgium had been shunned to an outcast role as a European hub for the exportation of Holocaust denial literature.[10] In 2019, a fifth subsection was added to Article 20 of the “Law suppressing certain acts inspired by racism or xenophobia [Loi tendant à réprimer certains actes inspirés par le racisme ou la xénophobie]” to criminalise the denial, gross minimisation, justification and approval of any genocide, crime against humanity and war crime which has been recognised by an international court, and which bears the possibility of incitement to hatred or violence.[11] The provision implements the EU FD 2008.[12] The Law of 23 March 1995 is in the process of being repealed by the Law of 29 February 2024 [Loi introduisant le livre II du Code pénal].[13] As part of a larger reform of the criminal law system aiming to establish a coherent codification, various provisions taken from specific statutes will be incorporated into the new Criminal Code, which will enter into force on 8 April 2026.[14] The updated provision against negationism will be included in Article 256 of the new Criminal Code.[15] This article will maintain the core of its predecessor but is made more comprehensive and comprehensible – as instead of enumerating various conditional circumstances, the provision now simply requires a public statement.[16]

6. Application

Instances of negationism are a regular concern for the Belgian justice system and receive wide media attention. Shortly after the law of 23 March 1995 came into force, the Court of Arbitration ruled – after examination of the parliamentary preparations – that the punishable element of negationism was not the denial itself, but the underlying intention “to reinstate a criminal and democracy-hostile ideology”.[17] Although the legislator had refrained from explicitly requiring such an intention because of the difficulty to prove it in cases of seemingly scientific modes of expression, according to the court, such an intention is necessary and the judge may infer its absence in particular circumstances.[18] The Court of Arbitration gave no examples for such circumstances. A judge found such intention clearly established in the case of a defendant who – according to his criminal record – had made the Hitler salute on several occasions in the past.[19] The application of the law of 23 March 1995 was facilitated in 1999 when Article 150 of the Constitution was modified to transfer the jurisdiction over crimes related to publications from jury courts to the correctional tribunals in cases where the statement is based on racism or xenophobia.[20] This jurisdiction has been extended to statements made online.[21] Previously, the Council of Europe Commission against Racism and Intolerance had criticised that the exclusive competence of the jury courts and the complexity of their procedures had “resulted in the de facto impossibility to prosecute the perpetrators”.[22] The argument of a defendant that his negationist statements were not motivated by racism but by a religious conviction was rejected by the Correctional Court of East Flanders.[23] Furthermore, this case showcased, as had already been stated by previous judgements, that a statement is made “publicly” even when it is made in a closed Facebook group that can only be accessed upon invitation by a group member.[24] Courts have dealt differently with the defence that the incriminated statements were merely “jokes”. While one court acquitted three defendants who had referred to their “black humour”, in another case it was ruled that “the ‘humour’ that was displayed was deliberately and systematically used to make racism accessible and light-hearted”, and encouraged further unrestrained dissemination of Holocaust denial propaganda.[25] According to Article 37(5) Criminal Code, the judge may oblige the offender to perform community service work instead of imposing a prison sentence or a fine. In the case of negationism, the content of the work penalty shall be related to the fight against racism or xenophobia, discrimination, sexism and Holocaust denial.[26] On this basis, the Brussels Court of Appeal ordered a far-right politician, who had called into question the Holocaust, to visit memorial sites of concentration camps once per year and submit written reports on his experiences.[27] When applied to politicians, the law might be said to have taken on elements of militant democracy: after the Chamber of Representatives had lifted parliamentary immunity, Dries Van Langenhove, a rising figure among the far-right Flemish-nationalist movement, was convicted of Holocaust denial and incitement to hatred. A court in Ghent thus revoked his eligibility to hold public office  for a period of 10 years.[28]

7. Controversies

Even though the well-intentioned motives of the Law of 23 March 1995 to combat hate speech are generally unquestioned, some commentators are broadly critical of proof of a link between the criminalisation of Holocaust denial and the prevention of such statements.[29] The philosopher Etienne Vermeersch recognised the need of a protection against the defamation of living survivors of the Holocaust but advocated for the abrogation within the next 20 years.[30] Others fear that the legislation creates the impression of special privilege for Jewish memory, thereby generating adverse effects.[31] In accordance with the EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA, in 2019, Belgium expanded the criminalisation to the denial, minimisation, justification and approval of other historic crimes which have been established by a final decision of a national or an international court.[32] As in France, the requirement of a court decision essentially excludes the denial of the Armenian genocide – which has never been adjudicated – although parliament has formally recognised the mass killing of the Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire as genocide.[33] With anti-discrimination activists deploring this gap,[34] outside pressure likely played its part since political observers had already highlighted the dubious presence of the Turkish ambassador at parliamentary meetings in 2004 concerning a similar reform proposal which ultimately stalled.[35] In the wake of the global “Black Lives Matter” demonstrations against ongoing racial discrimination in 2020, memory culture was debated publicly when protesters in Belgium defaced statues of the former King Leopold II.[36] These acts reflected growing anger regarding political discourse which had neglected to confront the historic responsibility for systematic brutality committed by Belgian authorities during its colonial rule on the territory now known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo.[37]

