In the ten weeks leading up to the entry into force of the new Belgian Criminal Code (hereinafter, “NCC”) on 1 September 2026, we will publish a series of weekly articles addressing key developments relevant to corporate criminal law. This sixth article examines several fundamental changes to the rules on sentencing. 

1. Sentencing objectives (Art. 27 NCC)

The new Criminal Code starts the chapter on sanctions with four exhaustive sentencing objectives that the court must consider when determining the sanction. Pursuant to Article 27 of the New Criminal Code, the court must aim to: (1) express society’s disapproval of the breach of criminal law; (2) promote the restoration of social balance and the reparation of harm caused by the offence; (3) promote the offender’s social rehabilitation and reintegration; and (4) protect society.

A single sanction may pursue several objectives, and no hierarchy exists between these four sentencing objectives.

Imprisonment is explicitly designated as an ultimum remedium, which the court may impose only where the sentencing objectives cannot be achieved by means of other sanctions or measures provided for by law.

2. Classification into eight sanction levels (Art. 36 to 39 NCC)

One of the most significant innovations is the introduction of eight sanction levels. Instead of determining minimum and maximum sanctions for each criminal offence individually, Book II of the new Criminal Code assigns all criminal offences to one of these eight levels. The traditional tripartite classification of offences into minor offences, misdemeanours and crimes (“overtredingen”, “wanbedrijven”, “misdaden”) – and the corresponding tripartite classification into police, correctional and criminal sanctions (“politiestraffen”, “correctionele straffen”, “criminele straffen”) – is therefore abolished. Each criminal offence is classified within one of the eight levels, which define the applicable principal sanctions (“hoofdstraf”). The more serious the criminal offence, the higher the level and the more severe the principal sanction. 

Article 36 of the new Criminal Code specifies, for each sanction level, the principal sanctions that may be imposed on natural persons. Article 38 provides, in parallel, for the principal sanctions applicable to legal persons. As a result, the complex conversion mechanism under the former Criminal Code, whereby custodial sentences and fines applicable to natural persons had to be converted into an appropriate fine for legal persons, is abolished.

Articles 37 and 39 of the new Criminal Code further provide for a list of additional sanctions (“bijkomende straffen”) that may be imposed on natural persons and legal persons, respectively, in the cases provided for by law.

This new system, whereby the court may choose from a range of sanctions determined per sanction level, significantly simplifies sentencing.

3. Expansion of the existing sanctions

Another major innovation of Book I is the significant expansion of the existing sanctions.

In the past, the legislator already sought to address the limited discretion of courts by introducing alternative sanctions alongside traditional fines and imprisonment. For instance, community service (“werkstraf”) was introduced as an autonomous sanction in 2002, followed by electronic monitoring (“straf onder elektronisch toezicht”) and the autonomous probation penalty (“autonome probatiestraf”) in 2014.

With the introduction of Book I, this evolution is continued. Not only are new sanctions introduced (such as the financial penalty based on the expected or actual benefit derived from the offence (“geldstraf”) and the community service penalty (“dienstverleningsstraf ten gunste van de gemeenschap“), but the scope of several existing (additional) sanctions (including professional disqualification (“beroepsverbod”) and closure of an establishment (“sluiting van de inrichting”) is significantly broadened. In this way, the legislator aims to modernise the sanctioning system and provide courts with a diversified set of sanctions. 

At sanction level 1, the court may no longer impose imprisonment (or custodial treatment) on natural persons. However, the court may choose from the following principal sanctions: a fine ranging from EUR 200 to EUR 20,000; a community service order of 20 to 120 hours; a probation penalty of 6 to 12 months; confiscation; a financial penalty based on the expected or actual benefit derived from the offence; or a conviction without penalty (“vereenvoudigde schuldigverklaring”). The latter sanction could, until recently, only be imposed in cases involving a breach of the reasonable time requirement. The new Criminal Code extends its scope to situations where the reasonable time requirement has not necessarily been exceeded.

At higher sanction levels, judicial discretion is more limited. Natural persons are subject to custodial penalties, while legal persons are subject to fines. Mitigating circumstances may, however, lead to a reduction of the applicable penalty level.

4. Conversion mechanism for non-amended special criminal legislation (Art. 78, §1 NCC)

The application of the new rules to special criminal legislation that has not (yet) been aligned with the penalty levels introduced by Book I remains complex. In such cases, Article 78, §1 of the new Criminal Code provides for a conversion mechanism requiring courts to translate the penalties laid down in special legislation into one of the eight penalty levels of the new Criminal Code.

5. Surcharges (“opdeciemen”)

Another noteworthy development concerns the reform of the surcharge system. In pursuit of making criminal law more accurate, coherent, and straightforward, the new Criminal Code provides for higher fines in which the 70 surcharges applicable at the time of its adoption have already been incorporated. In other words, the surcharges were effectively reset to zero. The underlying idea was that the fines set out in the new Criminal Code would constitute the actual amounts to be imposed by courts, without the need to apply any additional multiplication factor. In the future, the legislator would only need to index the fines per sanction level to account for inflation.

However, even before the new Criminal Code entered into force, this principle was already abandoned. By the Act of 19 December 2025, the legislator increased the surcharges under the existing criminal law from 70 to 90, with effect from 1 February 2026. To incorporate this increase into the new Criminal Code, an additional 2.5 surcharges will apply, as from its entry into force (1 September 2026), to the fines provided therein.

A practical example illustrates this. An offence punishable under the former Criminal Code by a fine of EUR 25 had to be multiplied by 8 (with 70 surcharges) and, from 1 February 2026 onwards, by 10 (with 90 surcharges). The effective fine therefore amounted to EUR 200 until 31 January 2026 and EUR 250 from 1 February 2026 onwards. Under the new Criminal Code, the 70 surcharges have already been incorporated into the base amounts. Thus, the minimum fine for a level 1 offence is no longer EUR 25, but EUR 200. To reflect the increase from 70 to 90 surcharges, an additional 2.5 surcharges must be applied. The minimum fine of EUR 200 therefore becomes EUR 250 (EUR 200 × 1.25), which corresponds to the fine under the former Criminal Code increased by 90 surcharges.

In other words, the intended simplification of the surcharge system has effectively been undone even before it could enter into force.