8. Further Reading

  B [1] Available in the original language via: Service public fédéral justice,  <https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/eli/loi/1995/03/23/1995009273/justel>; the provision will be repealed by Law of 29 February 2024, which will enter into force on 8 April 2026, see below. [2] Article 444 Criminal Code lists alternatively the following circumstances:
  • In public meetings or places,
  • In the presence of several individuals, in a non-public place, but open to a certain number of persons entitled to assemble there or frequent it,
  • In any place whatsoever, in the presence of the person offended and before witnesses,
  • By printed or unprinted matter, images or emblems displayed, distributed or sold, offered for sale or exposed to public view,
  • By writings not made public but addressed or communicated to several persons.
[3] According to Article 31 and Article 33 Criminal Code courts may, in whole or in part, prohibit convicted offenders from exercising the following rights for a duration of five to ten years:
  • To hold public office or to be eligible for it,
  • Wearing any decoration, any title of nobility;
  • Being a juror, expert, instrumental witness or certifier in deeds; from giving evidence in court other than to provide simple information.
[4] Interfederal Centre for Equal Opportunities and the Fight against Racism and Discrimination. [5] Chambre des Représentants de Belgique [Chamber of Representatives], Session Extraordinaire 1991-1992, 30 June 1992, 557 Il. 91/92 (S.E.), p. 3. [6] See International Humanitarian Law Database (International Committee of the Red Cross), <https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/nuremberg-tribunal-charter-1945/article-6b>. [7] Ibid., p. 1. [8] Ibid., pp. 1, 2. [9] Chambre des Représentants de Belgique [Chamber of Representatives], Session Extraordinaire 1994-1995, 27 January 1995, 55715, 91/92 (S.E.), p. 25. [10] Ibid., p. 27. [11] See Article 115 Loi portant des dispositions diverses en matière pénale et en matière de cultes, et modifiant la loi du 28 mai 2002 relative à l’euthanasie et le Code pénal social, 5 May 2019, see Service Public Fédéal Justice <https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/article.pl?language=fr&lg_txt=f&type=&sort=&numac_search=&cn_search=2019050510&caller=SUM&&view_numac=2019050510f>. [12] Article 20 of the law refers explicitly to EU FD 2008: “Anyone who, in one of the circumstances indicated in Article 444 Criminal Code, denies, grossly minimises, seeks to justify or approves facts corresponding to a crime of genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime as referred to in Article 136-fifth Criminal Code, established as such by a definitive decision handed down by an international court, knowing or having to know that this behaviour is likely to expose a person, a group, a community or their members, to discrimination, hatred or violence, on the grounds of one or more of the protected criteria or religion, within the meaning of Article 1(3) of the Framework Decision of the Council of the European Union of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law, even outside the scope of Article 5.” [13] Moniteur Belge [Belgian official journal], 8 April 2024, p. 40664. [14] ‘Nouveau code pénal : de quoi s’agit-il ?’, (Wolters Kluwer, 15 April 2024) <https://www.wolterskluwer.com/fr-be/expert-insights/new-penal-code>. [15] The new Article 256 Criminal Code reads as follows (see Moniteur Belge, 8 April 2024, p. 40582): “Negationism is the public denial, gross minimisation, attempt to justify or approval of the genocide committed by the German National Socialist regime during the Second World War. This offence is punishable by a level 2 penalty. In addition, the judge may also order the publication of the decision in accordance with Article 58. For the purposes of the first paragraph, the term genocide is understood to have the meaning given to it in Article 2 of the International Convention of 9 December 1948 on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.” According to Article 36 of the new Criminal Code (see Moniteur Belge, 8 April 2024, p. 40526), a level 2 sentence includes:
  • imprisonment for a term of between six months and three years,
  • treatment involving deprivation of liberty for a term of between six months and two years,
  • electronic surveillance for a term of between one month and one year,
  • work for a term of between 120 hours and 300 hours, or
  • probation for a term of between twelve months and two years.
[16] This, however, constitutes also a restriction of the current applicability since the Law of 23 March 1995 also targets cases, where statements are made in “the presence of several individuals, in a non-public place, but open to a certain number of persons entitled to assemble there or frequent it”, see Article 444 Criminal Code. [17] Arbitragehof [former name of the Constitutional Court], Judgement, 12 July 1996, Nr. 45/96, p. 26 <https://www.const-court.be/public/n/1996/1996-045n.pdf>. [18] Ibid. [19]  Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te West-Vlaanderen – Afdeling Brugge [Court Of First Instance In West Flanders – Bruges Division], 7 October 2022, p. 8 <https://www.unia.be/files/2022_10_07_Rb._West-Vlaanderen.pdf>. [20] P. Traest, ‘The jury in Belgium’ [2001] Volume 72, Revue internationale de droit penal, p. 49. [21] ‘Révision des articles de la Constitution concernant les discours de haine et les emplois statutaires’, (UNIA, 16 December 2018) <https://www.unia.be/fr/legislation-et-recommandations/recommandations-dunia/revision-des-articles-de-la-constitution>. [22] Second Report on Belgium, European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ed) [2000] p. 5, <https://rm.coe.int/second-report-on-belgium/16808b55a2>. [23] Tribunal correctionnel de Flandre orientale [Correctional tribunal of East Flanders], Audenarde division, 6 November 2023 <https://www.unia.be/fr/jurisprudence-alternatives/jurisprudence/tribunal-correctionnel-de-flandre-orientale-division-audenarde-6-novembre-2>. [24] See for example: Tribunal corectionnel de Louven [Correctional tribunal of Leuven], 7 February 2022; Tribunal correctionnel de Flandre orientale [Correctional tribunal of East Flanders], 12 March 2024; all cited from ‘Analyse de la jurisprudence en matière de négationnisme, mars 2024’, (UNIA, 8 April 2024) <https://www.unia.be/fr/jurisprudence-alternatives/jurisprudence/analyse-de-la-jurisprudence-en-matiere-de-negationnisme-mars-2024>. [25] X. Counasse, ‘Procès pour négationnisme à Charleroi : trois militaires acquittés, le quatrième condamné’ Le Soir (26 June 2024) <https://www.lesoir.be/597691/article/2024-06-26/proces-pour-negationnisme-charleroi-trois-militaires-acquittes-le-quatrieme>; Correctional Tribunal of East Flanders, Gand division, 12 March 2024, cited from UNIA <https://www.unia.be/fr/jurisprudence-alternatives/jurisprudence/tribunal-correctionnel-de-flandre-orientale-division-gand-12-mars-2024>. [26] See Article 37-fifth Section 4 Criminal Code. [27] D. Hawkins, ‘Holocaust denier in Belgium ordered to visit concentration camps and write about them’ Washington Post (25 September 2017) <https://nationalpost.com/news/world/holocaust-denier-in-belgium-ordered-to-visit-concentration-camps-and-write-about-them>. [28] J. Sohier, M. Dekleermaker, ‘La lutte contre les ennemis de la démocratie’ [2023] Volume 7, e-legal, Revue de droit et de criminologie de l’ULB, p. 23 <https://e-legal.ulb.be/medias/pdfs/208-la-lutte-contre-les-ennemis-de-la-democratie.pdf>; C. Gijs, L. Cerulus, ‘Belgium’s far-right prodigy gets prison term for inciting violence’ Politico (12 March 2024) <https://www.politico.eu/article/belgium-far-right-prodigy-dries-van-langenhove-prison-term-incite-violence-deny-holocaust/>; the legal basis for ineligibility was the Law of 23 March 1995 combined with Article 33 Criminal Code. [29] E. De Keyzer, ‘Het ontkennen van de Holocaust in België: de Negationismewet vanuit een hedendaags mensenrechtelijk perspectief’ (Master in law thesis, Universiteit Gent 2019) pp. 24-25, with further references <https://libstore.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/002/790/194/RUG01-002790194_2019_0001_AC.pdf>. [30] P. Cobbaert, ‘Filosoof Etienne Vermeersch pleit voor verbreding van het begrip vrijheid van meningsuiting: “Negationisme moet kunnen”’, De Zondag (3 January 2016) <https://www.dezondag.be/actua/vermeersch/>. [31] De Keyzer, 2019, pp. 24-25, with further references, see above note 27. <https://libstore.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/002/790/194/RUG01-002790194_2019_0001_AC.pdf>. [32] See Article 20-fifth Loi tendant à réprimer certains actes inspirés par le racisme ou la xénophobie [Law against racism and xenophobia], which was added in 2019. [33] ‘La reconnaissance du génocide arménien adoptée par la Chambre’ La Libre (23 July 2015) <https://www.lalibre.be/belgique/2015/07/23/la-reconnaissance-du-genocide-armenien-adoptee-par-la-chambre-J3ANSNP2QJCSPMX2EIUSVSFCWM/>. [34] ‘Nier un génocide? Unia peut désormais intervenir plus souvent’ UNIA (30 April 2019) <https://www.unia.be/fr/articles/nier-un-genocide-unia-peut-desormais-intervenir-plus-souvent>. [35] G. Grandjean, ‘La répression du négationnisme en Belgique: de la réussite législative au blocage politique’ [2011] Volume 77, No. 1, Droit et société, p. 150. [36] G. Rannard, E. Webster, Leopold II: ‘Belgium “wakes up” to its bloody colonial past’ (BBC News, 13 June 2020) <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53017188>. [37] J. Bobineau, ‘Belgiens gespaltene Erinnerung: Aufarbeitung und Verdrängung von kolonialer Geschichte in Flandern und Wallonien’ [2020].
Scroll to Top